Connect with us

Published

on

Governments are set to take a decisive step at Cop28 towards making a long-awaited global carbon market governed by the UN a reality.

The Paris Agreement establishes ways for countries to “voluntarily cooperate” to meet their climate targets by allowing emission reductions and removals to be traded.

In Dubai, negotiators will finalise the architecture of a new mechanism allowing countries to sell offsets to other governments, companies and individuals under Article 6.4.

It comes at a pivotal time. The voluntary carbon market has faced more intense scrutiny than ever this year with report after report casting doubt over its integrity. But for many, carbon credits remain a valuable tool to channel much-needed finance to developing countries.

The stakes are high for the new system to get it right and correct problems with existing systems. We outline four critical questions for the outcome from Dubai.


Which activities are eligible?

Deciding which activities can produce credits is an important and fraught question.

If the criteria are too restrictive, countries may struggle to obtain any meaningful financial support from the mechanism. Too broad and projects with questionable climate credentials, or other significant environmental and social concerns, will undermine their credibility.

Over the last year, the UN’s Article 6.4 supervisory body has been evaluating the eligibility of carbon removals: activities that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it. These can be nature-based, such as planting trees, or engineering-based, like machines to suck CO2.

A Direct Air Capture (DAC) plant operated by Climeworks in Iceland. Photo: Climeworks

Tensions emerged last May when an internal briefing note drafted by the UNFCCC secretariat advised against including technological solutions describing them as “unproven” and potentially risky.

While the supervisory body distanced itself from the document, it angered the industry which responded by flooding the consultation process with submissions putting their case forward.

It worked. The final recommendations, agreed upon after several extended meetings, do not directly encourage or discriminate against any type of activity.

Ministers still need to approve the package in Dubai. While a broad agreement is expected, certain groups may still have issues with it.

Papua New Guinea, representing the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, could be a blocker. It has long argued that credits issued for forest conservation under the Redd+ framework should automatically qualify for the new mechanism.

Most countries and experts disagree. “The intention of the Redd+ framework was never to generate credits”, says Pedro Martins Barata, a carbon markets expert at EDF and a former negotiator. “That mechanism is much less stringent. They should go through the same process of methodology submission and independent evaluation as all the other activities.”


Are the reductions additional and permanent?

As credits are used by governments or companies to compensate for their polluting activities, each unit must represent a real emission reduction. This has been a fundamental and long-standing issue with many carbon offsetting projects.

Among other things, rules need to make sure the activities would have not happened anyways without the carbon finance (additionality) and that any CO2 removed does not re-enter the atmosphere in a short amount of time (permanence).

The Supervisory Body has tackled those policy issues in the recommendations sent to Cop28 for approval.

On additionality, the document says that projects will have to take into account all relevant legislation and produce a detailed analysis of investment barriers to demonstrate that emission-cutting activities would have not occurred without the mechanism.

Experts told Climate Home these provisions should be stringent enough.

New nature fund needs $40m by December to get going

A community ranger standing in a mangrove forest restored as part of a nature protection project in Kenya. Photo: Anthony Ochieng / Climate Visuals Countdown

On permanence, concerns have been raised.

“The text leaves open the question of for how many years a credit is guaranteed to correspond to an actual removal without giving specific thresholds,” says Martins Barata, adding this should be established in further work.

Another contentious point is the possibility of relieving project developers of the duty to carry out permanence monitoring after they stop issuing credits. The risk is that, for example, protected trees could burn in a fire unleashing the stored carbon into the atmosphere.

The recommendations indicate this exemption can apply when a “negligible” risk of the emission removals being reversed is demonstrated.

Jonathan Crook of Carbon Market Watch argued the text could be tightened. “How do you define negligible risk? What sources will be accepted as evidence? These are all open questions that may cause potential issues,” he added.


What happens if a country wants to take back credits?

Article 6 has a provision to ensure that emission reduction activities are not counted twice, by both the seller and buyer, towards their respective climate plans. When a country transfers a credit to a government or a company it needs to deduct that from its greenhouse gas inventory.

As a result, countries need to strike a balance between attracting revenues and being able to meet their own climate plans.

But a contested rule could give struggling governments a way out. In Dubai, negotiators will be discussing whether countries may be allowed to withdraw any credits that have been previously authorised. This could also apply in cases where the projects are causing environmental and human rights violations.

Carbon Market Watch’s Crook said this provision poses a substantial threat. “If a country can revoke credits that have already been traded, and potentially used, then you have a serious risk of double counting,” he told Climate Home. “If revocations are allowed, at the very least they shouldn’t apply to credits already sold.”

Will the new market rescue the reputation of carbon credits?

A lot is riding on the Article 6.4 mechanism because of the impact it can have on the wider carbon offsetting world.

Crook said it needs to set a “high bar”, sending a strong message to the voluntary market that there needs to be improvements.

The new mechanism is set to include some positive elements that currently don’t exist in carbon markets used by corporations.

Already agreed rules have established that 2% of any credits traded in the new market will be automatically cancelled. This means that offsetting will not just be a zero-sum game, shifting emissions cuts from one place to another.

But when it comes to individual projects, experts said it was too early to say if they will have high integrity.

“You can have the best rules but it all comes down to implementation,” said Martins Barata. “They’re off to a good start. But come back to me when they start approving projects”.

If the recommendations are approved in Dubai, the new mechanism may start issuing credits towards the end of 2024.

Paradoxically, the first batch of credits to be traded may pose some of the biggest integrity risks. A process to transition credits created under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the now-defunct UN carbon market established through the Kyoto Protocol, into the new mechanism is well underway.

CDM credits have been widely criticised for failing to contribute to real emissions reductions and causing human rights violations.

The post Four questions for Cop28 to settle about a global carbon market appeared first on Climate Home News.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2023/11/29/four-questions-for-cop28-to-settle-about-a-global-carbon-market/

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Leading scientists call for EPBC reforms to strengthen Great Barrier Reef protection

Published

on

CANBERRA, Monday 27 October 2025 — More than 100 Australian scientists and researchers have called on the Labor Government to address deforestation in the new nature law reforms, warning that the impacts under the current Act “compound the damage caused by repeated mass bleaching events driven by climate change” to the Great Barrier Reef.

Environment Minister Murray Watt will soon table the draft bill to reform Australia’s broken nature law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. Leading environmental groups Greenpeace Australia Pacific, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, and the Australian Conservation Foundation coordinated the open letter with 112 leading Australian scientists, calling for the reforms to close loopholes in the Act that allow for rampant and unchecked deforestation, especially in the Great Barrier Reef catchment.

Read the letter here.

Elle Lawless, senior campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:

“Now is the time to act decisively for nature, and design a nature-first nature law that will do what it is set out to do: protect our environment. Toxic runoff from deforestation in the Great Barrier Reef catchment is poisoning the reef and suffocating the precious and fragile marine ecosystem. The Great Barrier Reef is a global icon, and we need a strong, robust EPBC Act that will safeguard and protect it. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation our country and our environment has and, done right, has the power to make serious and desperately needed positive changes to protect nature.”

Professor James Watson FQA, from UQ’s School of the Environment, said:

“Australia’s State of the Environment report, released by the federal government in 2021, shows that our oceans, rivers and wetlands are in serious decline. That report, and the Samuel review of the EPBC, make the point that there is a desperate need for stronger national nature laws that help protect these precious places for generations to come.

“Australia’s top environmental academics and experts have been sounding the alarm for decades: the large-scale destruction of Australia’s native woodlands, forests, wetlands and grasslands is the single biggest threat to our biodiversity. It’s driving an extinction crisis unlike anywhere else on Earth — and it’s threatening the Great Barrier Reef, one of the world’s seven natural wonders, right before our eyes.”

Continued mass deforestation threatens the Great Barrier Reef’s World Heritage status. In 2026, the World Heritage Committee will review Australia’s progress in protecting the reef and may consider placing it on the World Heritage in Danger list if major threats like deforestation are not addressed.

Recent figures from the Queensland Government show deforestation in Queensland is the worst in the nation and worsening under the current national environment law. Deforestation in the Great Barrier Reef catchment accounted for almost half (44%) of the state’s total clearing, an increase on the previous year.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling for the EPBC reforms to meet four key tests:

  1. Stronger upfront nature protection to guide better decisions on big projects, including National Environmental Standards.
  2. An independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce the laws and make decisions about controversial projects at arm’s length from politics.
  3. Closing deforestation loopholes that allow for harmful industries to carry out mass bulldozing across Australia.
  4. Consideration of the climate impacts on nature from coal and gas mines when assessing projects for approvals.

“We will continue to engage with the government constructively in the reform process but also hold decision-makers to account over these critical tests,” Lawless said.

—ENDS—

Leading scientists call for EPBC reforms to strengthen Great Barrier Reef protection

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Close Major Deforestation Loopholes in the EPBC Act

Published

on

22 October 2025

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Sent via email

To the Prime Minister, Federal Environment Minister, and Members of the Albanese Government,

As researchers who study, document and work to recover Australia’s plants and animals, insects and ecosystems, we are keenly aware of the value of nature to Australians and the world.

Australia has one of the worst rates of deforestation globally. For every 100 hectares of native woodland cleared, about 2000 birds, 15,000 reptiles and 500 native mammals will die. As scientists and experts, we have sounded the alarm for more than 30 years that the large-scale destruction of native woodlands, forests, wetlands and grasslands was the single biggest threat to the nation’s biodiversity. That is still the case today, and it is driving an extinction crisis.

New figures show that Queensland continues to lead the nation in deforestation. The latest statewide landcover and trees study (SLATS) report shows that annually 44% of all deforestation in Queensland occurs in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas, where over 140,000 hectares are bulldozed each year.

Deforestation in Great Barrier Reef catchments is devastating one of Australia’s most iconic natural wonders. When forests and bushland are bulldozed, erosion causes debris to wash into waterways, sending sediment, nutrients and pesticides into the Reef waters. This smothers coral, fuels crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks, and reduces water quality. These impacts compound the damage caused by repeated mass bleaching events driven by climate change.

The Great Barrier Reef sustains precious marine life, supports local and global biodiversity, and underpins tourism economies and coastal communities that rely on its survival. Continued mass deforestation threatens these values and could jeopardise the Reef’s World Heritage status. In 2026 the World Heritage Committee will review Australia’s progress in protecting the Reef and may consider placing it on the World Heritage in Danger list, if key threats to the Reef, including deforestation, are not addressed.

This mass deforestation happens due to a loophole in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, our national nature law. Exemptions allow deforestation to continue largely unregulated by the EPBC Act through a grandfathering clause from 2000 known as “continuous use”. Without meaningful reform, deforestation will continue to drive massive biodiversity loss. This loophole must be closed as part of the proposed EPBC Act reforms. The law is meant to safeguard our wildlife and our most precious places like the Great Barrier Reef. Please support closing major deforestation loopholes in the EPBC Act as an urgent and priority issue for the Federal Government.

Sincerely,

Professor James Watson, University of Queensland

Dr. Michelle Ward

Mandy Cheung

Mr Lachlan Cross

Timothy Ravasi

Gillian Rowan

Dr Graham R. Fulton, The University of Queensland

Dr Alison Peel

Dr James Richardson University of Queensland

Luke Emerson, University of Newcastle

Dr Hilary Pearl

Dr Tina Parkhurst

Dr Kerry Bridle

Dr Tracy Schultz, Senior Research Fellow, University of Queensland

Dr. Zachary Amir

Prof David M Watson, Gulbali Institute, CSU

Naomi Ploos van Amstel, PhD candidate

David Schoeman

Associate Professor Simone Blomberg, University of Queensland

Professor Euan Ritchie, Deakin University

Dr Ian Baird, Conservation Biologist

Paul Elton (ANU)

Melissa Billington

Hayden de Villiers

Professor Brett Murphy, Charles Darwin University

Professor Sarah Bekessy

Professor Anthony J. Richardson (University of Queensland)

Prof. Winnifred Louis, University of Queensland

Dr Yung En Chee, The University of Melbourne

Dr Jed Calvert, postdoctoral research fellow in wetland ecology, University of Queensland

A/Prof Daniel C Dunn, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland

Lincoln Kern, Ecologist

Professor Corey Bradshaw, Flinders University

Dr. Viviana Gonzalez, The University of Queensland

Prof. Helen Bostock

Dr Leslie Roberson

Bethany Kiss

Assoc. Prof Diana Fisher, UQ, and co-chair of the IUCN Marsupial and Monotreme Specialist Group

Dr Jacinta Humphrey, RMIT University

Professor Mathew Crowther

Christopher R. Dickman, Professor Emeritus, The University of Sydney

Fiona Hoegh-Guldberg, RMIT University

Dr Bertram Jenkins

Dr Daniela ParraFaundes

Dr Jessica Walsh

Dr. GABRIELLA scata – marine biologist, wildlife protector

Katherine Robertson

Professor Jane Williamson, Macquarie University

William F. Laurance, Distinguished Professor, James Cook University

A/Prof Deb Bower

Dr Leslie Roberson, University of Queensland

Ms Jasmine Hall, Senior Research Assistant in Coastal Wetland Biogeochemistry, Ecology and Management, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University

Dr Kita Ashman, Adjunct Research Associate, Charles Sturt University

Genevieve Newey

Matt Hayward

Jessie Moyses

Natalya Maitz, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

Christina Ritchie

Liana van Woesik, PhD Student, University of Queensland

Benjamin Lucas, PhD Researcher

A/Prof. Carissa Klein, The University of Queensland

Conrad Pratt, PhD Student, University of Queensland

Dr Ascelin Gordon, RMIT University

Professor Nicole Graham, The University of Sydney

Professor Murray Lee, University of Sydney Law School

Dr Tracy Schultz, Snr Research Fellow, University of Queensland

Libby Newton (PhD candidate, Sydney Law School)

Hannah Thomas, University of Queensland

Professor Richard Kingsford, Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney

Dr Anna Hopkins

Lena van Swinderen, PhD candidate at the University of Queensland

Professor Jodie Rummer, James Cook University

Dr Nita Lauren, Lecturer, RMIT University

Dr Christina Zdenek

Madeline Davey

Dr Rachel Killean, Sydney Law School

Dr. Sofía López-Cubillos

Dr Claire Larroux

Dr Alice Twomey, The University of Queensland

Zoe Gralton

Dr Robyn Gulliver

Ryan Borrett, Murdoch University

Adjunct Prof. Paul Lawrence, Griffith University, Brisbane Qld

Professor Susan Park, University of Sydney

Dr Holly Kirk, Curtin University

Deakin Distinguished Professor Marcel Klaassen

Dr Megan Evans, UNSW Canberra

Dr Amanda Irwin, The University of Sydney

Dr Keith Cardwell

Professor Don Driscoll, Deakin University

Susan Bengtson Nash

Distinguished Professor David Lindenmayer

Dr Madelyn Mangan, University of Queensland

Dr Isabella Smith

Geoff Lockwood

Dr Paula Peeters, Paperbark Writer

Prof Cynthia Riginos, University of Queensland

Dr. Sankar Subramanian

Associate Professor Zoe Richards

Dr Jessie Wells, The University of Melbourne

Professor Gretta Pecl AM, University of Tasmania

Dr April Reside, The University of Queensland

Oriana Licul-Milevoj (Ecologist)

Dr Yves-Marie Bozec, University of Queensland

Dr Julia Hazel

Dr Judit K. Szabo

Ana Ulloa

Dr Andreas Dietzel

Philip Spark – North West Ecological Services

Jonathan Freeman

Dr/ Mohamed Mohamed Rashad

Close Major Deforestation Loopholes in the EPBC Act

Continue Reading

Climate Change

The Ocean We’re Still Discovering

Published

on

The recent discovery of Grimpoteuthis feitiana, a new species of Dumbo octopus found deep in the Pacific, is a reminder of something both humbling and urgent: we still know so little about the ocean that shapes our lives. This fragile, finned creature, gliding silently more than a kilometer beneath the waves, has lived in these waters long before we mapped them, and its story is only now coming to light.

A still taken from the Greenpeace animation on the destructive mining of the deep sea. What if we could go back in time and stop a destructive industry before it even started?
A still taken from the Greenpeace animation on the destructive mining of the deep sea. What if we could go back in time and stop a destructive industry before it even started?

What moves me most about this discovery is not just the Dumbo octopus itself, but how it bridges science and culture. Its name draws inspiration from the flying apsaras of China’s Dunhuang murals, those graceful, winged figures that seem to dance through air and imagination. It reminds me that the deep sea has always held a place in our collective human story, — not only in myths and art, but in the ways we relate to nature, learn from it, and find meaning within it.

Pasifika connection to the ocean

For us in the Pacific, the ocean is more than a body of water. It is our identity, our culture, our history. Our ancestors read the seas to navigate, to survive, to connect communities scattered across islands. Discoveries like this Dumbo octopus awaken something deeper in me, — a sense that the ocean is alive with stories and wisdom we are only beginning to rediscover. And with that understanding comes a responsibility to protect it.

Confronting James Cook Vessel in the Pacific Ocean. © Martin Katz / Greenpeace
Greenpeace International activists peacefully confronted UK Royal Research Ship James Cook in the East Pacific waters as it returned from a seven-week long expedition to a section of the Pacific Ocean targeted for deep sea mining. © Martin Katz / Greenpeace

Each new species like the Dumbo octopus, each glimpse into the deep, is a warning as much as it is a wonder. The creatures of the abyss live slow, deliberate lives in fragile ecosystems, shaped by balance and patience. Deep-sea mining, pollution, and climate change threaten to erase them before we even learn their names. Protecting the Pacific’s oceans is not an abstract act of conservation; it is an act of cultural preservation, of love for our home, and for the unseen life that sustains us all.

Grimpoteuthis feitiana is more than a scientific discovery. It is a reminder that the ocean is still full of life, mystery, and wisdom — and that we have a duty to ensure these depths remain wild, healthy, and alive, for us and for the generations yet to come.

Reflection by Raeed Ali
Pacific Community Mobiliser

The Ocean We’re Still Discovering

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com