Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

For Nearly a Decade, Climate Talks Have Been Hashing Out So-Called Article 6. but What Is It?

News Feed
Tuesday, November 12, 2024

BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) — After nearly a decade of negotiations, leaders during the United Nations climate conference's first day decided on some of the finer points of much-debated sticking point aimed at cutting planet-warming emissions from coal, oil and gas. Known as Article 6, it was set up as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement to help nations work together to reduce climate-causing pollution. Part of that was a system of carbon credits, allowing nations to put planet-warming gasses in the air if they offset emissions elsewhere. But the gaveling through of Article 6 late Monday was criticized by climate justice groups, who said carbon markets allow major polluters to keep emitting at the expense of people and the environment. COP29, as this year’s summit is known, has brought together world leaders to discuss ways to limit and adapt to the climate crisis. Scientists agree that the warming of the atmosphere caused primarily by human-burned fossil fuels is fueling deadlier and increasingly catastrophic droughts, flooding, hurricanes and heat.Here's a look at Article 6 and the carbon credits system it aims to implement. Article 6 first made an appearance at the Paris climate talks in 2015, where world leaders agreed to try to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels.Its aim is to outline how countries and companies can trade emissions reductions to remove and stop more carbon pollution reaching the atmosphere. The idea is to set up carbon trading markets, allowing higher polluters to offset some of the pollution they produce by buying carbon credits from less polluting countries.Article 6 offers two ways for countries to do this. The first is for two nations to set their own rules and standards for carbon credit trades. Some countries are already signing deals to do this, including Singapore with the Philippines, Costa Rica and Sri Lanka, Switzerland with Ghana, Peru and Ukraine, among others. The second option creates an international, U.N.-governed market that anyone can purchase credits through. Isa Mulder, an expert on global carbon markets with the research group Carbon Market Watch, said the idea behind Article 6 is for countries to find the cheapest way to cut emissions. By trading carbon credits, it makes cutting global pollution cheaper and more efficient. But Article 6 is contentious, leading to years of delays. At COP28, negotiations crumbled after disagreements on transparency, rules on credits that could be traded, and what makes a good carbon removal credit. United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres urged negotiators to “agree to rules for fair, effective carbon markets” and “leave no space for greenwashing or land-grabbing.”The hope of Article 6 is that it incentivizes countries to collaborate to reach their climate goals. Countries could generate carbon credits based on projects aimed to meet their own climate goals, such as protecting existing forests from development or shutting coal-fired plants.Private-sector players or other high carbon polluter countries could then buy the credits, which would allow them to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas. Heavy-polluting companies would be important customers.Each credit would equal a ton of CO2 or the equivalent of other greenhouse gases that can be reduced in the air, sequestered, or avoided by using green energies instead.Money from the credits generated would go to local projects. The per-ton price of carbon would fluctuate in the market, meaning that the higher it rises, the more green projects could fetch through new credits generated.Under carbon markets, countries that lower their emissions can sell carbon credits. Countries that sell credits can use them for clean energy projects, such as installing solar panels or electrifying public transportation systems. But critics question whether it will be effective and worry it could lead to similar problems seen with the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 pact for developed nations to reduce their heat-trapping gas emissions to 1990 levels and below. The deal was dealt a hammer blow when the then U.S. administration withdrew from it."There’s a lot of concerns about whether that credit actually represents what it stands for,” said Mulder from Carbon Market Watch. What could happen at Baku climate talks? Monday's decision signaled early momentum on establishing Article 6, which the COP29 presidency said it would prioritize this year. But leaders still need to agree on other sections of the issue, including rules on two-nation carbon credit trading and the final details of the international, U.N.-governed market. Once finalized, Article 6 could reduce the cost of implementing national climate plans by $250 billion annually according to U.N. estimates. The COP29 presidency will then encourage countries to participate in carbon trading. On Monday, COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev said Article 6 “will be a game-changing tool to direct resources to the developing world.”But concerns remain about how it will work, given how it was developed.“Communities' consent and ownership over these initiatives are not just essential, but also a matter of respect and inclusion,” said David Nicholson, chief climate officer at Mercy Corps, a nonprofit that works on poverty, climate and other issues. "We are concerned that the agreement lacks adequate protections to human rights and undermines the goals of the Paris Agreement, rather than supporting them. If these concerns aren’t addressed, the decision could allow carbon trading to take the place of genuine, much-needed climate finance commitments,” Nicholson added.AP Science writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report. Pineda reported from Los Angeles.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

After nearly a decade of negotiations, leaders during the United Nations climate conference’s first day decided on some of the finer points of much-debated sticking point aimed at cutting planet-warming emissions from coal, oil and gas

BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) — After nearly a decade of negotiations, leaders during the United Nations climate conference's first day decided on some of the finer points of much-debated sticking point aimed at cutting planet-warming emissions from coal, oil and gas.

Known as Article 6, it was set up as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement to help nations work together to reduce climate-causing pollution. Part of that was a system of carbon credits, allowing nations to put planet-warming gasses in the air if they offset emissions elsewhere.

But the gaveling through of Article 6 late Monday was criticized by climate justice groups, who said carbon markets allow major polluters to keep emitting at the expense of people and the environment.

COP29, as this year’s summit is known, has brought together world leaders to discuss ways to limit and adapt to the climate crisis. Scientists agree that the warming of the atmosphere caused primarily by human-burned fossil fuels is fueling deadlier and increasingly catastrophic droughts, flooding, hurricanes and heat.

Here's a look at Article 6 and the carbon credits system it aims to implement.

Article 6 first made an appearance at the Paris climate talks in 2015, where world leaders agreed to try to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels.

Its aim is to outline how countries and companies can trade emissions reductions to remove and stop more carbon pollution reaching the atmosphere. The idea is to set up carbon trading markets, allowing higher polluters to offset some of the pollution they produce by buying carbon credits from less polluting countries.

Article 6 offers two ways for countries to do this. The first is for two nations to set their own rules and standards for carbon credit trades. Some countries are already signing deals to do this, including Singapore with the Philippines, Costa Rica and Sri Lanka, Switzerland with Ghana, Peru and Ukraine, among others.

The second option creates an international, U.N.-governed market that anyone can purchase credits through.

Isa Mulder, an expert on global carbon markets with the research group Carbon Market Watch, said the idea behind Article 6 is for countries to find the cheapest way to cut emissions. By trading carbon credits, it makes cutting global pollution cheaper and more efficient.

But Article 6 is contentious, leading to years of delays. At COP28, negotiations crumbled after disagreements on transparency, rules on credits that could be traded, and what makes a good carbon removal credit.

United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres urged negotiators to “agree to rules for fair, effective carbon markets” and “leave no space for greenwashing or land-grabbing.”

The hope of Article 6 is that it incentivizes countries to collaborate to reach their climate goals.

Countries could generate carbon credits based on projects aimed to meet their own climate goals, such as protecting existing forests from development or shutting coal-fired plants.

Private-sector players or other high carbon polluter countries could then buy the credits, which would allow them to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas. Heavy-polluting companies would be important customers.

Each credit would equal a ton of CO2 or the equivalent of other greenhouse gases that can be reduced in the air, sequestered, or avoided by using green energies instead.

Money from the credits generated would go to local projects. The per-ton price of carbon would fluctuate in the market, meaning that the higher it rises, the more green projects could fetch through new credits generated.

Under carbon markets, countries that lower their emissions can sell carbon credits. Countries that sell credits can use them for clean energy projects, such as installing solar panels or electrifying public transportation systems.

But critics question whether it will be effective and worry it could lead to similar problems seen with the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 pact for developed nations to reduce their heat-trapping gas emissions to 1990 levels and below. The deal was dealt a hammer blow when the then U.S. administration withdrew from it.

"There’s a lot of concerns about whether that credit actually represents what it stands for,” said Mulder from Carbon Market Watch.

What could happen at Baku climate talks?

Monday's decision signaled early momentum on establishing Article 6, which the COP29 presidency said it would prioritize this year.

But leaders still need to agree on other sections of the issue, including rules on two-nation carbon credit trading and the final details of the international, U.N.-governed market.

Once finalized, Article 6 could reduce the cost of implementing national climate plans by $250 billion annually according to U.N. estimates. The COP29 presidency will then encourage countries to participate in carbon trading.

On Monday, COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev said Article 6 “will be a game-changing tool to direct resources to the developing world.”

But concerns remain about how it will work, given how it was developed.

“Communities' consent and ownership over these initiatives are not just essential, but also a matter of respect and inclusion,” said David Nicholson, chief climate officer at Mercy Corps, a nonprofit that works on poverty, climate and other issues.

"We are concerned that the agreement lacks adequate protections to human rights and undermines the goals of the Paris Agreement, rather than supporting them. If these concerns aren’t addressed, the decision could allow carbon trading to take the place of genuine, much-needed climate finance commitments,” Nicholson added.

AP Science writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report. Pineda reported from Los Angeles.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Indigenous People Reflect on the Meaning of Their Participation in COP30 Climate Talks

At United Nations climate talks billed widely as having a special focus on Indigenous people, those people themselves have mixed feelings about whether the highlight reel matches reality

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Indigenous people filled the streets, paddled the waterways and protested at the heart of the venue to make their voices heard during the United Nations climate talks that were supposed to give them a voice like never before at the annual conference. As the talks, called COP30, concluded Saturday in Belem, Brazil, Indigenous people reflected on what the conference meant to them and whether they were heard. Brazilian leaders had high hopes that the summit, taking place in the Amazon, would empower the people who inhabit the land and protect the biodiversity of the world’s largest rainforest, which helps stave off climate change as its trees absorb carbon pollution that heats the planet.Many Indigenous people who attended the talks felt strengthened by the solidarity with tribes from other countries and some appreciated small wins in the final outcome. But for many, the talks fell short on representation, ambition and true action on climate issues affecting Indigenous people.“This was a COP where we were visible but not empowered,” said Thalia Yarina Cachimuel, a Kichwa-Otavalo member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, a group of Indigenous people from around the world. Some language wins but nothing on fossil fuels Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said she was happy because the text for the first time mentioned those rights explicitly.But Mindahi Bastida, an Otomí-Toltec member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, said countries should have pushed harder for agreements on how to phase out fuels like oil, gas and coal “and not to see nature as merchandise, but to see it as sacred.” Several nations pushed for a road map to curtail use of fossil fuels, which when burned release greenhouse gases that warm the planet. Saturday's final decision left out any mention of fossil fuels, leaving many countries disappointed. Brazil also launched a financial mechanism that countries could donate to, which was supposed to help incentivize nations with lots of forest to keep those ecosystems intact.Although the initiative received monetary pledges from a few countries, the project and the idea of creating a market for carbon are false solutions that "don't stop pollution, they just move it around,” said Jacob Johns, a Wisdom Keeper of the Akimel O’Otham and Hopi nations.“They hand corporations a license to keep drilling, keep burning, keep destroying, so long as they can point to an offset written on paper. It's the same colonial logic dressed up as climate policy," Johns said.“What we have seen at this COP is a focus on symbolic presence rather than enabling the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples," Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, wrote in a message after the conference concluded.Edson Krenak, Brazil manager for Indigenous rights group Cultural Survival and member of the Krenak people, didn't think negotiators did enough to visit forests or understand the communities living there. He also didn't believe the 900 Indigenous people given access to the main venue was enough.Sônia Guajajara, Brazil's minister of Indigenous peoples, who is Indigenous herself, framed the convention differently. “It is undeniable that this is the largest and best COP in terms of Indigenous participation and protagonism,” she said. Protests showed power of Indigenous solidarity While the decisions by delegates left some Indigenous attendees feeling dismissed, many said they felt empowered by participating in demonstrations outside the venue. When the summit began on Nov. 10, Paulo André Paz de Lima, an Amazonian Indigenous leader, thought his tribe and others didn’t have access to COP30. During the first week, he and a group of demonstrators broke through the barrier to get inside the venue. Authorities quickly intervened and stopped their advancement.De Lima said that act helped Indigenous people amplify their voices.“After breaking the barrier, we were able to enter COP, get into the Blue Zone and express our needs,” he said, referring to the official negotiation area. “We got closer (to the negotiations), got more visibility."The meaning of protest at this COP wasn't just to get the attention of non-Indigenous people, it also was intended as a way for Indigenous people to commune with each other. On the final night before an agreement was reached, a small group with banners walked inside the venue, protesting instances of violence and environmental destruction from the recent killing of a Guarani youth on his own territory to the proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project in Canada.“We have to come together to show up, you know? Because they need to hear us,” Leandro Karaí of the Guarani people of South America said of the solidarity among Indigenous groups. “When we’re together with others, we’re stronger.“They sang to the steady beat of a drum, locked arms in a line and marched down the long hall of the COP venue to the exit, breaking the silence in the corridors as negotiators remained deadlocked inside. Then they emerged, voices raised, under a yellow sky.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Takeaways From the Outcome of UN Climate Talks in Brazil

After two weeks of negotiations, this year’s United Nations climate talks have ended with what critics are calling a weak compromise

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — After two weeks of negotiations, this year's United Nations climate talks ended Saturday with a compromise that some criticized as weak and others called progress.The deal finalized at the COP30 conference pledges more money to help countries adapt to climate change, but lacks explicit plans to transition away from the fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas that heat the planet.But that disappointment is mixed with a few wins and the hope for countries to make more progress next year.Here's what you need to know about the outcome. Leaders tried to nail down specifics on fighting climate change Leaders have been working on how to fight the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather and sea level rise, for a decade. To do that, every country had the homework of writing up their own national climate plans and then reconvened this month to see if it was enough.Brazil, host of the climate conference known as COP30, was trying to get them to cooperate on the toughest issues like climate-related trade restrictions, funding for climate solutions, national climate-fighting plans and more transparency on measuring those plans' progress. More than 80 countries tried to introduce a detailed guide to phase out fossil fuels over the next several decades. There were other to-do items on topics including deforestation, gender and farming. Countries reached what critics called a weak compromise Nations agreed to triple the amount of money promised to help the vulnerable countries adapt to climate change. But they will take five more years to do it. Some vulnerable island countries said they were happy about the financial support. But the final document didn't include a road map away from fossil fuels, angering many.After the agreement was reached, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said Brazil would take an extra step and write their own road map. Not all countries signed up to this, but those on board will meet next year to specifically talk about the fossil fuel phase out. It would not carry the same weight as something agreed to at the conference.Also included in the package were smaller agreements on energy grids and biofuels. Responses ranged from happy to angry “Given what we expected, what we came out with, we were happy,” said Ilana Seid, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States.But others felt discouraged. Heated exchanges took place during the conference’s final meeting as countries snipped at each other about the fossil fuel plan.“I will be brutally honest: The COP and the U.N. system are not working for you. They have never really worked for you. And today, they are failing you at a historic scale,” said Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, a negotiator for Panama.Jiwoh Abdulai, Sierra Leone’s environment and climate change minister said: “COP30 has not delivered everything Africa asked for, but it has moved the needle.” He added: "This is a floor, not a ceiling.”The real outcome of this year’s climate talks will be judged on “how quickly these words turn into real projects that protect lives and livelihoods,” he said. Talks set against the Amazon rainforest Participants experienced the Amazon’s extreme heat and humidity and heavy rains that flooded walkways. Organizers who chose Belem, on the edge of the rainforest, as the host city had intended for countries to experience firsthand what was at stake with climate change, and take bold action to stop it.But afterward, critics said the deal shows how hard it is to find global cooperation on issues that affect everyone, most of all people in poverty, Indigenous people, women and children around the world.“At the start of this COP, there was this high level of ambition. We started with a bang, but we ended with a whimper of disappointment," said former Philippine negotiator Jasper Inventor, now at Greenpeace International. Indigenous people, civil society and youth One of the nicknames for the climate talks in Brazil was the “Indigenous peoples' COP.” Yet some in those groups said they had to fight to be heard. Protesters from Indigenous groups twice disrupted the conference to demand a bigger seat at the table. While Indigenous people's rights weren't officially on the agenda, Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said so far she is happy with the text because for the first time it includes a paragraph mentioning Indigenous rights.She supported countries speaking up on procedural issues because that’s how multilateralism works. “It’s kind of chaotic, but from our perspective, it’s kind of good that some countries have a reaction,” she said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

The Climate Impact of Owning a Dog

My dog contributes to climate change. I love him anyway.

This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.I’ve been a vegetarian for over a decade. It’s not because of my health, or because I dislike the taste of chicken or beef: It’s a lifestyle choice I made because I wanted to reduce my impact on the planet. And yet, twice a day, every day, I lovingly scoop a cup of meat-based kibble into a bowl and set it down for my 50-pound rescue dog, a husky mix named Loki.WIRED's Guide to How the Universe WorksYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Until recently, I hadn’t devoted a huge amount of thought to that paradox. Then I read an article in the Associated Press headlined “People often miscalculate climate choices, a study says. One surprise is owning a dog.”The study, led by environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldwert and published in the journal PNAS Nexus, examined how people perceive the climate impact of various behaviors—options like “adopt a vegan diet for at least one year,” or “shift from fossil fuel car to renewable public transport.” The team found that participants generally overestimated a number of low-impact actions like recycling and using efficient appliances, and they vastly underestimated the impact of other personal decisions, including the decision to “not purchase or adopt a dog.”The real objective of the study was to see whether certain types of climate information could help people commit to more effective actions. But mere hours after the AP published its article, its aim had been recast as something else entirely: an attack on people’s furry family members. “Climate change is actually your fault because you have a dog,” one Reddit user wrote. Others in the community chimed in with ire, ridiculing the idea that a pet Chihuahua could be driving the climate crisis and calling on researchers and the media to stop pointing fingers at everyday individuals.Goldwert and her fellow researchers watched the reactions unfold with dismay. “If I saw a headline that said, ‘Climate scientists want to take your dogs away,’ I would also feel upset,” she said. “They definitely don’t,” she added. “You can quote me on that.”Loki grinning on a hike in the Pacific Northwest. Photograph: Claire Elise Thompson/Grist

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.