Thread by @mattadamw

The new version of #Article6 has been published this morning. Some 🔑 points:
1⃣ overall the text looks stronger and could avoid some of the worst risks of double counting

#COP26

2⃣ But it doesn't completely prevent countries/companies from gaming system, continuing to pollute while using carbon credits that may provide no real climate benefit
3⃣ The hand of some countries (Japan/US) can be seen, eg in resistance to funds going to dvng country adaptation

4⃣ But all of it is in "square brackets", meaning none of it is agreed

⚡️ Reminder: Article 6 is all about how countries collaborate on emissions cuts and potentially swap/trade those efforts with one another, or even sell the credits to companies.

Some things that have improved:
1⃣ The risk of double counting of emissions cuts looks to be ⬇️, as "Corresponding Adjustments" will apply to *all * credits
2⃣ Credits from REDD+ projects for avoided deforestation 🌳 no longer permitted (notoriously difficult to prove)

Some things that warrant concern:
1⃣ Carbon credits from old projects (2013>) allowed - ongoing pollution could be offset against old reductions that no longer benefit the climate

2⃣Cancellation of some credits to ⬇️ supply and ⬆️ overall ambition is mandatory (6.4), but only 2% of credits subject to this
3⃣This cancellation is only voluntary in 6.2

4⃣A share of credits generated going in 💰 to developing country adaptation is mandatory (6.4) but only set at 5%
5⃣ This share is voluntary in 6.2

/ENDS