Negotiated in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, the Kyoto Protocol was a landmark in international climate diplomacy. It was the first globally coordinated major treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the pressing issue of climate change.
Adopted under the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it was the result of growing scientific evidence of human-driven global warming, particularly following the first central Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 1990, which warned of rising temperatures due to carbon emissions.
The Protocol was proposed to set legally binding targets for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions since, historically, these countries were the major contributors to atmospheric pollution.
While the agreement was adopted in 1997, it only came into effect on February 16, 2005, after enough countries, representing at least 55% of global emissions, had ratified it. Major proponents included the European Union, Japan, and Canada. However, the United States—one of the largest polluters at the time—did not ratify the treaty under the George W. Bush administration, citing concerns about the economic impact and the lack of obligations for developing countries like China and India.
The overall goal was to slow the rate of climate change by stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
One of the pioneering mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol was its introduction of market-based solutions, such as carbon trading. The system allowed countries that had exceeded their emissions targets to buy credits from those that had reduced their emissions. This created an economic incentive for industries and governments to invest in cleaner technologies.
The agreement was also a landmark in terms of global cooperation. It established the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities—meaning that while all countries have a role in addressing climate change, not all have the same capabilities or historical responsibilities for the problem.
However, one of the major criticisms was the exclusion of developing countries from mandatory emissions reduction targets. Nations like China and India, which were becoming significant contributors to global emissions, were not bound by the same restrictions as developed countries.
On the other hand, countries like the United States argued that the agreement would harm economic growth, especially in industries reliant on fossil fuels. The U.S.’s refusal to ratify the treaty was a significant blow to its potential success since it was one of the largest global emitters of greenhouse gases.
Critics pointed out that even if all the signatories had met their targets, the reductions were insufficient to slow climate change significantly. The Kyoto Protocol was seen as a first step but was far from the comprehensive solution needed to avert a climate crisis.
Another problem with the Kyoto Protocol is that some countries failed to meet their targets, while others, like Canada, withdrew from the treaty in 2011, citing the financial burdens of compliance and the exclusion of major emitters like China and the U.S.
The Next Step: The Paris Agreement
While the Kyoto Protocol effectively laid the groundwork for future climate agreements, its shortcomings made it clear that a more comprehensive approach was necessary. It was succeeded by the Paris Agreement in 2015. Unlike Kyoto, the Paris Agreement set voluntary, nationally determined contributions (NDCs), allowing countries to set their own emission reduction goals to keep global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.
Moreover, the Paris Agreement brought both developed and developing countries into the fold, making it a more inclusive and potentially more effective treaty. Notably, the U.S. rejoined global climate efforts under the Paris Agreement after briefly withdrawing under the Trump administration.
But not everyone is thrilled about it. For example, the official U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works website states that “failures of Kyoto will repeat with the Paris Climate Agreement.”
But the biggest problem lies in the illusion of improvement. Of course, some might say that reducing CO2 benefits all while the truth is that coupon trading just forces redistributing greenhouse pollution.
For example, a company with a negative carbon footprint sells its coupons to major polluters. If the former was three times better than the average and the latter three times worse, in the end, both are average and satisfy the environmental criteria. But where is the real benefit to the environment here?
So, the search continues. While the Paris Agreement is still the primary international treaty, several market-based and technological innovations have emerged as complementary solutions to global climate challenges:
- Carbon pricing and trading: Building on the Kyoto Protocol’s carbon trading system, several countries and regions have implemented carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs, which put a price on carbon emissions to encourage companies to reduce their environmental impact.
- Renewable energy transition: The rise of renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydropower offers viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Countries are investing in green infrastructure to reduce reliance on coal and oil.
- Technological innovation: Advances in energy efficiency, electric vehicles, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies provide potential pathways to reduce emissions while still supporting economic growth.
- Implementing carbon neutralization on a personal level: Although personal CO2 pollution contributes a lot to a global amount, there is no practical solution for it. The only workable-to-be answer is forcing people to use less electricity. Nevertheless, there is another solution called Themis Ecosystem.
Themis Ecosystem: Innovative Solution to Tackle Carbon Emissions and Deliver Long-Term Value
If the Kyoto Agreement was the first attempt to solve the problem of greenhouse gases and the Paris Agreement the second, we may be on the threshold of the third solution. For the first time in history, it has come down to the personal level of each individual.
Before I explain how Themis Ecosystem (TE) solves the problem of carbon neutrality, let me say a few words about TE’s structure and the big picture.
TE is a groundbreaking player in the intersection of environmental responsibility and cutting-edge technology. Operating in a highly regulated environment with standards that far exceed existing legal frameworks, TE offers a new opportunity for green, advanced, long-term, and economically efficient technologies.
TE’s cornerstone lies in the concept of “drivers”—technologies and processes that adhere to a strict set of rules, creating an entirely new category in the market with significantly higher added value. For example:
- A driver’s leading technology must be based on a proven and economically efficient process that will remain relevant for the next fifty years.
- All processes must be emission-free, releasing no harmful pollutants into the air, soil, or water.
- The technology must address a pressing global environmental or societal issue at the highest level, preferably offering a new but practical and verified solution.
- The technology must be designed for easy scalability, ensuring the availability of sufficient raw materials and a large enough market.
- All processes must continuously meet or exceed the highest environmental and industrial standards.
Additionally, all technologies are required to undergo digitalization and monetization of their products. This means that manufacturers must convert their products into digital form and make them available to the end consumer.
This transformation is achieved by converting all created goods—including carbon negativity—into unique e-vouchers known as IRMU (Industrial Raw Material Unit).
Buying IRMUs Means Reducing Personal CO2 Emissions
Every IRMU is attributed not only to the proportional value of the manufactured product but also to a corresponding share of CO2 reduction. Like carbon credits on an industrial or national level, IRMUs reflect the value of reduced CO2 emissions. In other words, the carbon negativity is assigned directly to the owner of the IRMUs.
This means that individuals holding a certain number of IRMUs can use them to neutralize their personal carbon footprint. TE has developed specific metrics that allow IRMU holders to calculate their carbon neutrality at any time. For individuals with a substantial number of IRMUs, an entire household can become carbon-neutral. Owning even more IRMUs, owners can directly contribute to reducing global CO2 pollution, creating a direct and measurable environmental impact.
Another innovation built into the IRMU framework is the allocation of future values. Since all technologies are required to scale up, and the total number of IRMUs must remain constant, any future value creation is attributed to the existing, original number of IRMUs. This rule, which all drivers must comply with, ensures that the value of IRMUs appreciates over time.
A New Way to Build a Better Future
With this innovation, Themis Ecosystem is positioning itself as the first and leading provider of a practical solution for reducing CO2 emissions at a personal level. Each IRMU holder plays a much more significant role in the grand scheme of things.
By purchasing IRMUs, they directly support innovative, green, and long-term efficient technologies that address pressing global problems, protect the environment, set an example for their communities, and—if they later choose to sell IRMUs at a higher price—prosper personally.
In doing so, they not only benefit themselves but also support industries, the environment, and society at large. What more could one ask for?
