This focus article traces the evolution of the voluntary carbon market (VCM), putting emphasis on the more recent developments following the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015. It focuses on the interplay between the privately governed VCM and the global climate regime under the United Nations (UN). For years, the VCM and the UN carbon market operated in parallel and mutually influenced each other. The adoption of the Paris Agreement, however, marked a turning point for the VCM. It triggered the proliferation of net zero targets, sparking the interest in the VCM as a supplier of carbon credits to offset companies' remaining emissions. At the same time, the global scope and ambitious targets set by the agreement have put the future of the VCM in limbo, raising concerns about double claiming and more generally, questioning the adequacy of offsetting. Considering these challenges, numerous stakeholders have started a process to redefine the rules of the market to ensure its credibility and legitimacy. While some areas of convergence were identified, the VCM's private governance has long been unable to address the question of how to deal with double claiming and the claims companies should be allowed to make. In this situation, signals from international policy and regulation under national policy point the way forward for the VCM. By moving from offsetting toward a contribution claim model, the VCM may overcome its “identity crisis” and find a new place within the broader climate change regime.This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance Policy and Governance > Private Governance of Climate Change

中文翻译：

---

迈向全球净零：自愿碳市场寻求在后巴黎气候制度中找到自己的位置


这篇焦点文章追溯了自愿碳市场 (VCM) 的演变，重点关注 2015 年《巴黎协定》通过后的最新发展。它重点关注私人管理的 VCM 与联合国领导下的全球气候制度之间的相互作用。国家（联合国）。多年来，VCM与联合国碳市场并行运作，相互影响。然而，《巴黎协定》的通过标志着 VCM 的转折点。它引发了净零目标的激增，引发了人们对 VCM 作为碳信用额供应商以抵消公司剩余排放量的兴趣。与此同时，该协议设定的全球范围和雄心勃勃的目标使VCM的未来陷入困境，引发了对双重索赔的担忧，更普遍的是，质疑抵消的充分性。考虑到这些挑战，许多利益相关者已经开始重新定义市场规则，以确保其可信度和合法性。虽然确定了一些趋同领域，但市调机制的私人治理长期以来无法解决如何处理双重索赔以及应允许公司提出索赔的问题。在这种情况下，国际政策和国家政策监管的信号为VCM指明了方向。通过从抵消转向缴费索赔模式，VCM 可以克服其“身份危机”，并在更广泛的气候变化制度中找到新的位置。本文分类如下：碳经济和气候减缓>政策、工具、生活方式、行为政策与治理 > 多层次跨国气候变化治理政策与治理 > 气候变化私人治理