The idea that carbon credits won’t reduce emissions, as suggested by headlines like the one below (from a Wall Street Journal article*) is only serving to diminish the good work that carbon credit programs do.
It's true that the effect of a small tax, mostly voluntary like carbon credits are currently - is not likely to affect in a significant way the behaviour of the majority of emitters - especially compared to the income that could be made from generating fossil fuels and emitting carbon. It is likely that more affordable renewables are likely to have a larger impact on decreasing our dependence of fossil fuels, than taxes.
Today, emissions are a major issue. But, to understand the importance and significance carbon credits it's essential to look past the income Statement. Instead, we should be looking at our Balance Sheet. Particularly, our Long Term carbon debt.
If Planet Earth had to maintain the Balancesheet, we included Helpful site in our Asset columns our basic needs , such as food security, physical security, and access to water. Also, in our Long Team debt entries the amount of greenhouse gas that we have accumulated and the massive quantity of organic matter in soil removal from our farms, and the staggering amounts of degradation to our most effective carbon storage sites - our coastal mangrove trees, it would quickly reveal that our present situation has nothing to do with the emissions of a single season.
Therefore, any headline that mentions carbon offsets is misleading. Climate change's issues are not only caused by carbon emissions but are traceable back to years (or even centuries). of poor agricultural practices, a flurry of deforestation, mangrove removal and pollution, and a variety of other crimes.
What is the extent and severity of the destruction? Around 50 to 65percent of the mangrove forests in the world are gone, or significantly damaged. Many farmlands around the globe have lost up to 80 percent of their organic matter from soil and to the point where food security is in danger.
We must change our perspective away from the "triple bottom line" and instead focus on the accrued credit on the balance sheet. Consider carbon credits as a "balance sheet item for adjustment" in relation to the total debt, not simply a tax on today's emissions. A credit (carbon) that can be used to reduce the amount of (carbon debt.
How can we cut the amount of debt?
It's not difficult to find the answers. Here's an illustration. CarbonNation's funds family has set up the CarbonNation Blue fund to restore and protect mangroves. To allow mangrove forests to be scaled, significant funding is required. For replanting one hectare of forest, you will need between USD2,500 to USD4,500 per person. Additionally to this, three years of diligent cultivation by local communities will be needed.
To reduce the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen waste produced, the adjacent onshore fisheries must be fitted with efficient filtering systems based on algae. This will ensure better quality produce.
When the forest matures and plants begin to emerge with carbon credits, they are produced. These carbon credits can be used to return the principal amount, as well as a return for investment, to investors. What is the upside to these financial advantages? Mangroves offer a higher quantity of cover for fish and, consequently, there's more money to be earned. A lot of coastal communities depend on mangroves for their livelihoods.
More mangroves mean greater protection against rising tides and coastal erosion. As most people know that mangroves provide up to 50x higher carbon sequestration rates than low-density forests. Yes, the machines that pull carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it underground are impressively modern-day-looking, but mangroves have been doing it for thousands of years and even providing us with food over the same amount of time.
The fund has already secured substantial funding and other partnerships for these efforts, but more partners are welcome to get in contact.
*This article is very written, thoroughly researched however I am not happy with the headline. Based on the text of the article I believe that it may have been modified or added by the editor rather than the journalist.