MERCADOS DE CARBONO 101

The document explains the distinction between emissions trading systems (ETS) and carbon credit attribution mechanisms, detailing the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. It critically assesses the effectiveness of various market mechanisms, including Article 6.2 and 6.4, CORSIA, and REDD+, highlighting systemic risks such as 'hot air', double counting, and greenwashing. The guide argues against the use of offsets for carbon neutrality and proposes a 'climate contribution' approach instead.

• There is a fundamental difference between Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) and carbon credit attribution mechanisms: ETS involves trading future pollution permits ('allowances'), whereas attribution mechanisms trade credits representing emissions already reduced or removed from the atmosphere.
• The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol is considered a failure because most emission reductions would have occurred regardless of the mechanism, with an estimate suggesting 85% would have happened without CDM revenues.
• Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement allows countries to trade Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs), but it lacks independent oversight and allows countries to keep transaction data confidential, risking the trade of low-quality credits.
• Article 6.4 creates a UN-supervised market for emission reductions that is more governed than Article 6.2, introducing 'mitigation contribution units' which the buyer cannot use for offsetting, marking a shift away from the traditional offsetting model.
• The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is criticized for only covering international flights, focusing solely on CO2 while ignoring other climate-impacting effects, and relying on the flawed concept of offsetting fossil fuel emissions.
• The voluntary carbon market is dominated by private standards like Verra and Gold Standard, but it faces significant issues regarding the actual climate benefits of credits, particularly those from forestry and land use (REDD+), which are often prone to over-crediting and lack of integrity.
• The document advocates for a 'climate contribution' approach as an alternative to offsetting, where companies buy and cancel credits to provide climate finance without claiming carbon neutrality or ownership of the reductions.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (2024). MERCADOS DE CARBONO 101. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/101-report-layout-carbon-markets-ES.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. MERCADOS DE CARBONO 101. 2024. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/101-report-layout-carbon-markets-ES.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=MERCADOS DE CARBONO 101 |date=February 2024 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/101-report-layout-carbon-markets-ES.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{carbonmarketwatch2024mercados, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{MERCADOS DE CARBONO 101}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2024}, month = feb, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/101-report-layout-carbon-markets-ES.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }