Concerns Rise Over Article 6’s Role in Global Greenwashing

Since COP30 is coming to Brazil, worldwide attention is falling on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, a provision originally designed for climate cooperation between countries. Article 6 allows for the trading of "mitigation outcomes," i.e., carbon reductions or removal, where one country can bank on surplus reductions achieved by another to meet its own climate targets. While the mechanism has ensured efficacy and cost-benefits in achieving the emissions targets, mounting concerns now suggest that it is enabling greenwashing across the globe.

Applied properly, Article 6 can enable quicker cuts in global emissions because countries can share burdens and pool funding. Nations that beat their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) can sell their surplus achievement, in theory, helping nations falling behind with theirs. But the present application does not have strict regulations, especially on classifying and the quality of carbon credits that are traded.

One of the concerns is confusion between emission cuts—e.g., installation of renewable energy systems—and removals of carbon, which have techniques like afforestation or capture technology. This confused division enables countries to invest in cheaper, typically lower-standard prevention schemes rather than doing something to achieve actual reduction in emissions. Credits in certain cases are being produced by projects that really just prevent emissions, rather than lower them. The practice increases the danger of nations achieving targets in theory while household emissions grow larger.

One such example is Singapore, which plans to peak its emissions by 2028 but is already heavily reliant on Article 6 credit purchase to demonstrate progress. This is seen as symptomatic of the broader risk that Article 6 will allow countries to delay genuine climate action while remaining in compliance with global agreements.

Present evidence suggests that more than 90% of carbon credits come from avoidance or reduction projects, such as shifts to cleaner energy and improved cooking stoves. Fewer than 3% come from carbon removals, and fewer still use long-duration technologies with the potential to store them in the long term, such as Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS). This inconsistency emphasizes the need for rebalancing focus towards long-standing carbon removal methods, which are key to achieving and sustaining net zero emissions.

Climate experts and stakeholders have proposed several measures to address these issues. Firstly, setting distinct targets for removals and reductions would prevent substitution between them, and they would be addressed separately. Secondly, permanent carbon removal methods like DACCS, BECCS, and biochar should be prioritized. These technologies have the permanence to sequester carbon out of the air for millennia.

In addition, structural reforms are also being suggested for the operating provisions of Article 6. For example, nature-based or avoidance activities can be subject to other Articles in the Paris Agreement, such as Articles 5 or 9, and reserve Article 6 for high-integrity, long-duration removals. Such structural reforms would enhance the integrity of global climate accounting and reclaim confidence in emissions trading schemes.

To date, only 16 countries have included particular carbon removal targets in their country-level climate plans, according to the Net Zero Tracker. This lack of commitment indicates a huge gap in current policy frameworks and the necessity to set high, binding standards under Article 6.

If left unaddressed, the flexibility provided by Article 6 risks becoming harmful. Rather than assisting the advance, it could hamper genuine emissions reductions and undermine confidence in the global push to the Paris Agreement's temperature goals. In the face of the increasingly pressing climate crisis, the risk is that Article 6 will shift from a cooperative tool to a political fudge factor that undermines serious action.

As the climate community prepares for negotiations in COP30, the integrity of Article 6 will become a flash point of contention. Governments have an important decision to make: revise Article 6 to ensure transparency and accountability or turn it into an instrument to delay and enable greenwashing. The choice made in Brazil will set the stage for the success or failure of global climate cooperation for decades to come.

Source: Context