The suggestion in headlines like that below, that carbon credits don't reduce emissions (from an article in the Wall Street Journal* article) is a way to doubt the great work credit programs can do.
Yes, it's true that the impact of a tiny and mostly voluntary tax - which is what carbon credits currently are - is unlikely to have a large-scale effect on the behavior of many major emitters, particularly when compared to the profits to be made by generating fossil fuels as well as emitting carbon. It's possible that using less expensive renewables will over time have a greater effect than the tax on carbon emissions.
The current emissions are a major issue. But carbon credits are important. We need to Visit this page 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 basic needs in the Asset column, as well as our long-term debt entries our greenhouse gas emissions that we have accrued as well as our extreme amounts of organic carbon in soil loss from our farms and the staggering levels of degradation in mangrove forests along the coast Any reader will see that our current problems are not the result of a single year's worth of carbon emissions.
This is the reason I think that any story that contains carbon offsets and emission reductions is misguided The issues we're seeing in the wake of climate change are not simply caused by carbon emissions, but decades (centuries?) poor farming practices pose a serious threat and so is the apex of deforestation and mangrove destruction, along with a multitude of other crimes.
What is the extent and the severity of the extent and severity of the damage? The mangrove forests of 50% to 65% have either gone extinct or have been severely degraded. A lot of areas of the world's farmlands have lost upto 80 percent of the carbon in their soils and this has resulted in the food security of our planet being in danger.
This is the reason why we must move from the "triplebottom-line" to the current and accrued balance sheet. Think of carbon credits more as a balance sheet adjustment item that is related to total debt rather than a tax on today’s emissions. A(carbon) credit that can be used to reduce the (carbon) debt.
How can we cut down our credit?
They are straightforward solutions. Here's an illustration. Within the CarbonNation group of funds we've established a CarbonNation Blue fund, which aims to do a very easy but extremely effective thing: restore and protect mangroves. In order for mangrove forests to become sustainable, substantial funding is required. To replant one hectare of forest the required amount is between USD2,500 and USD4,500 per head. Additionally three years of meticulous cultivation by the local community is required.
In addition, fisheries that are onshore require better alga-based filters so that the waste of nitrogen and phosphorus can be removed, and the yield and quality of the produce enhanced.
After this period as the forest matures and the algae plants begin to grow carbon credits are generated that can be utilized to return the principal plus the investment's return to investors, which includes the community, who are the main beneficiary of the initial stage of investment. What are the benefits? Mangroves offer a higher quantity of fish habitat and, consequently, there's more revenue. A lot of coastal communities depend on mangroves to provide their source of income.
Better protection from rising tides, coastal erosion is possible by planting the presence of mangroves. Mangroves are able to store carbon at up to 50 times the rate of forests with low density, as most people know. Although machines that extract carbon from the air and store it in underground storage look modern Mangroves have been doing the same since the beginning of time. They also provide food for us for the same time.
Fund has secured significant funding, as well as other partnerships to support these efforts. However, any additional partners are always welcome to contact the fund.
*This article is actually very thorough and well-written. My problem is with the somewhat misleading and negative tone of its headline, which, in light of the text of the article, suggests that it could be added or altered by the editor, rather than the journalist.