Introduction aux marchés du carbone

The document distinguishes between cap-and-trade systems (ETS) and offsetting mechanisms, arguing that the latter often fail to provide real climate benefits. It critiques the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for lack of additionality and local safeguards, and warns that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement must avoid 'hot air' and double counting. It also examines the limitations of CORSIA for aviation and the integrity issues surrounding REDD+ and voluntary markets, ultimately advocating for a shift from offsetting toward direct climate action financing.

• There is a fundamental difference between emissions trading systems (ETS) and offsetting mechanisms: ETS involves trading permits to pollute in the future, whereas offsetting involves trading emission reductions that have already occurred in the past.
• The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol largely failed to reduce global emissions because an estimated 85% of its projects would have happened without the financial incentive of the mechanism.
• The Kyoto Protocol's International Emissions Trading (IET) and Joint Implementation (JI) mechanisms suffered from the 'hot air' problem, where countries with very low targets sold excess credits, allowing companies to pollute more without requiring additional climate efforts.
• Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is split into two mechanisms: Article 6.2, which allows countries to sell 'Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes' (ITMOs) beyond their targets, and Article 6.4, which is a more governed system similar to the CDM but not limited to developing countries.
• The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is limited in scope, covering only international flights and only the increase in emissions above 2019/2020 levels, representing approximately 10% of global aviation emissions.
• REDD+ and other forest-based offsets face severe environmental integrity issues, including the difficulty of establishing accurate baselines, the risk of leakage (increasing deforestation elsewhere), and the unrealistic assumption of permanence over 100 years.
• The document argues that offsetting is logically incompatible with the Paris Agreement's goal of maximum emission reductions by all countries, and suggests moving toward financing climate action without claiming offsets.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (2020). Introduction aux marchés du carbone. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CMW-FRENCH-CARBON-MARKETS-101-THE-ULTIMATE-GUIDE-TO-MARKET-BASED-CLIMATE-MECHANISMS-FINAL-2020-WEB.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. Introduction aux marchés du carbone. 2020. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CMW-FRENCH-CARBON-MARKETS-101-THE-ULTIMATE-GUIDE-TO-MARKET-BASED-CLIMATE-MECHANISMS-FINAL-2020-WEB.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=Introduction aux marchés du carbone |date=July 2020 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CMW-FRENCH-CARBON-MARKETS-101-THE-ULTIMATE-GUIDE-TO-MARKET-BASED-CLIMATE-MECHANISMS-FINAL-2020-WEB.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{carbonmarketwatch2020introduction, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{Introduction aux marchés du carbone}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2020}, month = jul, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CMW-FRENCH-CARBON-MARKETS-101-THE-ULTIMATE-GUIDE-TO-MARKET-BASED-CLIMATE-MECHANISMS-FINAL-2020-WEB.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }