The idea in headlines such as that below, that carbon credits don't reduce emissions (from a Wall Street Journal* article) just serves to doubt the great work credit programs can accomplish.
Yes, it's true that the impact of a tiny and mostly voluntary tax - which is what carbon credits currently are - is not likely to have a large-scale effect on the behaviour of the majority of emitters, especially when compared with the earnings that can be earned by generating fossil fuels as well as emitting carbon. It's more likely that taxing emissions will have a greater impact on reducing the dependence of fossil fuels.
The current emissions crisis is a serious issue. To appreciate the importance of carbon credits we need to go beyond the Income Statement and examine our Balance Sheet. Particularly, we need to look at our Long-Term carbon Debt.
If Planet Earth was to keep an account of its balance sheet, and list our basic requirements in the Asset column, as well as our long-term debt entries our greenhouse gases that have been accumulated, our extreme levels of soil organic carbon loss from our farmlands and the incredible levels of degradation in coastal mangrove forests Any reader will see the fact that our current situation is not due to a single year's worth of carbon emissions.
This is the reason why I believe any headline that mentions offsets for carbon or a decrease in emissions is misleading. The issues we're experiencing with climate change aren't only due to carbon dioxide. It can also be a result of years (centuries) of poor agricultural practices. Poor farming practices and mangrove removal pollution, as well as other sins are all part of the issue.
How severe is the damage? Mangrove forests around the globe have seen a loss of between 50 percent to up to 65%. A lot of farms across the globe have lost as high as 80 percent soil organic carbon and are threatening the security of food.
It is time to shift our focus away from the "triple bottom line" and instead focus on the accumulation of credit on the balance sheet. Carbon credits are thought of as an "balance sheet item for adjustment" which is related to the total debt, not only a tax on current emissions. A credit (carbon) which can be used to reduce the amount of (carbon debt.
What can we do to reduce the amount of debt?
These are easy to answer. Here is an example. CarbonNation's funds family has set up a CarbonNation Blue fund to restore and protect mangroves. To scale these mangrove forests, you need significant funding. A 15,000-hectare forest will need to be replanted and this investment will take between USD2,500 to USD4,500 for each ha. This is in addition to three years of careful cultivation and the support of local communities.
It is also necessary to provide more efficient algae-based filtering systems for fisheries in the vicinity so that any phosphorus and nitrogen wastes can be eliminated as well as the quality of produce can be improved.
When this time period is finished, the carbon credits are created. Carbon credits can be used for the return of principal , as well as a return of capital to investors. This includes the community as the first beneficiary of the investment Hop over to this website in the initial stage. What are the advantages of these benefits to the financial? An increase in mangrove cover will lead to a greater quantity of fish. Mangroves keep fish safe from predators. It is one of the major source of revenue for many coastal communities.
More mangroves equate to greater protection against the rising tides and erosion of coastal areas. And as almost everyone knows by now, mangroves offer more than 50 times better carbon sequestration rates than lower density forests. Yes, machines that extract carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it underground are impressively futuristic-looking - but mangroves have been doing this for millions of years, and also providing us with food for the same amount of time.
Fund has received significant funds and other partnerships to aid these initiatives. But, partners are always welcome to contact the fund.
The article is well-written and researched - my problem is with the negative and slightly misleading tone of the headline and from the content of the article, I suspect could be added or altered by the editor, rather than the journalist.
