The idea that carbon credits will not reduce emissions, as suggested by headlines like the one below (from an article from the Wall Street Journal article*) is only serving to cloud the great work carbon credit programs can do.
It's true that the effects of a modest tax, mostly voluntary like carbon credits currently are - is unlikely to be a major influence on the behaviour of the majority of emitters, especially when compared with the profits to be made by generating fossil fuels as well as emitting carbon. It's likely that more accessible renewable energy sources will eventually have a greater impact on decreasing our dependence of fossil fuels, than taxes.
Today's emissions can be a challenge. However, carbon credits are crucial. We must move beyond the Income Statement and focus on the Balance Sheet. And more specifically, our Long Term Carbon Debt.
If Planet Earth were to maintain a Balance Sheet, and we were asked to include in our Asset column the basic needs we have such as physical security, food security, water availability etc... as well as in our Long Team entry for debt, the accumulated levels of greenhouse gas and the extreme rate of organic carbon in soil depletion from our farmlands, and the astonishing levels of degradation of our best carbon storage areas such as the mangrove forests along the coast, it would be clear from website any reading of that balance sheet that the current situation is not the result of just one year's emissions. If it were a balance report, insolvency would be on the list.
Thus, any headline that includes carbon offsets can be misleading. Climate change's issues are not just the result of carbon emission however, they can also be traced back to decades (or even centuries). poor agricultural practices, the massive destruction of mangroves, pollution and many other crimes.
What's the extent of the damage to mangrove forests? Mangrove forests all over the world have seen a loss of between 50 percent and up to 65%. A lot of farms around the world have lost up to 80 percent of their soil organic matter and to the point where food security is at risk.
This is why it is essential to shift our focus on the triple-bottom line and the accrued credit on the balance sheet. Carbon credits can be considered as a "balance sheet item for adjustment" that is a part of the total debt and not just a tax on current emissions. Carbon credits are a (carbon credit) that can be used in order to lower (carbon) and debt.
What can we do to reduce the amount of debt?
It's not hard to find the answers. Here's an illustration. CarbonNation's funds family has established the CarbonNation Blue fund to help restore and preserve mangroves. In order to scale up these mangrove forests, they require substantial funds. A 15,000-hectare area of forest will need to be replanted and the investment will range between USD2,500 to USD4,500 per ha. This is in addition to three years of meticulous cultivation and support from local communities.
Additionally, the local onshore fisheries need to be provided with better algae-based methods of filtering to ensure that phosphorus and nitrogen can be removed from the waters and the produce is enhanced.
After the forest has matured and the plants emerge with carbon credits, they are produced. Carbon credits could be used to pay back the principal as well as dividend to the investors. What are the advantages? A higher mangrove cover will yield more fish, which is a major source of income for many coastal communities.
Mangroves with higher density protect rising tides and coastal erosion. As almost everyone already knows, mangroves provide up to 50x more carbon sequestration rates than low density trees. While machines extracting carbon from the atmosphere and underground storage look futuristic, mangroves have been doing this for thousands of years and decades and continue to supply us with food.
The fund has secured significant financing and also other partners to support these initiatives. However, you're still welcome to connect with more partners.
This article is well-written and researched - my problem is the negative and slightly misleading tone of its headline that, based on the text of the article, I believe could have been altered or added by the editor rather than the journalist.