The notion, as portrayed in headlines such as this (from an article in the Wall Street Journal Article*), that carbon credits won't reduce emissions is a attempt to hide the positive impact carbon credits programs have accomplished.
It's true that a small, voluntary tax like carbon credits is unlikely to have any significant effect on the behavior of major emitters in particular when compared with the profits from producing fossil fuels, and the release of carbon. It's probably more likely that less expensive renewable sources will, over time, result in a greater impact on reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, rather than taxing emissions.
Today, emissions are a major issue. However, in order to appreciate the importance and value of carbon credits, it's important to look beyond the Income Statement. Instead it is better to look at our Balance Sheet. Our Long Term Carbon Debt.
If Planet Earth had a Balance Sheet and we listed in our Asset column the essential requirements (physical security, food availability, etc.) and also in our long Team Debit entries our accumulated greenhouse gas emissions, the extreme soil organic carbon loss from agricultural land and the shocking level of destruction to the most efficient carbon storage region mangrove forests along the coast, it would become clear that our current dilemma is not the result of one single year of emissions. Insolvency could be an issue should Planet Earth had a balance account.
This is the reason I believe that any headline containing carbon offsets or emission decrease is a lie. The problems that we're seeing with climate change don't have to be due to carbon dioxide. It can also be a result of decades (centuries) of poor farming practices. Poor farming practices, rampant destruction of mangroves, pollution and many click here other wrongs.
What's the extent of the mangrove forest's damage? About half to 65 percent of mangrove forests in the world are gone or have been drastically diminished. In many areas of the world, farmlands have lost as much as 80 percent of their soil organic carbon to the point that food security is in danger.
This is the reason we must move from the "triplebottom-line" to the accrued and current debt on our balance sheet. Instead of being an emission tax now, think of carbon credits as an item of adjustment to the balance sheet. A (carbon credit) is a credit that can be used to lower (carbon) and debt.
What can be done to reduce this credit?
The answer is straightforward. Let's consider an example. CarbonNation's funds family has established CarbonNation Blue, a CarbonNation Blue fund that aims to restore and protect mangroves. Mangrove forests require significant investment to ensure they can grow. For example, a 15,000-hectare forest which must be planted would require between USD2,500 and US4,500 for each hectare. It will also require three years' careful cultivation by local communities.
Additionally, it is necessary to provide more efficient algae-based fisheries for the nearby area to ensure that any phosphorus or nitrogen wastes can be eliminated as well as the quality of the produce can be enhanced.
As the forest grows, the alga plants come operational carbon credits will be created. They can be utilized to repay the principal and pay back investors who invested. The community is the main beneficiary of the initial stage of investment. What are the benefits of these financial advantages? A greater mangrove cover means more fish which is a significant source of income for many coastal communities.
Higher protection from coastal erosion and rising waters can be achieved through the use of more mangroves. And as almost everyone knows that mangroves provide more than 50 times better carbon sequestration than low-density forests. Yes, machines that extract carbon from the air and storage it underground are stunningly modern-day-looking, but mangroves have been doing this for millions of years, and also providing us with food over the same period of time.
The fund has already secured significant funding and other partners to support these initiatives. However, you are still welcome to connect with other partners.
The article is well-written and well researched. My problem is its headline that is misleading and negative. It is based upon the text of the article and could have been changed or modified by the editor.