However, critics say the system contains several loopholes that can be easily exploited. Climate activists and experts highlight potential risks, such as human rights abuses and “greenwashing,” where polluters can claim environmental progress without truly reducing emissions.
Some carbon credit projects, such as large-scale reforestation, could displace Indigenous communities and alter ecosystems if not managed carefully.
Aarti Gupta of the environmental policy group at the Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, warned that Article 6 could prioritise carbon trading over direct climate finance, a shift she described as “dangerous” and as undermining the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Yet, Martin Hession, Vice-Chair of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, defended the mechanism, stating at the COP29 presidency press conference, “There are enough safeguards to thwart greenwashing in the carbon crediting mechanism. Third-party verification is integral. But, individual countries must also ensure the quality of credits. We are setting high-quality standards. We have many provisions to ensure local communities are consulted.”
Trishant Dev, a carbon markets expert from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), expressed concern over the speed of the endorsement process, noting that countries had not adequately discussed the supervisory body’s recommendations.
“If the negotiating parties requested recommendations from the supervisory body and have reviewed them for two years, the recommendations were significant enough to warrant discussion before adoption as standards. The revised recommendation, now adopted as a standard, has issues, like the lack of a definition for the durability of carbon removals,” he said.
As the debate over carbon credits intensifies, the COP29 summit faces growing pressure to address concerns about climate integrity and the protection of vulnerable communities.
