I mean, it`s not even climate ambition, in many cases it`s common sense. A lack of consensus on how to solve this problem reflects the technical challenges it poses and not the political differences over the appropriate solution, said former co-chair Kizzier. Disagreement over Australia`s plan to take advantage of an accounting loophole to meet its climate target is expected to end by 2020, after a UN conference in Madrid could not reach consensus on the rules for implementing the global agreement. The exact approach to avoid emission reductions by more than one country is an area where there are significant differences of opinion. It is closely related to the idea of double counting under Article 6.2, with both questions arising on what is considered “within” as “outside” the scope of a country`s PNPC, given that some promises cover only part of the economy. The three separate mechanisms – in accordance with Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.8 – have all become part of the Paris Agreement by recognising the different interests and priorities between the parties to the Agreement. These differences persist and need to be replaced again if the regulatory framework provided for in Article 6 is to be agreed. Although Article 6.7 provides that the annual COP must adopt “rules, modalities and procedures” for the carbon market, in accordance with Article 6.4, there are differences of opinion as to the extent of national control over its operation compared to the UN Supervisory Board, which signs each draft or methodology. 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 placed on the market under Article 6.4. Richie Merzian, a former Australian climate diplomat who now works at the Australia Institute, said Morrison was increasingly associated with Donald Trump and Brazil`s Jair Bolsonaro as the main culprits, who were not affected by the fires in New South Wales, California and the Amazon. The United States has formally announced its intention to leave the Paris Agreement next year. The professors, all from Australian universities, argued that the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement were “totally separate treaties”.