China and India have largely barred their legacy UN carbon projects from the new Article 6.4 market, marking a significant shift that could reshape international carbon trading and bolster market integrity amid ongoing scrutiny.
China and India have effectively shut the door on most of their old UN carbon credit projects entering the Paris Agreement’s new international market, in a move that has stripped nearly three-quarters of applicants from the transition pipeline and signalled a tougher era for carbon trading.
According to analysis of official data reported by Climate Home News, only 415 of more than 1,500 Clean Development Mechanism projects and programmes seeking to move into the Article 6.4 market had secured host-country backing by the 30 June deadline. The scale of the rejection is striking because China and India, which together accounted for two-thirds of applicants, declined to endorse any of their legacy projects for the new system.
The Clean Development Mechanism, created under the Kyoto Protocol, was once designed to let richer countries finance emissions-cutting activity in developing economies in return for credits. But it has long been dogged by claims that it failed to deliver meaningful climate benefits, and carbon market critics warned that allowing too many of those projects to roll over would weaken confidence in the Paris-era framework.
That concern was sharpened by the numbers. UN estimates cited by Climate Home News suggest that, if every project seeking transition had been approved, the market could have been flooded with more than 900 million credits generated under older rules. That volume is roughly equivalent to Japan’s annual emissions.
Brazil chose a different path. The country approved almost all of its projects in a late surge, leaving it with the largest surviving portfolio in the transition race. In total, Brazil gave the green light to 92 projects, all during the six-month extension that governments granted at COP30 in Belém after several developing countries asked for more time.
The projects that remain in contention are varied. Hydropower dominates the global transition list, while landfill gas and wind schemes also feature heavily in Brazil. Peru cleared nearly a dozen hydro plants; Thailand backed biogas and waste-to-energy schemes; and Mexico approved all of its projects in the final week, including one controversial industrial gas activity. In Africa, Zambia, Malawi and Ethiopia supported household cooking programmes that aim to shift users to cleaner stoves and could become one of the largest future sources of Article 6 credits.
Injy Johnstone of the Munich-based Max Planck Institute told Climate Home News that the failure of most legacy projects to cross the threshold marked a notable clean-up of the system. She said the market was trying to strip out the “hot air” that had inflated earlier carbon trading rounds, and argued that leaving so-called zombie credits in circulation would only confuse buyers.
Even so, government approval is only the first hurdle. Developers must still submit further documentation by the end of 2026 to show that their activities meet the new mechanism’s rules on safeguards and reversal risk. The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, which oversees the market, still has the final say on whether a project can issue credits.
The first credits under the new UN mechanism have already been approved from a cookstove project in Myanmar, which the UN says helps reduce indoor air pollution, eases pressure on forests and addresses the lack of access to clean cooking faced by more than two billion people globally. S&P Global reported that the project generated 58,428 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent credits for the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2022.
But the cookstove sector has also drawn scrutiny. Carbon Market Watch has said the first two approved cookstove projects under Article 6.4 appear to have overstated their climate impact, underlining the difficulty of building a higher-integrity market after years of criticism over overcrediting. Civil society groups have also called for an investigation into Myanmar-linked projects over alleged ties to the military junta and questions about the volume of credits issued.
The bigger picture is that the Paris Agreement market is now operational, but only just. Supporters say Article 6.4 offers a more rigorous successor to the old Kyoto system, while sceptics remain wary that weak projects could still slip through. For industrial decarbonisation professionals, the transition matters because it will shape both the credibility and the price of future carbon credits, and determine which project types can still find a route to market.
- https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/07/17/most-zombie-credits-locked-out-of-new-un-carbon-market-after-china-and-india-snub/ – Please view link – unable to able to access data
- https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/07/17/most-zombie-credits-locked-out-of-new-un-carbon-market-after-china-and-india-snub/ – An analysis reveals that China and India have declined to support any of their previous United Nations carbon credit projects seeking to sell offsets under the new UN market. This decision has led to the exclusion of nearly three-quarters of applicants, with only 415 out of more than 1,500 projects transitioning from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the new carbon market established under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. Brazil, in contrast, approved nearly all of its projects, resulting in the largest number of activities still eligible to sell credits under the new mechanism. The CDM, set up under the Kyoto Protocol and now largely replaced by the Paris Agreement, has been criticised for failing to drive real emission cuts. Allowing its projects to continue could undermine confidence in the successor mechanism. If all transition projects had been successful, they could have flooded the market with over 900 million credits generated under outdated rules, equivalent to Japan’s annual emissions.
- https://www.unfccc.int/zh/node/655916 – The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has approved the first carbon credits under the UN carbon market established by the Paris Agreement. The approved activity is a clean-cooking project in Myanmar, which distributes efficient cookstoves that reduce harmful household air pollution and lessen pressure on local forests. UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell highlighted the significance of this development, noting that over two billion people globally lack access to clean cooking, leading to millions of deaths annually. The project aims to address this issue by providing cleaner cooking solutions.
- https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/energy-transition/022626-un-greenlights-first-credits-under-article-64-from-myanmar-cookstove-project – The UN has approved the first carbon credits under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, marking the operational launch of a global carbon market. The credits originate from a Myanmar cookstove project coordinated with South Korea, which reduces household air pollution and eases pressure on local forests. This approval signifies the transition of the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism from design to active operation, potentially opening new revenue streams for emission-reduction projects across multiple sectors and regions. The project has generated 58,428 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent credits for the period from January 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022.
- https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2026/06/09/out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-cookstove-too-many-carbon-credits-enter-un-carbon-market/ – Carbon Market Watch has raised concerns about the entry of numerous carbon credits into the UN carbon market, particularly from cookstove projects. The first two cookstove projects approved for use under the UN’s carbon market have been found to massively overestimate their climate impact, despite efforts to rein in overcrediting. This issue highlights the challenges in ensuring the environmental integrity of carbon credits and the need for stringent verification processes to prevent the inclusion of credits that do not represent real emission reductions.
- https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2024/06/article-6-of-the-paris-agreement-and-its-impact-on-investments-in-clean-cookstoves – Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement establishes a multilateral international carbon crediting mechanism, known as the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), for the validation, verification, and issuance of carbon credits. The PACM is overseen by the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, which is tasked with developing and supervising the requirements and processes needed to operationalise the mechanism. This includes developing and adopting methodologies, registering activities, accrediting third-party verification bodies, and managing the mechanism registry for A6.4ERs. The mechanism allows countries, public entities, and private sector entities to develop and fund climate mitigation activities that generate A6.4ERs, which can be used to comply with emissions reduction obligations or for results-based climate finance.
- https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/article-6/article-6-decisions-and-documentation – The UNFCCC provides detailed documentation on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, including decisions and guidance related to the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (Article 6.4). The most recent decision, Decision 20/CMA.7, was adopted during the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA) in November 2025. This decision includes guidance on governance, designated national authorities, transparency and stakeholder engagement, methodologies and standards, transition of Clean Development Mechanism activities, and funding for the operation of the mechanism. These documents are essential for understanding the operational framework and requirements of the new UN carbon market under Article 6.4.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article was published on 17 July 2026, making it current. However, the content references events up to 30 June 2026, which may indicate a delay in reporting. The analysis of official data from the UNFCCC suggests that the information is based on recent developments. ([climatechangenews.com](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/07/17/most-zombie-credits-locked-out-of-new-un-carbon-market-after-china-and-india-snub/?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article includes a quote from Injy Johnstone of the Max Planck Institute. A search for this quote reveals it was used in a similar context in a 15 June 2026 article by Climate Home News. ([climatechangenews.com](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/07/17/most-zombie-credits-locked-out-of-new-un-carbon-market-after-china-and-india-snub/?utm_source=openai)) This suggests the quote may have been reused, raising concerns about originality.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The article is published by Climate Home News, a niche publication focusing on climate change. While it provides in-depth coverage, its reach and influence are limited compared to major news organisations. The reliance on a single source for the main claim about China and India’s actions may affect the reliability of the information.
Plausibility check
Score:
7
Notes:
The claim that China and India declined to back their old UN carbon credit projects aligns with previous reports. However, the article lacks specific details about the projects and the reasons for the countries’ decisions, which makes the claim less substantiated. The absence of supporting details from other reputable outlets further raises questions about the claim’s credibility.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): REVIEW
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article presents current information on the exclusion of ‘zombie credits’ from the new UN carbon market, with a publication date of 17 July 2026. However, the reliance on a single source, potential reuse of quotes, and lack of independent verification from other reputable outlets raise concerns about the article’s credibility. The absence of specific details and supporting evidence further diminishes confidence in the reported claims. Given these issues, a thorough review and additional verification are recommended before publication.
