Is Article 6 Fueling Greenwashing?
As the world gears up for COP30 in Brazil, attention is turning to a crucial, yet controversial, part of the Paris Agreement, i.e., Article 6. Designed to help countries cooperate on their climate targets, it’s now at risk of becoming a loophole that allows nations to delay meaningful action while claiming success on paper.
The Promise and Peril of Article 6
At its core, Article 6 permits countries to collaborate by trading “mitigation outcomes,” such as emission reductions or removals, to meet their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). If one country exceeds its climate goals, another can purchase the surplus progress and count it towards its own target.
If properly implemented, this could speed up global efforts, allowing nations to cut emissions more affordably and efficiently. But unless the rules are tightened soon, especially those agreed at COP29 in Baku, Article 6 could backfire.
Greenwashing on a Global Scale
One of the key risks is that Article 6 blurs the line between emission reductions (like installing solar panels) and removals (such as planting trees or using technology to suck carbon from the air). This lack of clarity enables countries to buy cheap, low-quality credits, often from projects that merely avoid emissions rather than lowering them, to offset their rising domestic emissions.
Singapore, for instance, plans for emissions to peak only in 2028 while significantly ramping up its purchases of Article 6 carbon credits.
Without clear definitions and stricter rules, countries could appear to meet their climate goals while their actual emissions stay the same, or even increase. This is likely to further worsen the “credibility crisis” already impacting the voluntary carbon market.
Read More: What Is Greenwashing? Top Examples You Need To Know
Too Many Avoidance Credits, Too Few Removals
Data shows that over 90% of carbon credits currently come from avoidance or reduction projects like clean cooking stoves or renewable energy. Only around 3% are from removals, and just a sliver of those involve durable methods that store carbon long-term, such as Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS).
This imbalance is dangerous. Real climate progress requires both reducing emissions fast and permanently removing leftover carbon from the atmosphere. Durable removals are essential to achieve and maintain net zero, but they remain underused and underfunded.
Fixing the Framework
To prevent Article 6 from becoming a climate trap, experts recommend three key changes:
- Set separate targets for reductions and removals, ensuring countries cannot substitute one for the other.
- Prioritize durable removals like DACCS, BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), and biochar, which offer permanent storage.
- Reform Article 6 rules to make durable removals the standard. Nature-based reductions and other emissions avoidance projects should be managed under separate sections of the Paris Agreement, like Articles 5 and 9.
Also Read: Top 5 Sustainability Challenges for SMEs
A Make-or-Break Moment
The Net Zero Tracker shows that only 16 countries currently include distinct targets for carbon removals in their national climate plans. This gap highlights the urgent need for clearer guidelines and greater accountability.
If Article 6 becomes a tool for cheap offsets and political convenience, it could undermine global trust in net-zero goals and make the Paris temperature targets impossible to reach.
As COP30 nears, the message is clear: Governments must act now to reform Article 6, or risk turning one of the Paris Agreement’s most promising tools into its greatest vulnerability.
For more related news, follow our Regulators News.
Source: Context
