The idea portrayed by headlines like the one below (from an article in the Wall Street Journal article*) - that carbon credits can't reduce emissions - only serves to further cloud the good efforts that carbon credits programs are capable of achieving.
Yes, it's possible that a modest, non-compensation carbon tax (which is currently carbon credits) won't significantly alter the behavior large emitters. This is especially true in light of the profit margins from generating fossil fuels or emitting carbon. It's more likely that the less costly renewables will have a greater impact on our dependence on fossil fuels than taxing them.
The current emissions crisis is a serious issue. To comprehend the significance of carbon credits however it is necessary to move beyond looking at the Income Statement and look at our Balance Sheet. Particularly, our Long-Term Carbon Debt.
If Planet Earth were to maintain a Balance Sheet, and we were required to record on our Asset column, our most basic needs such as physical security, food security, water availability etc... and in our long Team entry for debt, the accrued levels of greenhouse gas as well as the extreme levels of soil organic carbon depletion in our agricultural lands and the awe-inspiring levels of degradation of the most efficient carbon storage area such as the mangrove forests along the coast, it would be clear from any reading of that balance sheet that our present situation is not the result of just one year's emissions. If this were a company's balance statement, insolvency would surely be on the agenda.
This is the reason why I believe any headline that includes carbon offsets or emission decrease is a lie. The issues are being faced by climate change aren't only due to carbon emissions. It could also be the result of decades (centuries) of inefficient farming practices. poor farming practices, mangrove removal pollution, as well as other errors are all part and parcel of the issue.
What's the extent of the extent of the damage? About half to 65% of the mangrove forests of the click here world have disappeared or been significantly diminished. Numerous farms around the world have lost as high as 80 percent of the soil organic carbon, threatening the security of food.
This is the reason why we need to move away from the "triplebottom-line" to the current and accrued balance sheet. Consider carbon credits as an "balancesheet adjustment item" for this total debt. They aren't just a tax today's emissions. A(carbon) credit could be used to decrease the (carbon) debt.
What can be done to reduce this amount of debt?
These are easy solutions. Here's an example. CarbonNation has an CarbonNation blue fund. It aims to restore and preserve mangroves. These mangrove forests need significant funding in order to scale. For example the 15,000-hectare mangrove that must be planted could require between USD2,500 to USD4,500 per hectare. It also requires three years of careful cultivation by local communities.
Also, onshore fisheries need better alga-based filters so that the waste of nitrogen and phosphorus is removed and the yield and quality of the produce enhanced.
After the forest has matured and the plants emerge and carbon credits are created. Carbon credits are used to repay the principal as well as dividend to investors. What are the benefits? Mangrove cover increases, which means an equal amount of fish (fish breed in the mangroves because they are protected from predators) is one of the major sources of income for many coastal communities.
Mangroves with more mangroves provide more protection from the rising tides and erosion of coastal areas. As most people know by now, mangroves offer up to 50x better carbon sequestration than low-density forests. Yes, the machines that extract carbon from the atmosphere and then store it in the ground are futuristic-looking. But mangroves do this for millions of years and supply us with food.
Fund has received significant funds in addition to other partnerships to support the initiatives. However, additional partners are always welcomed to get in touch with the fund.
This article was written well. However, my problem is the negative tone and misinformation in its headline. This, based upon the article's text suggests that the editor may have altered or added to the headline.