The new regulation defines what “climate finance” will be and how it will be notified and verified. The 24th International Climate Change Conference, held in December 2018 in Katowice, Poland, was a great success in the multilateral response to climate change. More than 190 countries have managed to agree on almost all elements of a comprehensive set of rules that put meat on the bones of the 2015 Paris Agreement. The rules provide for the first time that all countries provide detailed information on their climate change goals and regularly report on their progress in achieving and achieving these goals. But an important chapter is still missing: the rules governing international carbon markets, which are discussed under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Differing views on how to avoid “double counting” – counting the same emissions reduction more than once to meet climate change targets – were an important step forward in reaching consensus. Completion of the missing chapter of Article 6 will be one of the main tasks when countries meet again in Santiago, Chile in December of this year at the 25th International Climate Change Conference. We underline why the solution of double counting is essential to achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement and we identify the essential elements of a solid result that guarantees environmental efficiency and facilitates a profitable weakening. 46 UNFCCC, “LMDC Subcommittee on Guidance for the Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement” .
Ultimately, the “national” nature of the parties` NDCs, despite efforts to limit national discretion and the paralysis of ICTU and accounting, continues to give the parties considerable leeway and may call into question the evaluation, aggregation and comparison of CNN. However, given the “upward” nature of the Paris Agreement, countries are largely able to define their own accounting rules, with the guidelines agreeing on what information they should provide. But a future international carbon trading market will obviously require a set of standardized rules. The new regulatory framework carries a significant risk of double-counting, in which countries could potentially attribute overseas emission reductions to their own objective, even though another country has also claimed the reduction. The new regulations confirm that this process will take into account “justice and the best science available.” But it does not address concretely how these inputs will be used and how the results of the inventory will increase ambition. This raises concerns that the regulations will ensure that we know if we are lagging behind in terms of climate protection, but that we will not offer a recipe to fix things. This may not address one of the main problems of the Paris agreement to date: that countries are not required to ensure that their climate promises are in line with the overall objectives. A successful, ambitious and prescriptive five-year review process will be essential to get the world on track. 3 Office of the Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State, “Notification of Intent to Withdraw from the Paris Agreement” (August 4, 2017) .