The assertion in headlines, such as that below, that carbon credits will not reduce emissions (from a Wall Street Journal* article) is a way to doubt the good work that credit programs can do.
It is true that carbon credits aren't likely to have an effect on the emissions and behavior of major emitters. This is especially in contrast to the profit that is generated from the manufacture of fossil fuels. It's more likely that less expensive renewables will have a greater influence on the dependence of fossil fuels over taxing them.
Today's emissions pose a Visit this site problem. But carbon credits are essential. It is time to go beyond the Income Statement to focus on the Balance Sheet. Particularly, our long-term carbon debt.
If Planet Earth maintained a Balancesheet and we were required to list our basic needs, such as food security, water security, physical security and more. Also, our Long Team debt entries, our accrued levels and extreme levels of soil organic carbon loss from farms, and the staggering levels of degradation of coastal mangrove forest carbon storage areas, it would be obvious that the current situation is not the result of a single-year's emissions.
Which is why I am of the opinion that any story that contains carbon offsets and emission reductions is misguided and the issues that we're experiencing in the wake of climate change aren't simply the result of carbon dioxide emissions. They are the result of rather decades (centuries?) Poor farming practices, rampant destruction of mangroves, pollution and many other crimes.
What is the extent of the destruction? The mangrove forests of 50 to 65% have either gone completely, or are seriously degraded. In many places around the globe, farms have lost as much as 80 percent of their organic soil carbon, to the point where food security is at risk.
This is the reason why we need to move away from the "triplebottom-line" to the accrued and current balance sheet. Consider carbon credits as an "balance sheet adjustment item" that is a part of this total debt, not just a tax on our current emissions. Credit (carbon) which can be used for the reduction of (carbon] debt.
How can we reduce the amount of debt we owe?
It's not hard to figure out the right answer. Here's an illustration. Within the CarbonNation fund family we've created the CarbonNation BLUE fund that seeks to do a very easy but extremely effective thing that is to protect and restore mangroves. In order to achieve the scale of mangroves, forests require substantial funds. A mangrove forest of 15,000 hectares that needs to be replanted would cost between USD2,500 and USD4,500 per hectare. The investment is paired with three years of careful cultivation in the local area.
In addition, fisheries that are onshore require better alga-based filters so that the nitrogen/phosphorus waste is removed and the quality and yield of the products are improved.
As the forest matures over future years, and the algae plants begin to expand carbon credits will become available. They are a great investment return and an income on the principal, to the community investors. The benefits are more than simply financial gains. The increase in mangrove coverage will result in a larger amount of fish. Mangroves protect fish from predators. Mangroves are among the major sources of income for a lot of coastal communities.
More mangroves equate to more protection from the rising tides and erosion of coastal areas. Mangroves are able to store carbon up to 50 times the rate of forests with low density, as most people know. Yes, machines that pull carbon from the atmosphere and store it underground are futuristic-looking. Mangroves have been doing this for thousands of years and provide us food.
The Fund has received substantial funding and partnerships for its work. More partners are welcome to connect.
This article is thorough in its writing and research. My issue with it is the negative headline. It is based on text in the article and suggests it was added or changed by an editor.