The suggestion, made by headlines such as this one (from a Wall Street Journal Article*) that carbon credits won't lower emissions is simply another method of obscuring the good work carbon credit programs have done.
Yes, it is true. But, the tiny voluntary tax that's carbon credits hasn't had any significant impact on the conduct of major emitters, particularly when compared with the profits made from producing fossil fuels. It's more likely than not that taxing carbon emissions can have a larger impact on reducing the dependence of fossil fuels.
Today's emissions can be a challenge. But carbon credits are essential. We must move beyond the income Statement to concentrate on the Balance Sheet. Particularly, our long-term carbon debt.
If Planet Earth was to keep a Balance sheet and listed our essential needs in the Asset column along with our long-term debt entry, our greenhouse gas emissions that we have accrued and our alarming levels of soil organic carbon loss due to our farmlands and the incredible destruction of coastal mangrove forests, any reader would see that our current problems are not due to a single year's worth of carbon emissions.
It is due to this that I think any story that mentions offsets for carbon or reductions in emissions is false. The issues we are seeing in relation to climate change is not just the result carbon emissions but also the result of decades (centuries). Poor farming practices and mangrove removal, pollution and other errors are all part and parcel of the problem.
How extensive is the damage? Mangrove forests ranging from 50% to 65% have gone completely, or are seriously degraded. In many areas of the globe, farms have been able to lose up to 80 percent of their soil organic carbon, to the point where food security is in danger.
This is the reason we have to shift our focus away from "triple-bottom-line" to the accrued debt on the balance sheet. Carbon credits are a "balancesheet Visit this site adjustment item" to account for the total debt. They are not simply an emissions tax that is currently in effect. Credit (carbon) is a credit that could be used for the reduction of (carbon debt.
What can we do to reduce this amount of debt?
It's not hard to figure out the right answer. Here's an example. Within the CarbonNation fund family, we have created the CarbonNation BLUE fund that seeks to accomplish a simple but extremely effective thing: restore and protect mangroves. These mangrove forests require significant funds to be able to scale them up - a 15,000-hectare forest that must be replanted requires between USD2,500 and USD4,500 per hectare, in addition to three years of diligent cultivation by local communities.
To reduce the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen waste produced, the adjacent fishing grounds on the shore should be outfitted with effective algae-based filtering systems. This will ensure more nutritious and high-quality produce.
After this time, as the forest matures and algae plants are brought online carbon credits are generated that can be utilized to return the principal plus an investment return to investors, which includes the community. They are the main recipients of the first phase of investment. The benefit is not only financial rewards. Increased mangrove cover leads to increased fish. Fish reproduce in mangroves and they provide the income that is important for the majority of coastal communities.
More protection against rising tides and coastal erosion is possible by planting greater mangroves. Mangroves are capable of storing carbon at up to 50 times the rate of low-density forests and are well-known to the general public. Yes, technology that takes carbon from the atmosphere and then storing it in the ground are amazing, but mangroves have been doing this for millions, providing food for the entire community for a long time.
Fund has secured significant funding, as well as other partnerships to help support these efforts. However, additional partners are always welcome to contact the fund.
This article was written well. My issue is with the negative tone and inaccurate information in its headline. Based on the text of the article suggests that the writer may have altered or added to the headline.
