The suggestion that carbon credits will not reduce emissions, as suggested by headlines such as the one below (from an article in the Wall Street Journal article*), only serves to cloud the great job carbon credit programs accomplish.
Yes, it is it is. However, the small, voluntary tax that is carbon credits hasn't been a significant influence on the actions of many major emitters, particularly contrasted to the profit made by fossil fuels. It's more likely than not that taxing carbon emissions can have a greater effect on reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
Today's emissions pose a problem. However, carbon credits are crucial. We need to move beyond the income Statement and focus on the Balance Sheet. More specifically, we need to look at our Long Term Carbon Debt.
If Planet Earth were to maintain a Balance Sheet, and we were asked to include in our Asset column our basic needs: physical security, food security, water supply, etc... as well as also in our long Team entry for debt, the accrued amounts of greenhouse gases, the extreme level of soil organic carbon depletion from our farms and the staggering extent of degrading our best carbon storage areas - the coastal mangrove forests It is evident from any examination of the balance sheet that our current situation is not the result of one year's emissions: if this were a company's balance report, insolvency would be on the agenda.
This is the reason I am of the opinion that any story that contains carbon offsets and emission reductions is misguided - the problems we're witnessing caused by climate change aren't just the result of carbon dioxide emissions. They are the result of decades (centuries?) of poor farming practices, massive deforestation, mangrove removal , pollution, and a host of other sins.
What is the extent and the severity of the damage? Between 50 and 65% worldwide's mangrove forests are gone, or severely degraded. Numerous farms across the globe have lost as much as 80 percent of their organic matter from soil and to the point where food security is at risk.
This is the reason we need to shift our focus away from to the "triple-bottom line" to the accrued interest on the balance sheets. Instead of being an emission tax today, think about carbon credits as an item of adjustment to the balance sheet. A (carbon) credit can help reduce (carbon) debt.
How can we reduce the burden of debt?
It's not difficult to find the answers. Here's an illustration. CarbonNation BLUE CarbonNation BLUE, one of the funds in the CarbonNation fund, has been designed to accomplish a task that is that is simple and extremely effective protecting and restoring mangroves. Mangrove forests require significant Check out this site investment to ensure they can grow. For instance the 15,000-hectare mangrove that needs to be replanted would require between USD2,500 and US4,500 for each hectare. It will also require three years of careful cultivation by local communities.
Furthermore, it is essential to provide more efficient algae-based filters for nearby fisheries so that any phosphorus and nitrogen wastes can be eliminated and the quality of the produce can be improved.
When you reach the end of this time frame when the forest is mature and algae plants are brought online carbon credits are generated that can be utilized to repay the principal and an investment return to investors, which includes the community, who are the main beneficiaries of the first stage of investment. What is the upside to these financial benefits? Mangroves offer a higher amount of fish cover so there's more money to be earned. A lot of coastal communities depend on mangroves to provide their source of income.
More mangroves mean more protection from the rising tides and erosion of coastal areas. Most people are aware that mangroves offer more than 50 times the carbon sequestration than low-density trees. Although the machines that extract carbon from the air and store it in underground storage appear futuristic, mangroves have been doing the same thing for millions of years. They also provide food to us for the same time.
Although the fund has secured significant funding as well as other partnerships, more partners are encouraged to contact the fund.
*This article was actually well-written. My issue is with the negative tone and inaccurate information in its headline. This, based upon the text of the article suggests that the editor may have added or changed the headline.