The Kyoto Protocol treaty has now entered into force for the nations who have joined it so far. Now is the time to start thinking about how to engage all nations, including large emitters, in conversations about what to do after the treaty's expiration in 2012. This is exactly what the European Commission did recently by providing its first strategy for a post-Kyoto era, which will be discussed by the European Council next March.
While the protocol represents only a modest reduction of carbon emissions in industrialized countries -- 5.2 percent between 2008 to 2012 relative to 1990 levels, with varying targets for individual countries -- real progress can be made in sustaining development efforts and preserving our planet.
But first, all countries must integrate climate concerns into policy planning, and improve their governance in key sectors such as energy, infrastructure and transport. We must act in accordance with the recognition that climate change and its effects on people in both rich and poor countries remains a threat to global security.
At the end of the day, the long-term approach is likely to include a rules-based system, an incentives system and investments in technology change. Increasingly, adaptation at the national level will be recognized as a major issue that will require appropriate funding. Dealing with the impacts of climate change and with emission reductions should not be mutually exclusive, but complementary.
Looking ahead to the post-Kyoto world offers us the chance to start a new dialogue and to look at new options on climate change. Nations could set the more ambitious goal of limiting the long-term change in the earth's temperature, and then assign emissions rights among countries in such a way that will eventually limit temperature increases to an acceptable level. This would require increasing investments in energy research and development for new and improved technologies -- a process that needs to be supported by stronger public-private partnerships.
Up to now, with only 15 percent of the world's population, rich countries have been responsible for more than 75 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and thus most of the environmental damage. However, it is the developing countries -- and thus the world's poor -- who are most vulnerable. It is unrealistic to ask poor countries, where more than 1.6 billion people do not have access to clean energy and technologies, to bear the costs associated with the much needed technological change.
Working with partners, the World Bank is supporting strategies to assist developing countries in meeting the costs caused by climate change. To date, over US$1 billion dollars in Global Environment Facility (GEF) grants, together with about US$8 billion in co-financing, have been committed to programs related to climate change.
While the regulatory mechanisms of both Kyoto and the European Trading Scheme have contributed to the establishment of an emerging market for carbon trading, interested parties are now concerned about the immediate future. Without a regulatory framework beyond 2012, the window of opportunity for initiating project-based transactions will close by next year or 2007.
Given the long lead time between project preparation and the first benefits of emissions reductions, project developers have only a few years to act before carbon payments cease to make a meaningful contribution to project finance in the current context. Developing infrastructure projects is a long process that requires three to seven years from identification, through licensing, financing and construction and finally to the first certification of carbon emission reductions.
Therefore, projects need to be operational at the latest by 2007. The bank has been instrumental in advancing carbon finance as a viable development tool, and in facilitating private-sector participation in the market. It is focused on representing the interests of its borrowing countries, helping them to develop assets for carbon trading according to their own priorities.
But, without a commitment by governments to limit greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2012, the carbon market will remain uncertain, and the private sector -- vital to the market's success -- is unlikely to expand its participation in a meaningful and sustained way. According to a recent World Bank-supported survey of companies interested in carbon finance, only one in five respondents declared that they were interested in buying post-2012 emissions reductions.
Now is the chance to look forward and enlist the global community -- with no exclusions, although with differentiated responsibilities -- in the pursuit of a more secure world, one that avoids the dire risks of environmental degradation and social conflict implied by inaction.
Ian Johnson is vice president for sustainable development at the World Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS