The ongoing COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, saw a breakthrough on global carbon market standards under the United Nations. Yet, despite the initial optimism surrounding this agreement, the initiative has encountered significant criticism from environmental experts. While the global carbon market seeks to offer a way for countries and companies to offset emissions, this system’s design and implementation have exposed both its potential and its pitfalls.
In an early victory for COP29, diplomats approved key standards to regulate the global carbon market. This market enables countries and companies to purchase carbon credits, which theoretically fund projects that reduce or remove CO₂ emissions globally. These projects could range from reforestation in Africa to distributing clean energy stoves in remote villages. As part of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, the goal is to provide a structured, UN-backed market to facilitate emissions trading on an international scale.
READ | Sustainable rice farming: An economic case for a new green revolution
The carbon market offers a lifeline for countries struggling to meet stringent climate targets, potentially injecting much-needed funding into climate mitigation projects in developing nations. With the right safeguards, proponents believe this system could catalyse global emission reductions. However, while COP29’s agreement has brought a much-needed push to operationalise these markets, the process and standards approved have sparked substantial debate.
Lack of transparency and inclusive dialogue
One of the most significant criticisms centers on the rushed approval of carbon market standards, with activists pointing out a troubling lack of transparency. The decision, made by a limited group of technical experts, has been criticised for sidestepping broader consultation with member countries. Approving rules without inclusive debate undermines trust in the process, and can lead to less stringent regulations, thereby increasing the risk of environmental and social harm.
The efforts made at COP29 need to be acknowledged, but the process must be criticised for lack of transparency. If climate negotiations do not prioritise transparent and inclusive governance, they risk creating a market system that fails to reflect diverse global perspectives, thus alienating key stakeholders in the fight against climate change.
Human rights and environmental integrity
The carbon market’s past is littered with examples of projects that, despite their lofty aims, failed to deliver significant climate benefits and often infringed upon local communities’ rights. In some instances, forests intended to be preserved for carbon offset were later destroyed by wildfires, highlighting the fragility of certain offsets and the difficulty of verifying long-term carbon sequestration.
The new standards are also criticised for the lack of sufficient safeguards to protect human rights, particularly for communities affected by offset projects. The market’s history of overpromising and underdelivering makes it imperative that human rights be safeguarded, especially in developing regions. Without stringent rules, the current standards risk replicating past mistakes, prioritising short-term profits over genuine, long-lasting environmental and social outcomes.
Double counting and credibility issues
One of the most contentious technical issues surrounding the global carbon market is the risk of double-counting emissions reductions. Double-counting allows two parties to claim the same emission reductions, inflating the actual impact and eroding the credibility of the entire market. While COP29’s standards attempted to address this, they fall short, leaving loopholes that could dilute the Paris Agreement’s overall impact.
Weak standards around double-counting could enable countries to meet targets only on paper, without actual climate impact. The risk here is that governments and corporations may continue polluting as long as they can claim carbon credits without genuine reductions. For the global carbon market to function effectively, activists stress that airtight rules against double-counting are essential to ensure accountability.
A loophole for avoiding emissions cut?
The core idea behind carbon credits is that they should be a last-resort tool after all other emissions reductions have been exhausted. However, they may allow rich nations to buy their way out of meeting domestic climate targets, creating a moral hazard and encouraging reliance on offsets rather than prioritising internal decarbonisation efforts. The carbon markets risk serving as an excuse for developed countries to delay difficult, costly measures to reduce emissions domestically.
A robust global carbon market could ideally accelerate funding for climate projects in the developing world, but without adequate safeguards, it risks enabling wealthier nations to outsource their climate obligations to poorer countries, further exacerbating global inequality. There is a need for stringent regulations to prevent this “pay-to-pollute” mentality. A credible carbon market must encourage real emissions reductions at the source.
The technology factor
Advances in technology and monitoring tools, like satellite imaging for reforestation projects, offer some hope for improved transparency and accountability. Proponents of the carbon market argue that these tools can minimise fraud, ensure accurate measurement of emissions reductions, and potentially restore faith in offset projects. With such technology, proponents believe the market has the potential to become more reliable and trustworthy over time.
However, technology alone cannot address all challenges. While monitoring tools can help verify emission reductions, they do not resolve issues related to project permanence (e.g., forest preservation threatened by wildfires) or community rights. While these technologies are promising, they should not be viewed as a panacea for the market’s underlying flaws. Instead, a comprehensive framework with strong, enforceable standards is necessary to ensure both environmental and social integrity.
Despite the early win for carbon market standards at COP29, the road ahead remains fraught with uncertainty. Given US President-elect Donald Trump’s intention to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement, the global carbon market’s future hangs in the balance. Without US participation, the market could lose momentum, weakening global climate efforts. However, if the new rules are enforced rigorously, the market might attract investment and drive real climate action regardless of political shifts.
Yet, as it stands, the COP29 agreement faces significant challenges. For the global carbon market to become a viable tool in the fight against climate change, COP29’s standards must evolve to meet the legitimate concerns raised by activists and experts alike. Only then can the world hope to leverage this market to achieve genuine progress toward a sustainable, low-carbon future.