There is therefore disagreement as to whether – and if so, how – the many mitigation methods, projects and emission credits of the Kyoto era should be included in the Article 6.4 market. To finalise the settlement, negotiators must navigate a thicket of impenetrable jargon, a series of technical accounting challenges and traps of “constructive ambiguity” in the text, often hiding incompatible visions of how Article 6 should work and what it was created for in the first place. The current negotiating text includes various “baseline” tests to ensure additionality, including an option with square brackets that could set the bar as a measure that goes beyond what the host country needs to meet its climate commitment (NDC). The text of the option states: It adds that a full transition of current and potentially available CDM credits “carries a high risk” that Article 6.4 will not produce additional emission reductions beyond what would have happened anyway, which “potentially undermines environmental gains”. One of the keys to this increased ambition lies in the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. However, at COP24 last December in Katowice, Poland, participating countries reached an agreement on the implementation of the Paris Agreement – the so-called Paris Regulation – could not agree on the implementation of Article 6. For this reason, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was at the heart of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bonn, which was the first formal meeting of governments to advance negotiations on the outstanding issues of the Paris Regulation. Second, the text of Article 6.4 states that the market-based mechanism must ensure an “overall reduction in global emissions” (OMGE). This means that risk mitigation should go beyond what would have happened if the trading system had not been in place. The lack of agreement on how to solve this problem reflects the technical challenges it poses, rather than political disagreements over the appropriate solution, says former co-chair Kizzier. As a third option, Article 6(8) allows the use of non-market-based approaches. As the name suggests, the market mechanisms of climate change play no role in this approach. They expect future demand for offset loans to be fairly stable regardless of price, with systems like Corsia also having to use them at higher prices.