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.
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
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)
It requires CAs for *all* ITMOs (incl. 6.4ERs) that are authorized for use toward NDCs or “other international mitigation purposes” (including CORSIA)
Going into #COP26, the key Qs were: Would CAs be required...
...for GHG reductions from outside an NDC?
...right away?
...for CORSIA & other uses?
The answer to all three Qs is: Yes. Countries must account for every ITMO they transfer. That is also a powerful spur for quality.
...for GHG reductions from outside an NDC?
...right away?
...for CORSIA & other uses?
The answer to all three Qs is: Yes. Countries must account for every ITMO they transfer. That is also a powerful spur for quality.
2/ The text wisely drops the provision cynically pushed by PNG to allow unverified, private-label “REDD-dot-plus” credits. Keeping that text out was vital to ensure environmental integrity and preserve a market for genuinely high-quality REDD+ credits such as #ARTREDD.
3/ The main concern: Clean Development Mechanism credits (CERs) from 2013-2020 can be used for the 1st NDC. @NewClimateInst estimates that there could be 320m such units; UNFCCC says ~118m.
Crucially, pre-2020 CERs must be labeled. Buying countries should refuse to accept them!
Crucially, pre-2020 CERs must be labeled. Buying countries should refuse to accept them!
4/ Also not ideal: CDM projects can transition to the 6.4 mechanism through 2025. @NewClimateInst estimates that this could mean ~300mtCO2 of tons from projects like large-scale wind that would keep operating regardless.
Again, buyer countries should refuse to accept these.
Again, buyer countries should refuse to accept these.
Bottom line: Parties needed clear guidance on A6 at #COP26; they have it. Text is strong on no-double-counting.
The potential is there for A6 to drive greater ambition through cooperation.
Buyers must ensure integrity by refusing pre-2020 CERs. Civil society will be watching.
The potential is there for A6 to drive greater ambition through cooperation.
Buyers must ensure integrity by refusing pre-2020 CERs. Civil society will be watching.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
　
