By Mathew Carr

Nov. 22, 2024 — It might be difficult to replace like-for-like carbon credits if there was a problem with a storage system attached to a giant direct-air capture plant, for instance.

CarrZee — the point of carbon trading is …there are ways to make one ton of co2 equivalent transferrable …yet permanence is one big issue to be sorted …35 years or 1,0000 ? That’s a big difference when storing GHG over time.

Nov. 21 version of draft text includes this:

Noting that the Supervisory Body has already developed its preliminary workplan for 2025, encourages the Supervisory Body to expedite its work on:

— Further standards, tools and guidelines relating to baselines, downward adjustment, standardized baselines, suppressed demand, additionality and leakage;

–The concept note on large-scale crediting;

–Further guidance on issues related to Article 6, paragraph 4, activities, such as:

Post-crediting period monitoring;

Durability of storage over climate-relevant time frames;

Avoidable and unavoidable reversals and incentives to maintain removals;

‘Like-for-like’ replacement for remediation;

Independent reversal risk assessments;

Potential for shared responsibilities for reversal remediation;

Alternative remediation measures;

Source: Oxford net zero website https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero-2/

See this:

Separately but related, some want the markets to reflect a more whole value for society and nature …not just profit:

‘You stole our land from us and you wrecked it; now we can use carbon credits to get it back’

New draft texts at the Baku talks are due 12 noon local time.