The idea that carbon credits don't help reduce emissions, as suggested by headlines such as the one below (from an article from the Wall Street Journal article*) is only serving to obscure the amazing work carbon credit programs can do.
It's true that a small, voluntary tax, such as carbon credits, is not likely to have any significant effect on major emitters' behavior in particular when compared with the income generated from the production of fossil fuels and emitting carbon. It's probably more likely that less expensive renewable sources will eventually have more of an effect on reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, rather than taxing those emissions.
The current emissions are a major issue. However, carbon credits are important. It is time to go beyond the income Statement to concentrate on the Balance Sheet. More specifically, we need to look at our Long Term Carbon Debt.
If Planet Earth had a Balance Sheet, we would have listed in our Asset column our essential necessities (physical security, food security and so on.) and also in our Long Team Debit entries our accumulated greenhouse gas levels, extreme soil organic carbon depletion from farms, and the shocking levels of destruction to the most efficient carbon storage area mangrove forests along the coast, it would become clear that our current predicament is not the result of one single year of emissions. Insolvency could be in the cards should Planet Earth had a balance book.
This is the reason I believe that any story that includes carbon offsets and emission reductions is misleading The issues we're seeing in the wake of climate change are not simply the result of carbon emissions, but rather decades (centuries?) of poor agricultural practices, a flurry of deforestation, mangrove removal , pollution, and a variety of other crimes.
What is the extent of the destruction? About half to 65 percent of mangrove forests of the world have disappeared or been significantly diminished. Numerous farms around the world have lost more than 80 percent soil organic carbon and are threatening the security of food.
This is why we must move from the "triplebottom-line" to the current and accrued balance sheet. Instead of being a tax on our emissions today, think about carbon credits as an item of adjustment to the balance sheet. A (carbon credit) that can be used to reduce (carbon) and debt.
What can we do to reduce the amount of debt?
These are easy to answer. Here is an example. CarbonNation BLUE is a CarbonNation fund, was created to do one thing very simple and highly effective: protect and restore mangroves. For mangroves to be sustainable, forests require substantial funds. A 15,000-hectare mangrove Check over here that needs to be replanted would cost between USD2,500-USD4,500 per ha. The investment is paired with three years of careful cultivation in the local area.
Furthermore, it is essential to offer more efficient algae-based filtering systems for fisheries in the vicinity to ensure that any phosphorus or nitrogen wastes can be eliminated and the quality of the produce can be enhanced.
As the forest matures, the algae plants will be online, carbon credits will begin to be produced. They can be used to repay the principal as well as pay back investors who invested. The community is the primary beneficiary of the initial phase of investment. What are the benefits? Increased mangrove cover leads to greater fish. Fish reproduce in mangroves and it provides a source of income which is essential for many coastal communities.
Better protection from rising tides, coastal erosion is feasible with more mangroves. Mangroves are capable of storing carbon up to 50 times that of low-density forests, as most people know. Although the machines that extract carbon from the air and store it in underground storage look modern Mangroves have been doing exactly the same since the beginning of time. Mangroves also supply food to us for the same time.
Fund has secured significant funding, as well as other partnerships to support the efforts. However, any additional partners are always welcome to reach out to the fund.
This article is well written and thoroughly researched. My issue is with the headline, that is misleading and negative. It is based on the text of the article and could have been altered or modified by the editor.