The United National Climate Conference (COP29) presidency has claimed early success with the adoption of standards for carbon credits, referred to as Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, a long-debated framework designed to help nations collaborate on reducing carbon emissions. But, critics say it was pushed without adequate scrutiny and would lead to greenwashing as there are not enough safeguards.
Yalchin Rafiyev, COP29 lead negotiator, 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.”
Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said, “Fast-tracking carbon market rules at the start of COP29 sets a troubling precedent.”
Greenwashing worry via the carbon market deal
“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,” Harjeet Singh told this newspaper.
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.
This UN supervised carbon market, in which the credit price will be fixed by the market players but embedded with third party accreditation, has several loopholes which can be easily exploited. Critics argue that the benefits of Article 6 are far from guaranteed. Climate activists and experts highlight significant risks, such as potential human rights abuses and ‘greenwashing’, in which polluters can claim environmental progress without genuinely reducing emissions.
Some carbon credit projects, like large-scale reforestation, risk displacing Indigenous communities if not carefully managed. Aarti Gupta, environmental policy group, Department of Social Sciences in Wageningen University, says Article 6 could prioritise carbon trading over direct climate finance, which is dangerous and undermines the Paris Agreement’s goals.
However, Martin Hession, Vice-Chair of the Article 6.4 of the Supervisory Body, told this newspaper, “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.”
Endorsement rushed through, says expert
“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 has issues, like the lack of a definition for the durability of carbon removals,” said Trishant Dev, from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE)