The assertion made 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 work that carbon credit programs are capable of doing.
Yes, it is the case. However, the small voluntary tax that's carbon credits hasn't had any significant impact on the actions of many major emitters, particularly when contrasted with the earnings from the production of fossil fuels. It's more likely than not that taxing carbon emissions can have a greater impact on reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
The emissions we produce today pose a challenge. However, in order to appreciate the importance and significance carbon credits it's crucial to look beyond the income Statement. Instead it is better to look at the Balance Sheet. It is time to focus on our Long-Term Carbon Debit.
If Planet Earth maintained a Balancesheet and we were required to record our essential requirements, like food availability, physical security, water security and more., and our Long Team Debt entries our total debt and extreme levels of soil organic carbon loss due to farms, and the remarkable degrading of coastal mangrove forest carbon storage areas It would be clear that this situation wasn't caused by a single-year's emissions.
This is the reason I think that any story that contains carbon offsets and emission reduction is misleading - the problems we're witnessing in the wake of climate change aren't just caused by carbon dioxide emissions. They are the result of decades (centuries?) Mangrove removal pollution, among other sins are all part of the problem.
What extent is the damage? Mangrove forests all over the world have seen a loss of between 50 percent to 65%. The farms in many regions around the globe have lost more than 80 percent of their organic carbon content in soil to the point at which food security is under threat.
This is the reason we need to move away from the "triplebottom-line" to the current and accrued balance sheet. Instead of being an emission tax now, think of carbon credits as an item of adjustment for the balance sheet. A credit (carbon) is a credit that could be used to lower the cost of (carbon] debt.
What can be done to reduce the amount of amount of debt?
These answers are quite simple. Here's an illustration. CarbonNation The BLUE fund is an CarbonNation fund. The fund's focus is one basic, but effective goal is to protect and restore mangroves. To allow mangrove forests to be large-scale, a significant amount of money is required. In order to replant one hectare of forest it will require between USD2,500 and USD4,500 per head. Additionally to this, three years of diligent cultivation by local communities will be needed.
Further, nearby onshore fisheries require to be supplied with more efficient algae-based filtering solutions so that the nitrogen and phosphorus waste produced can be filtered out, as well as the quality of the food improved.
When you reach the end of this period when the forest is mature and the algae plants come online carbon credits are generated, which can be used to return the principal plus an investment return to investors, as well as the community. They are the main beneficiaries of the first stage of investment. What are the advantages? More mangrove cover equates to a commensurate amount more fish (fish breed in the mangroves, as it keeps them safe from predators) is one of the primary income sources for many coastal communities.
More mangroves equate to more protection from the rising tides and erosion of coastal areas. Most people are aware mangroves can provide the same carbon sequestration rates than low density trees. Yes, the idea of machines taking carbon out of the air get more info and then storing it in the ground are modern, but mangroves have been doing this for millions and providing food to the community for many years.
The fund has secured substantial financing and partnerships for the efforts, however more partners are encouraged to get in contact.
*This article is actually very thorough and well-written. My issue is with the negative and somewhat misleading tone of its headline, that, based on the content of the piece, I believe may have been added or modified by the editor rather than the journalist.