COP26 and a Framework for Future Global Agreements on Carbon Market Integrity

Abstract

The international political economy is developing carbon markets based on decisions made in Glasgow in 2021 at COP26. The development of such markets is problematic. An examination of the history of the agreements made at the climate change conferences indicates issues that remain pertinent today. These include the ability of markets to provide the necessary reductions in fossil fuel emissions at a scale large enough to combat climate change; the integrity of current systems for the accounting of carbon; possible negative impacts on natural capital generally and biodiversity in particular arising from such mechanisms; the inherent risks associated with trying to simultaneously deliver other (co-)benefits; and clarity over the extent to which the rights will be safeguarded. While there is an urgency in ensuring that mechanisms will deliver the emissions reductions required, the risks of carbon market failure remain due to the insufficiency of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and the lack of transparency of carbon markets. Integrity systems based on sound principles for governing the integrity of carbon offsets and other mechanisms to reduce emissions are required. Unless standards are adopted, the likelihood of combatting climate change effectively, in the context of the danger of greenwashing and the ongoing pandemic, remains uncertain.

Public perceptions and support of climate intervention technologies across the Global North and Global South

“…There is comparatively limited interest now – at least when presented in a general manner – in the kinds of bans or moratoria, on SRM, discussed in the literature 7 . Similarly, the lack of support for global-level markets to trade carbon credits and offsets – preferred by under 30% of participants – is notable in view of the prominence of related negotiations at IPCC level 60 , 61 . Further analysis is needed to explore this disconnect between conversations taking place within expert, NGO, and decision-making circles vis-à-vis a wide array of national publics.…”

Blue carbon, red states, and Paris Agreement Article 6

“…In this author's view, these risks become particularly acute when state climate policy is focused primarily on revenue generation. Current debate rages over the integrity of credits issued under existing voluntary standards (Cadman and Hales, 2022;Greenfield, 2023;Verra, 2023b). But states interested in revenue generation have largely ignored the well-known measurement, additionality, and permanence problems of blue carbon credits, and states entering the market on the supply side have problematic incentives to downplay these quality concerns.…”

Carbon farming: a circular framework to augment CO2 sinks and to combat climate change

“…183 In conjunction with carbon taxes and subsidies, these carbon offsets and credits all fall under the umbrella of carbon pricing and are quantified in terms of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO 2 e) units. 184 The origin of the carbon credit concept can be traced back to the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement designed to mitigate GHG emissions. 183 A McKinsey analysis predicts that the demand for carbon credits will increase nearly 15-fold by 2030.…”