The topic of "gavelling through" the 6.4 rules is actually even more egregious than this report suggests - it was the work of a subsidiary committee that if legal COP rules were followed, would have to go before the larger assembly for discussion and debate. Apparently, some in the committee and or COP senior staff feared that if properly discussed, these rules would fail, so they slipped them in in an underhanded manor. That s insulting to the entire process and reduces (even further) the credibility of the COP meetings. And having now locked in these 6.4 mechanisms, which support an ineffective regime of offsets, it is very difficult to now correct the course and initiate better systems. Of course, that was the objective of the "gavelling through."
The topic of "gavelling through" the 6.4 rules is actually even more egregious than this report suggests - it was the work of a subsidiary committee that if legal COP rules were followed, would have to go before the larger assembly for discussion and debate. Apparently, some in the committee and or COP senior staff feared that if properly discussed, these rules would fail, so they slipped them in in an underhanded manor. That s insulting to the entire process and reduces (even further) the credibility of the COP meetings. And having now locked in these 6.4 mechanisms, which support an ineffective regime of offsets, it is very difficult to now correct the course and initiate better systems. Of course, that was the objective of the "gavelling through."