Thread by @mattadamw

Avoided emissions - claiming some emissions that would have happened now won't (e.g. that forest over there was going to be cut down, now it won't - devilishly hard to prove) - back on table.

This zombie concept won't die & is bad news for integrity of carbon markets

#Article6

https://twitter.com/mattadamw/status/1592820617853947905

Countries can label information on carbon credits "confidential". There were hopes they wouldn't be allowed to do so.

They just have to explain why.

This could make carbon credits black box & shrouded in secrecy - we man not know how much climate good/harm they do

#Article6

In Article 6.4 avoided emissions also back on table.

No rules on removals (whether carbon taken out of atmosphere stays out) - supervisory body is asked to go away and come back with recommendations on these.

And crucially "not authorized" emissions reductions can be used for "any other purpose" - i.e. low-quality emissions reductions can be used for carbon credits in what could effectively be a sub-prime carbon credit market.

#Article6

Reminder (as much to myself as anything) that non-authorised carbon credits are not subject to "corresponding adjustment" i.e. they can be double-counted (their benefit to climate counted more than once).

#Article6

Combined w/lack of transparency being built into system, could create mirage of climate benefit when it's not real, just dodgy counting.

Entire carbon market could develop based on dodgy accounting & shoddy credits that aren't worth the paper they're written on.

#Article6