The precise approach to avoiding the use of emissions reductions by more than one country is one area of significant divergence. It is closely linked to the idea of double counting within the meaning of Article 6.2, with both questions being asked about what is considered « internal » and « outside » the scope of a country`s PNNMs, with some commitments covering only part of the economy. This reduction means that emissions and red lines can be exchanged for each other, while negotiators seek to reach agreement on the article 6 regulatory framework. There may also be attempts to link these discussions to other COP political priorities, further complicating matters. This highlights a reason for disagreement with Article 6.4, namely that cdM hosts did not have specific Kyoto emission reduction targets, meaning that economies cannot be « counted twice » towards more than one target. (All of these issues and the conversations around them are explained in more detail in the section below. In this section, Carbon Brief summarizes the most important issues discussed… The rest of this section passes successively through each paragraph of Article 6 and quotes key excerpts and formulations directly extracted from the Paris text. One of the keys to this strengthened ambition lies in the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. At COP24 in Katowice, Poland, last December, the participating countries reached an agreement on the implementation of the Paris Agreement – the so-called Paris regulation – but failed to agree on the implementation of Article 6.
That is why Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was at the centre of the United Nations climate change conference in Bonn, which marked the first formal meeting of governments to advance negotiations on the absence of Paris rules. In Katowice, the proceeds of the draft Article 6.2 rules have not been resolved, suggesting that this was one of the most controversial issues in the negotiations. Since then, a longer list of options has been reintroduced in the most recent text. Therefore, there is disagreement as to whether – and if so, how – the many methods to stem the Kyoto era, projects and emission credits should be included in the Article 6.4 market. One of the technical challenges of the « inside and outside » debate is that NDCs are very diverse and that many of them are not emissions-focused in certain sectors of the economy, says Isabel Cavalier, senior advisor to the Mission 2020 campaign group. It says carbon letter: a long part of the current text of the negotiations contains a similar option in which countries can adopt their own approach to avoid « double counting ».