Perhaps the biggest concern is a system that would allow for „double counting“,“ meaning that emission reductions could be charged to the targets of both the party selling the credits and those who buy them. (Brazil`s position and the issue of double counting are explained below. There are strong differences of opinion on how the OMGE should be guaranteed in practice. This highlights one of the reasons for a disagreement on Article 6.4, namely that the hosts of the Kyoto CDM did not have their own emission reduction targets, meaning that it was impossible to „double“ savings to achieve more than one target. At the International Climate Change Summit in Madrid in December 2019, climate negotiators will again try to finalise the Article 6 „rules“, which will govern voluntary international cooperation in the field of climate change, including carbon markets. In order to truly understand the task they face and the main areas of the remaining divergences, the first point of contact is the text of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement itself, which is illustrated in a commented form in the graph below. (All these issues and the discussions around them are explained in more detail in the section below) One of the keys to this increased ambition lies in the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. However, at COP24 held in Katowice, Poland, last December, the participating countries reached an agreement on the implementation of the Paris Agreement – the so-called Paris regulation – on the implementation of Article 6. That is why Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was at the centre of the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn, which was the first formal meeting of governments to advance negotiations on the outstanding issues of the Paris regulatory framework. If there is no agreement by the end of COP25, the issue will be taken to COP26 in Glasgow in December 2020, so the UK will set aside diplomatic progress to get it over the line. Although Article 6.7 provides that the annual COP must adopt „rules, modalities and procedures“ for the carbon market, in accordance with Article 6.4, there are differences of opinion as to the extent of national control over its operation compared to the UN Supervisory Board, which signs each draft or methodology. „It`s hard to imagine how countries will agree on the right options and the right accounting rules [and] the right methods if we can`t even make a deal to eliminate those that are patently incompatible. I mean, it`s not even climate ambition, in many cases it`s common sense. Dirk Forrister, President of IETA, presents another potential utility of international trade.
He tells Carbon Brief that the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and offset all those left with extraction is not evenly distributed around the world….