The idea, echoed in headlines such as this (from a Wall Street Journal Article*) that carbon credits won't lower emissions is simply another way to obscure the good work carbon credits programs have achieved.
It's true that an insignificant, voluntary tax like carbon credits is unlikely to have a significant impact on the actions of major emitters in particular when compared with the profits from producing fossil fuels, and the release of carbon. It is likely that more affordable renewables are likely to have a larger impact on decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels than taxes.
Emissions today are a problem. However, in order to appreciate the significance and value of carbon credits, it's crucial to look beyond the income Statement. Instead it is better to look at the Balance Sheet. The focus should be on our long-term carbon Debit.
If Planet Earth had to maintain a Balancesheet and we were listed as an asset in the Asset columns our basic needs such as food security, physical security and water availability. In our Long Team debt entries , we were able to see the accrued amounts of greenhouse gas and the massive quantity of organic matter in soil depletion of our farms as well as the shocking amounts of degradation to our most efficient carbon storage sites such as our mangrove forests along the coast rapidly become apparent that our current situation has nothing to do with the emissions of a single season.
It is due to this that I believe any headline that includes carbon offsets or emission reductions is misleading. The challenges we're seeing with regard to climate change is not just the result of carbon emissions, but also the result of decades (centuries). poor farming practices are the biggest problem as is widespread deforestation, mangrove loss as well as a myriad of other sins.
What is the extent and the severity of the destruction? 50% to 65percent of the mangrove forests in the world are either gone or have been seriously degraded. The farms in many regions of the world have lost more than 80 percent of their soil organic carbon to the point that food security is in danger.
This is why we need to shift our focus away from "triple-bottom-line" to the accrued balance sheet debt. Consider carbon credits as a "balancesheet adjustment item" to account for the total debt. They aren't just a tax today's emissions. A(carbon) credit could be used to decrease the (carbon) debt.
What can we do to lower the burden of this credit?
These are simple answers. Here's one illustration. CarbonNation's family of funds has created a CarbonNation Blue fund that aims to restore and preserve mangroves. For mangrove forests to become large-scale, a significant amount of money is required. To replant an area of 15,000 hectares it will require between USD2,500 to USD4,500 per person. In addition three years of meticulous cultivation by the local community is needed.
Also, onshore fisheries need better alga-based filters to ensure that waste nitrogen and phosphorus is removed and the quality and yield of the product is increased.
At the end of this time frame, as the forest matures and the algae plants begin to grow carbon credits are created that can be utilized to pay back the principal as well as an investment return to the investors, including the community, who are the main beneficiaries of the first stage of investment. What are the advantages? A greater mangrove canopy is equivalent to a commensurate amount more fish (fish breed in the mangroves as it protects them from predators) - one of the major sources of income for a lot of coastal communities.
More protection against rising tides and coastal erosion is possible by planting the presence of mangroves. Everyone knows, mangroves provide the same carbon sequestration than low-density trees. Yes, machines that pull carbon out of the air and then store it in the ground are futuristic-looking. However, mangroves can do this for millions years and supply us with food.
The fund has secured significant funds and other partnerships to support here this effort, but additional partners are invited to connect.
This article is well written and well-researched. My problem is the headline, which is negative and misleading. It is based upon the text of the article and could have been changed or modified by the editor.