The opening of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, saw a turbulent start as debates over the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) created tensions among attending nations. During the first plenary session, the BASIC bloc, which comprises Brazil, South Africa, India, and China, insisted on including these climate-related, trade-restrictive unilateral measures, like CBAM, on the official agenda of this global climate summit.
CBAM, introduced by the EU, aims to combat carbon emissions by levying taxes on imports of carbon-intensive goods such as aluminum, cement, and steel from countries with more relaxed climate policies. According to the EU, this measure is necessary to mitigate the risk of what they call “carbon leakage.” This occurs when polluting industries relocate to countries with less stringent regulations to escape the environmental constraints of the EU.
Yet, the EU's proposal is met with resistance. Developing countries view CBAM as punitive and discriminatory, threatening their export interests. This tension was evident when discussions were briefly halted due to demands from certain nations for the issue to be addressed within the World Trade Organization (WTO) instead of at COP.
Criticism of CBAM is not new. Emerging nations have voiced their concerns at previous summits, especially countries like Brazil and South Africa, which worry about the economic repercussions for their export sectors, particularly with metals and construction materials. They criticize the mechanism as disguised protectionism, negatively affecting their competitiveness on the global market.
The BASIC nations assert climate policies should take the economic realities of developing countries and their need for industrial development. They argue implementing such carbon taxes without offering viable economic support or alternatives could be detrimental.
This debate showcases larger issues facing global climate governance, highlighting the need to balance ecological imperatives with diverse economic demands from around the world. Some analysts believe articulately including issues like CBAM on the official COP agenda could signify recognizing the intertwined nature of trade and climate policy. Yet, the EU maintains these discussions fall under the WTO’s domain, leaving other nations frustrated.
Kevin Conrad, founder of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, voices concern about the absence of discussions on this topic at COP29, stating it’s imperative to prevent more extended tensions between countries. He also warns if this issue isn't formally addressed now, it will almost certainly be on the agenda at COP30, hosted by Brazil next year.
China has made it clear it plans to protect its trade interests against such unilateral Western climate policies. A Beijing-based policy analyst highlights the nation's readiness to engage with discussions about policies impacting international trade, including new European regulations on batteries and provisions of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which promotes domestic clean energy production.
The shifting dynamics mean China could gain increasing influence at future COP gatherings, especially as the United States potentially distances itself from international climate negotiations. Some experts suggest this realignment could lead to restructuring the rules governing global climate governance.
Simultaneously, COP29 is addressing the regulation of the carbon credit market, deemed controversial yet pivotal for international environmental strategies. This mechanism, active since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, enables countries to offset their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through environmental initiatives, primarily oriented toward projects in developing nations.
Particularly under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, COP29's mission aims to draft common global standards for transparent and effective exchanges of carbon credits. The framework allows advanced economies, with enhanced GHG reduction capabilities, to sell their surplus credits to those needing to ramp up their emission reduction efforts. An example includes Switzerland acquiring credits from Thailand's initiative supporting electric buses.
Article 6 comprises two parts: Article 6.2 encourages bilateral agreements for direct carbon credit transfers between nations, whereas Article 6.4 fosters the development of a globally supervised market for businesses. Still, the roll-out of these provisions raises concerns about potential “greenwashing,” which could occur if companies claim carbon neutrality merely by funding offset projects without taking genuine emission reductions.
Functioning carbon credits often emerge from projects focusing on initiatives like reforestation or replacing coal power facilities with renewable energy sources. These projects are intended to balance global emissions trends by contributing to the atmosphere's CO2 reduction. Nonetheless, research reveals the effectiveness of specific carbon credits is frequently overstated, leading to skepticism about their real impact on GHG emissions.
During COP29, this momentum for stronger oversight of inter-firm carbon credit exchanges is apparent. Until now, the voluntary carbon market lacked rigorous regulation, creating standards primarily guided by private organizations without international oversight. This COP introduces UN-supervised guidelines aimed at authentic and traceable credits, standard methodologies for credit calculation, and compliance with climate commitments.
Bilateral agreements under Article 6.2 are already paving the way for carbon transactions, establishing interactions even before the formal rules are ratified. Critics contend such agreements might perpetuate oil-dependent nations' habits of purchasing credits to offset emissions rather than engaging directly with emission reduction strategies. While this regulation is seen as positive, it raises concerns about potentially diluting nations’ dedication to fulfilling substantive emission reduction promises.
Discussions also show diverging opinions about the carbon market's effectiveness. Organizations like Greenpeace remain skeptical, viewing the market as a loophole exploited by corporations. They assert the use of such credits allows companies to sidestep significant emission reductions at source level, enabling continued climate destruction.
Greenpeace emphasizes the necessity of direct emission reductions to curb global warming, arguing even well-regulated carbon credit systems may dissuade economic participants from pursuing meaningful decarbonization initiatives.
Nevertheless, the developments at COP29 signal significant steps toward instituting regulations for carbon credits, potentially making this environmental financing mechanism more transparent and credible. The COP30 outcomes reveal a concerted effort to standardize the carbon credit market globally, indicating prioritization of structure and robustness from global actors.
Going forward, nations will have to align their carbon credit systems with UN-defined standards, likely influencing multinational companies. This realignment might bolster credit reliability and meet rising investor expectations and consumer demand for sustainability.
