COP29 climate summit adopts controversial carbon credit standards, drawing mixed reactions
BAKU: The COP29 presidency has announced an early success with the adoption of standards for carbon credits, referred to as Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. This long-debated framework is designed to help nations collaborate in reducing carbon emissions.
However, critics argue that it was pushed through without adequate scrutiny, risking greenwashing as there are insufficient safeguards in place.
COP29 lead negotiator, Yalchin Rafiyev, told the media, “This will be a game-changing tool to direct resources to the developing world and help us save up to $250 billion a year when implementing our climate plans.”
However, Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, disagreed, saying, “The decision to fast-track carbon market rules at the start of COP29 sets a troubling precedent. Unlike COP28’s positive example of operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund, which had the support and approval of all countries, this approach sidesteps comprehensive consultation with nations and civil society. These rushed rules open the door to weak, false ‘solutions’ that will only delay real climate action,” he told TNIE.
Singh further criticised carbon markets as mechanisms that have repeatedly failed to drive meaningful progress. “In the face of an escalating climate crisis, we cannot afford to depend on these opaque mechanisms that increase vulnerabilities and unfairly shift the burden onto poorer nations,” he added.
Article 6 offers two options for trading: countries can enter into bilateral agreements and set their own rules, or they can participate in a United Nations-supervised market open to all. In this UN-supervised carbon market, the credit price will be determined by market players but will include third-party accreditation.
However, critics say the system contains several loopholes that can be easily exploited. Climate activists and experts highlight potential risks, such as human rights abuses and "greenwashing," where polluters can claim environmental progress without truly reducing emissions.
Some carbon credit projects, such as large-scale reforestation, could displace Indigenous communities and alter ecosystems if not managed carefully.
Aarti Gupta of the environmental policy group at the Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, warned that Article 6 could prioritise carbon trading over direct climate finance, a shift she described as “dangerous” and as undermining the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Yet, Martin Hession, Vice-Chair of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, defended the mechanism, stating at the COP29 presidency press conference, “There are enough safeguards to thwart greenwashing in the carbon crediting mechanism. Third-party verification is integral. But, individual countries must also ensure the quality of credits. We are setting high-quality standards. We have many provisions to ensure local communities are consulted.”
Trishant Dev, a carbon markets expert from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), expressed concern over the speed of the endorsement process, noting that countries had not adequately discussed the supervisory body’s recommendations.
“If the negotiating parties requested recommendations from the supervisory body and have reviewed them for two years, the recommendations were significant enough to warrant discussion before adoption as standards. The revised recommendation, now adopted as a standard, has issues, like the lack of a definition for the durability of carbon removals,” he said.
As the debate over carbon credits intensifies, the COP29 summit faces growing pressure to address concerns about climate integrity and the protection of vulnerable communities.