The notion, as portrayed in headlines such as this one (from a Wall Street Journal Article*), that carbon credits won't reduce emissions is just another attempt to hide the positive work that carbon credit programs have accomplished.
Yes, it's possible that a modest, voluntary carbon tax (which is currently carbon credits) will not be a major influence on the behaviour of the large emitters. This is especially true in light of the margins of profit from the production of fossil fuels or emitting carbon. It's likely that more affordable renewables will ultimately have a bigger impact on decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels than taxes.
Today's emissions pose a problem. But carbon credits are important. It is time to go beyond the income Statement to concentrate on the Balance Sheet. Our Long Term Carbon Debt.
If Planet Earth were to maintain an account of its Balance Sheet, and we were asked to include on our Asset column the basic needs we have including food security, physical security, water availability, etc... as well as then in our Long Team entry for debt, the accumulated amounts of greenhouse gases as well as the extreme levels of soil organic carbon depletion from our farmlands and the awe-inspiring degrading of the best carbon storage area - the coastal mangrove forests, it would be clear from any reading of that balance sheet that the current problem is not the consequence of a single year's emissions: if the balance sheet of a business were to reflect this statement, insolvency would surely be on the agenda.
So, any headline with carbon offsets is a lie. Climate change's issues are not just caused by carbon emissions but can be traced back to years (or even hundreds of years). poor farming practices, widespread deforestation, mangrove destruction , and pollution are just a few of the many sins that contribute to climate change.
What's the extent of the mangrove forest's damage? Between 50 and 70% of mangrove forests worldwide are gone or have been destroyed. Numerous farms around the world have lost as high as 80% soil organic carbon, threatening food security.
That's why we should shift our thinking from the "triple-bottom line" to the accrued interest on the balance sheets. Consider carbon credits as an "balancesheet adjustment item" to account for the total debt. They aren't just an emission tax for today's climate. A(carbon) credit can be used to reduce the (carbon) debt.
What can be done to reduce the burden of this credit?
The answer is simple. Let's take an example. CarbonNation's fund family has created a CarbonNation Blue fund that aims to restore and preserve mangroves. To scale these mangrove forests, they require massive funds. A 15,000-hectare area of forest must be planted and the cost will be between USD2,500 to USD4,500 per ha. This is in addition to three years of careful cultivation and the support of local communities.
Furthermore, local onshore fisheries need to be equipped with improved techniques for removing algae so that nitrogen and phosphorus can be removed from the water and that the quality of produce is enhanced.
As the forest grows over the next few years, and the algae plants begin to grow carbon credits will become available. They could be used to provide an investment return, as well as a return on the principal, which is paid to community investors. These financial benefits aside What are the benefits? The mangrove canopy is growing, leading to greater fish. Fish reproduce in mangroves and they provide the income that is important for many coastal communities.
Mangroves with higher density provide protection from coastal erosion and rising tides. Everyone knows mangroves can provide up to 50x more carbon sequestration rates than low density trees. Although machines that extract carbon from the air and store it in underground storage seem futuristic mangroves have been doing the same thing for millions of follow this link years. They also provide food for us for the same time.
The Fund has received substantial contributions and partnerships to support its efforts. Partners are encouraged to contact us.
*This article is actually very well-written and researched - my problem is the somewhat misleading and negative tone of the headline and from the text of the piece, I suspect might have been altered or added by the editor rather than the journalist.