While we await word from #COP24, it’s worth being clear on the implications if Art 6 is left out of the decision (as looks likely). The bottom line is that countries can move ahead with international transfers even without guidance under Art 6.2 (1/4).
PA Art 6.2 specifically recognizes that countries may use transferred mitigation outcomes toward NDCs — whether or not the CMA acts. The crucial phrase is “consistent with guidance,” which means that if guidance exists it must be followed — but action does not depend on guidance.
That language was specifically written into the agreement and fiercely negotiated over in Paris precisely because the US and others feared that Brazil would try to hold 6.2 hostage to 6.4 — exactly what they are trying to do in Katowice.
So yes — we’ve known about this issue for years, and the language in the Art 6.2 text specifically addresses it. The ability of countries to cooperate in markets under the Paris Agreement has been Brazil-proofed from the very start.
Roll call in case interested: @Anthropozine @IETA @BenJGarside @MikeSzaboCP @RobertStavins @wirereporter @lesliehook @JustinWorland @ahanafidc @JennyAndreassen @cjhood71
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
