New #Article 6 update (based on new text out this morning):
🔑 point: this bit of negotiations is all abt honesty + ambition: whether countries (+ companies) want tight rules on trading emissions cuts, or want to game system by counting cuts 2x & using old carbon credits
🔑 point: this bit of negotiations is all abt honesty + ambition: whether countries (+ companies) want tight rules on trading emissions cuts, or want to game system by counting cuts 2x & using old carbon credits
There is still language that could allow 2x counting of a single emissions cut (creating false impression of benefit to climate).
This comes from any cuts outside a country's national climate plan not being subject to "corresponding adjustments" if those cuts are traded.
Much of this text is still Option A/B or in [ ] so in question. #COP26Glasgow
Much of this text is still Option A/B or in [ ] so in question. #COP26Glasgow
Other highlights 💡:
1⃣ Credits from REDD+ (to avoid deforestation 🌳) will be allowed - notoriously hard to verify whether REDD+ truly avoids deforestation & creates a climate benefit
1⃣ Credits from REDD+ (to avoid deforestation 🌳) will be allowed - notoriously hard to verify whether REDD+ truly avoids deforestation & creates a climate benefit
2⃣ Financing for developing countries for adaptation (a Share of Proceeds from each transaction) remains in [ ] and therefore in doubt
CTD...
3⃣ Old carbon credits (poss. as far back as 2013) could be allowed - even if they no longer provide any climate benefit
4⃣ Cancelling a % of credits, to make sure overall climate ambition rises over time, is still in [ ] and therefore in question
/END
3⃣ Old carbon credits (poss. as far back as 2013) could be allowed - even if they no longer provide any climate benefit
4⃣ Cancelling a % of credits, to make sure overall climate ambition rises over time, is still in [ ] and therefore in question
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
