Azerbaijan’s COP29 presidency claimed an early win at the start of the climate summit when countries waved through long-awaited – and controversial – rules laying the foundations for a new UN carbon market, without any debate.
But the approval of the documents setting out key guidelines – or “standards” – for the development of carbon credit projects and carbon removal activities provoked strong opposing reactions.
For some, including proponents of carbon credits and the COP29 presidency itself, the adoption late on the first day of the talks in Baku was a major “breakthrough” that ended a years-long deadlock and paved the way to raise hundreds of billions of dollars for climate action.
“This will be a game-changing tool to direct resources to the developing world,” COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev said.
UN climate chief Simon Stiell told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday that “this is not some bit of arcane UN bureaucracy”, but something that could help countries implement their climate plans “faster and cheaper”.
The Azerbaijan COP presidency put a number to that assertion, claiming that “co-operation across borders” under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement using carbon credits could reduce the cost of carrying out national climate plans by $250 billion every year.
That figure comes from a theoretical modelling exercise conducted in 2019 by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), a pro-carbon market group that counts among its members many of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies, including Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Shell and BP.
Climate Home spoke to one carbon market expert who raised doubts over the $250-billion figure due to the number of assumptions made in the study that could be out-of-date by now.
“Rushed” approval
Many close watchers of carbon market talks strongly objected to the “unprecedented” decision to greenlight the rules in the opening plenary of COP29, bypassing the scrutiny of negotiators and observer groups. They voiced concerns not only about the risk of the resulting carbon credit projects producing dubious emission reductions and dragging down climate ambition, but also about the precedent this move sets.
“This decision should have not been rushed through without giving the space to adequately discuss the issues,” said Trishant Dev, programme officer for carbon markets at the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). “Especially as, in previous years, several countries objected to the inadequate nature of these standards.”
Maria AlJishi, chair of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, speaking after a decision on carbon markets was adopted. Photo: UN Climate Change – Kiara Worth
While it caught many by surprise on Monday, the fast-tracked adoption of the rules stemmed from a strategic move made nearly a month ago by the Supervisory Body tasked with overseeing the development of the Article 6.4 crediting mechanism.
After several days of drawn-out discussions, this technical panel decided to directly adopt guidance on carbon-credit methodologies and carbon removals as “standards”, rather than forwarding it as a proposal to be fought over at COP.
Government negotiators were therefore presented with a complete document that they could either accept or reject as a whole without re-arranging any of its contents. They opted for the former, with a strong nudge from the Azerbaijan presidency that has made the “operationalisation” of Article 6 one of its top targets for the climate summit.
More work to be done
While the decision at COP29 rubber-stamped the Supervisory Body’s approval, countries left the door open to asking the technical committee to add more provisions or stronger guardrails on top of the adopted rules. Negotiators will discuss over the next two weeks whether and how to take this forward.
But, regardless of this COP’s outcomes, carbon market experts also urged caution over what Monday’s decision means for long-running efforts to turn the UN carbon market into a reality, as several key building blocks still need to be agreed on before credits can be traded.
COP29 Bulletin Day 2: Aliyev defends fossil fuels, G77 unites on finance goal
“This was certainly one of the biggest steps in terms of operationalising Article 6.4,” Jonathan Crook, a policy expert at Carbon Market Watch, told Climate Home. “However, it’s not like starting in January we’ll see this market up-and-running. We’re quite a long way from there”.
Technical committees operating within the Supervisory Body still need to develop and approve a series of “tools” that developers of carbon credit projects will have to apply to demonstrate that emission reductions or removals are credible, durable and do not create any unintended harm. Additionally, the registry where the credits will be physically traded has not yet been created.
“I wouldn’t expect all of that to be completed before the end of next year, if not 2026,” said Crook.
‘Junk’ credits revived
The first batch of credits likely to be traded under the new UN carbon market are old offsets originally developed under the Kyoto Protocol-era’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), starting from the early 2000s. Over 1,200 CDM projects are currently waiting for approval from their host countries to transition into the new system.
Nearly four-fifths of these are renewable energy activities, like solar power plants or wind farms, which experts believe have produced “junk” offsets because the income from the carbon markets was not needed to build them and therefore does not produce “additional” emissions reductions.
Maria AlJishi, chair of the Supervisory Body, said at a press conference in Baku on Tuesday that the adoption of the standards on COP29’s opening day would enable the process of switching CDM projects to the Article 6.4 mechanism to continue.
“This means hopefully that we could be seeing the first issuance of 6.4 credits soon,” she added.
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post Is COP29 “breakthrough” on UN carbon market all it seems? appeared first on Climate Home News.
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines
With the COP31 climate summit in Turkey looming, all eyes are on China to see what the country will push for in the negotiations.
At COP30 last year, China helped to secure a “dialogue” on climate-related “unilateral trade measures”, as well as a two-year “work programme” concerning climate finance.
The nation also championed south-south cooperation throughout the conference and co-led a summit on methane, alongside Brazil and the UK.
In a recent press conference, China’s environment vice-minister Li Gao noted the need to “uphold multilateralism” and send a “clear political signal” that the global community is united around climate action.