MERCADOS DE CARBONO 101

The document serves as a comprehensive primer on carbon markets, distinguishing between emissions trading systems (cap-and-trade) and credit-based mechanisms. It details the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms to the Paris Agreement's Article 6, while critically assessing the risks of carbon offsetting, such as 'greenwashing' and the 'hot air' problem. The guide also examines the CORSIA framework for aviation and the private certification standards of the voluntary market, ultimately advocating for a shift from offsetting to a 'climate contribution' model.

• There is a fundamental distinction between emissions trading systems (cap-and-trade) and credit-based mechanisms: the former involves trading permits to pollute in the future, while the latter involves credits representing emissions reductions that have already occurred in the past.
• The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol largely failed to reduce global emissions because approximately 85% of its projects would have happened regardless of the mechanism's funding.
• 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 classify transaction data as 'confidential', creating risks for environmental integrity and transparency.
• Article 6.4 introduces a UN-supervised market similar to the CDM but not limited to developing countries; it has introduced 'mitigation contribution units' which allow a host country to retain the emission reduction toward its own climate goal after selling the unit, preventing the buyer from using it for offsetting.
• The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is limited because it only covers the increase in international flight emissions, ignores domestic flights, and focuses solely on CO2, omitting other significant non-CO2 climate impacts.
• The voluntary carbon market is dominated by private standards like Verra and Gold Standard, which together accounted for 78% of the 1.8 billion credits existing as of May 2023, with a heavy concentration in forestry and renewable energy projects.
• The REDD+ framework is criticized for generating exaggerated credit quantities and lacking mandatory audits of climate benefits, as the UN REDD+ framework was not originally designed to create tradable carbon credits.

APA

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

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. MERCADOS DE CARBONO 101. 2024. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/101-report-layout-carbon-markets-PT.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-PT.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-PT.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }