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. The BASIC bloc — composed of Brazil, South Africa, India, and China — fiercely advocated for climate-related, trade-restrictive unilateral measures to be officially included on the agenda of this significant global climate summit.
The CBAM, enforced by the European Union, is intended to diminish carbon emissions by imposing taxes on imports of carbon-intensive products, including aluminum, cement, and steel, from countries with less stringent climate policies. The primary goal is to mitigate the risk of “carbon leakage,” wherein polluting industries relocate outside Europe to escape environmental restrictions.
Notably, the EU’s proposal faces mixed reactions. Many developing countries perceive the CBAM as not only discriminatory but also punitive, posing threats to their export capabilities. This contentious issue led to the first session of COP29 being briefly interrupted as certain countries insisted such matters should instead fall under the jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization (WTO) rather than COP.
Criticism of the carbon tax is not unfounded among nations like Brazil and South Africa, who flagged the detrimental economic consequences of this measure, particularly for their export sectors focused on metals and construction materials. These countries argue the CBAM operates as disguised protectionism, potentially undermining their competitiveness.
The BASIC nations assert the need for climate policies to be adjusted according to the economic realities faced by developing nations. They contend imposing these carbon taxes without providing alternative economic supports could severely hamper their industrial development.
The debate around the CBAM also signifies broader questions concerning international climate governance: how to balance the urgent need for ecological transitions with the diverse economic conditions of different countries. Some observers argue incorporating discussions related to trade and climate policy down the COP agenda could signify a substantial acknowledgment of this relationship, yet the EU still holds steadfast to the notion these topics belong under WTO authority.
Kevin Conrad, founder of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, highlights the importance of addressing these discussions to avert long-term conflicts among countries. He noted if addressing this subject isn't part of COP29’s formal agenda, Brazil, as the upcoming COP30 host, aims to take it under consideration next year.
Turning to China, the nation has clearly expressed its intent to safeguard its trade interests against Western unilateral climate policies. A Beijing-based policy analyst indicated readiness to discuss any policies influencing international trade, including the new European rules on batteries and the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which offers incentives to domestic manufacturers within clean energy sectors. With the possibility of the U.S. distancing itself from international climate dialogues, some experts suggest this creates space for China to assert greater influence at forthcoming COPs.
On the carbon credit market front, COP29 has the potential to serve as a turning point amid controversies over the regulation of carbon credits, which have become key offsets for several nations since the adoption of the Paris Agreement back in 2015. Specifically, this mechanism allows different countries to offset their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through various projects, mostly existing within the developing nations.
Key discussions at COP29 involve Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which aims to set up transparent rules for carbon credit exchanges between nations, allowing countries exceeding their GHG reduction targets to sell their surplus to nations lagging behind. For example, Switzerland recently purchased credits from a Thai initiative enabling the deployment of electric buses throughout Bangkok, exemplifying this concept.
The provisions under Article 6 span two main segments: Article 6.2 facilitates bilateral agreements for carbon credit transfers, whereas Article 6.4 establishes a global market overseen by the UN for corporations. Implementation of these terms, nonetheless, raises potential concerns related to “greenwashing.” According to multiple NGOs, the mechanism could lead companies to claim carbon neutrality merely by funding compensatory projects instead of actually lowering emissions.
These carbon credits rely on various projects, such as reforestation and replacing coal-powered facilities with solar power. The overarching aim is to compensate for emissions by actively contributing to CO2 reduction. Yet studies show the effectiveness of specific carbon credits is sometimes exaggerated, as many projects result only in marginal emissions reductions.
This year at COP29, there will be enforced stricter oversight on the credits exchanged among companies. Previously, the voluntary carbon market went largely unregulated, with established standards usually dictated by private bodies rather than any international mandates. Now, under directives from the UN, the setup of standards is intended to guarantee the authenticity and traceability of these credits, establishing validated methodologies to conform their exchanges to climate commitments from nations.
A number of bilateral agreements have already been set up under Article 6.2, allowing several nations to partake in carbon transactions before the complete ratification of official rules. Critics, particularly concerned parties from states rich in oil, argue this could incentivize them to purchase credits as substitutes for making effective emissions reductions. While regulated, these bilateral agreements risk diluting serious commitments toward real emission cuts.
Different organizations voice their opinions on the efficiency of carbon markets, with notable entities like Greenpeace claiming the carbon credit market serves as loopholes exploited by pollution-generators. They argue these credits enable companies to sidestep substantive reductions at their source, allowing them to continue endangering planetary wellbeing.
Despite the critique surrounding the carbon credit market, initiatives at COP29 are viewed as notable milestones toward standardizing its operations, potentially rendering it more transparent and credible on the global stage. By adopting structured rules for corporate carbon credits at COP29, there's evidence to suggest authorities aim to bolster this burgeoning market, making it more formidable from the standpoint of international stakeholders.
Countries are now tasked with aligning their national carbon credit systems to conform with newly established UN standards, which may also have repercussions on companies operating across various areas. These developments are likely to bolster credit credibility and fulfill rising expectations from investors and consumers striving for sustainability.
