The idea that carbon credits don't help lower emissions, as suggested by headlines like that below (from an article in the Wall Street Journal article*) will only serve to diminish the good work carbon credit programs can do.
It is true that carbon credits are not likely to have an effect on the behavior and emissions of major emitters. This is especially in comparison to the profits generated from the production of fossil fuels. It's likely that accessible renewable energy sources will ultimately have a bigger impact on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels than taxes.
Our emissions today are a major issue. To understand the importance carbon credits it is necessary to move beyond looking at the income Statement and look at our Balance Sheet. Particularly, we need to look at our Long-Term carbon debt.
If Planet Earth had to maintain a Balancesheet and we were listed in our Asset columns our basic requirements would be food security, physical security and water availability. Also, in our Long Team debt entries the accumulation of greenhouse gas and the massive amount of soil organic matter removal from our farms, as well as the The original source shocking levels the degradation of the most efficient carbon storage sites the mangroves along our coast It will soon be apparent that our current situation has nothing to do with a single season's emissions.
That's why I think any headline that mentions carbon offsets or emission losses is false. The problems with climate change that we are experiencing are not due to carbon dioxide emissions. They have been affecting us for decades. poor farming practices, widespread deforestation, mangrove destruction and pollution are just one of the many causes of climate change.
What extent is the damage? About half to 65 percent of mangrove forests in the world have disappeared or been significantly damaged. In many areas around the globe have lost as much as 80 percent of the organic carbon in their soils to the point at which food security is under threat.
This is the reason why we need to move away from the "triplebottom-line" to the current and accrued debts on our balance sheet. Consider carbon credits as a "balance sheet adjustment item" that is a part of this total debt, not simply a tax on the present's emissions. A credit (carbon) that can be used for the reduction of (carbon] debt.
How can we reduce the amount of debt?
The answer is easy. Let's take an instance. CarbonNation Blue is an CarbonNation fund. The fund's mission is one easy, yet efficient goal is to protect and restore mangroves. Mangrove forests require significant funding in order to scale. For instance one hectare of mangrove forest that requires replanting would require between USD2,500 and USD4,500 per hectare. It will also require three years of meticulous cultivation by local communities.
Furthermore, local onshore fisheries must be equipped with improved techniques for removing algae so that nitrogen and phosphorus are removed from the water and that the quality of produce is enhanced.
After this period is over after which carbon credits are generated. These carbon credits can be used to repay of principal , as well as a return of investment to investors. This includes the community, who are also principal investors in the initial stage. The financial benefits aside which are the advantages? Mangroves that cover more land will mean more fish which is a significant source of income for many coastal communities.
A greater number of mangroves will provide better protection against coastal erosion and increasing sea levels. Everyone knows, mangroves provide up to 50x more carbon sequestration rates than low density trees. Yes, machines pulling carbon from the air and the storage underground is impressively modern-day-looking, but mangroves have been doing this for thousands of years and providing us with food for the same period of time.
The fund has already received substantial funding and partnerships for its efforts. Any interested partners are invited to contact us.
The article is actually very well written. But, the issue I have is with the negative tone and misinformation in the headline. This, based upon the article's text suggests that the editor could have changed or added the headline.