Thread by @mattadamw

Here's a (hopefully) much neater thread on #Article6 and what's happening here #COP27.

But let's not bury the lead: what's being set up is a system of potentially 💩 💰 for carbon.

(thanks @CarbonMrktWatch too for ongoing excellent analysis)

Here's why 🧵 ↓ :

First of all let's remind ourselves what #Article6 is and why it matters:

These are the rules about how carbon markets will work - how countries can trade efforts to cut emissions with each other.

Article 6.2 - rules for two countries trading with each other.

Article 6.4 - a market for countries to trade with each other, or for credits to be used for "other purposes" (more on this later)

This Article means one country can cut emissions over and above its target, and sell the extra effort to another country.

Might be needed where a country has some emissions it can't cut any other way - e.g. aviation or steel.

Sound fine? It's not necessarily.

There are a range of problems (here are *some* of them):

Problem 1
Both Articles 6.2 and 6.4 might allow "avoided emissions" - saying that some emissions were going to happen but now won't (e.g. I was going to cut down that forest but I changed my mind).

Devilishly difficult to prove. If avoided emissions are real great. But maybe don't count on them as carbon credits - they can be rewarded as finance without creating a credit/offset.

Problem 2 (Article 6.4 + 6.2)
Emissions removals being considered. This is where nature/technology might remove carbon from the atmosphere.

This must be permanent. If carbon doesn't stay out, probably for decades, arguably centuries, it will still contribute to climate change.

With increasing wildfires damaging nature the permanence of those removals is questionable.

Again, this doesn't mean stop restoring nature, but maybe don't count on it as an offset.

Problem 3 (Article 6.4)
A 2-tier system is being created with "unauthorised emissions reductions".

There are options in the text that mean these might not be subject to same controls as "authorised" ones.

First - they may not be subject to "Corresponding Adjustments", meaning they could be double counted. The lack of transparency over information (more below) could mean they are even 3x, 4x or more counted.

The climate *may* benefit once, but the reduction might be counted multiple times - we might kid ourselves we've achieved net zero when we haven't by any stretch.

These unauthorised credits can be used for "any other purpose" which could include voluntary private carbon markets.

These are *junk credits* 💩 💰 and could lead to a sub-prime carbon market.

Problem 4 (Article 6.4)
In a highly technical reflection, options in text mean Corresponding Adjustments may not apply to Share of Proceeds nor Overall Mitigation in Global Emissions. More double counting at play basically.

Problem 5 (Article 6.2)
Countries can deem information about credits "confidential" (perhaps claiming commercial sensitivity).

This removes transparency from system - means we may not know how credits used, how many times, by whom, and whether climate benefits or is harmed.

Problem 6 (Article 6.2)
The presidency's latest cover text allows REDD+ credits to be used in Article 6.2.

REDD+ is all about avoiding deforestation. But proving that a forest *would have been* cut down is notoriously hard.

All of above matters - if millions of carbon credits r used 2 claim emissions targets r met, but they're not worth paper they're written on (and a lot of that writing is redacted) then carbon markets + emissions efforts don't benefit climate + undermine confidence.

#Article6

Possible new texts today so may update this thread later on.

#Article6

As day goes on more clarity on various #Article6 options (difficult to understand even for those of us who follow it closely). The reasons countries don't want transparency (instead prefer "confidential") in 6.2 is national security(!). #COP27

But confidentiality will be sorted out in a future work programme, not here at #COP27

The question of emissions removals will be kicked back to the #Article6 Supervisory Body, again not sorted out here this week.

New texts coming at some point today...

If you like this thread, here’s today’s sequel:

https://twitter.com/mattadamw/status/1593466600341917696