Nat Keohane Profile picture
Dec 15, 2018 5 tweets 4 min read Read on X
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Nat Keohane

Nat Keohane Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NatKeohane

Nov 13, 2021
A 🧵on #Article6 as #COP26 wraps up.

A6 is the #ParisAgreement’s engine of international cooperation. It’s vital because countries can cut emissions faster & deeper together than on their own.

The decision is not perfect; no text is. But overall it's a step forward. Here’s why.
First, a glossary:

ITMO=“internationally transferred mitigation outcome” (btw 2 Parties)
6.4ER=emission reduction under new UN crediting mechanism
CORSIA=Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation
CA=“corresponding adjustment" to prevent double counting
1/ The guidance has strong provisions against double counting of emissions reductions—the most important safeguard of integrity.

It requires CAs for *all* ITMOs (incl. 6.4ERs) that are authorized for use toward NDCs or “other international mitigation purposes” (including CORSIA)
Read 8 tweets
Nov 11, 2021
Some reflections on #COP26 as we enter the home stretch. (🧵)

1: The US-China announcement
2. Progress on Article 6
3. The draft COP decision
4. Where we go from here
5. Are we making progress, or just "blah blah blah"?
6. Bringing it all back home. Image
1/ The US-China announcement is well short of what is ultimately needed—but more than expected and a welcome reset after acrimony of recent months. It builds on April statement in key ways, esp. methane & coal phaseout. And it outlines several concrete areas for collaboration.
2/ Article 6 is the #ParisAgreement’s engine of international cooperation. Good to see Parties at #COP26 making progress on guidance.

AND: We must ensure that markets have high integrity. That means corresponding adjustments for 6.4ERs, and no (or sharply limited) pre-2020 CERs.
Read 7 tweets
Sep 9, 2020
Today, @CFTC, a key US financial regulator, released its first-ever climate report, looking at how climate change threatens the US financial system & the economy. I was an author.

This is big news for Wall Street & Main Street. Thread below on why ⬇️

nyti.ms/3bGqP6J
1) The report is the first report on climate-related financial risk under the auspices of a U.S. government regulator

It immediately shifts the debate from whether climate threatens the U.S. financial system, to how to deal with that threat. bit.ly/3bSKYqB
2) There’s a LOT of credibility behind the report

The @CFTC subcommittee that authored & *unanimously* approved it includes 34 experts representing a wide range of orgs: banks, asset managers, energy & agricultural sectors, as well as environmental NGOs: cftc.gov/About/CFTCComm…
Read 7 tweets
Jul 25, 2020
In this chilling @nytimes piece, @malcolm_john of @Heritage argues in support of unmarked federal agents occupying an American city by force to quell political dissent, against the express will of state and local governments. nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/…
This is the same malcolm_john who wrote with alarm in 2015 about “the dramatic expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, the people, and civil society.” Of course, that was about things like expanding health care, protecting public health and the environment, etc.
Apparently the blatantly unconstitutional use of force by unmarked federal agents to quell peaceful protests by American citizens doesn’t pose any concerns for him.
Read 6 tweets
Mar 16, 2020
Jake Tapper asks about #ClimateChange and health. Bernie emphasizes impacts today and says we need to transform our energy system as soon as we can — and goes right to fossil fuel interests. #DemDebate
Tapper follows up by asking Biden whether his plan is ambitious enough because it would cost $14 trillion less than Sanders. The ideal answer would be: “The measure of ambition is not how much money we spend, but how many tons we cut.” #DemDebate #climatechange
Biden lays out key aspects of his plan: Restore EPA regs including clean car standards; Rejoin #ParisAgreement; and in a surprise devote significant funds to saving the Amazon.
Read 7 tweets
Dec 17, 2019
The lede of this otherwise excellent story by @SominiSengupta, as well as the headline on A1 in the print version, make it sound as if the US was responsible for the failure of #COP25. That may fit the conventional narrative, but it’s wrong. nyti.ms/2PLkJaU
I’m told by a senior negotiator that the claim that the US blocked language on ambition is simply false: that was China & India. Having been in the USG, that rings true to me — and I know that enviro campaigners are often unduly paranoid about the US. But the issue runs deeper.
There’s no question that Trump and his administration have been a disaster for the planet. But at the int’l level they have undermined climate action by walking AWAY from the #ParisAgreement, not by actively interfering in the negotiations. It’s a sin of omission, not commission.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(