The idea that carbon credits don't help lower emissions, as suggested by headlines like that below (from an article in the Wall Street Journal article*), only serves to obscure the amazing work that carbon credit programs do.
It's true that an insignificant, voluntary tax, such as carbon credits is unlikely to have a significant impact on major emitters' behavior particularly when compared to the earnings from producing fossil fuels and releasing carbon. It's more likely than not that taxing emissions will have a more significant impact on reducing the dependence of fossil fuels.
The current emissions crisis is a serious issue. To comprehend the significance of carbon credits however, we must move beyond the income Statement and look at our Balance Sheet. The focus should be on our Long Term Carbon Debit.
If Planet Earth was to keep an account of its balance sheet, and list our essential requirements in the Asset column and also our long-term debt entry, our accrued greenhouse gases as well as our extreme levels of soil organic carbon loss due to our farmlands and the incredible destruction of coastal mangrove forests Anyone who reads this report will realize that our current predicament is not due to a single year's worth of carbon emissions.
This is the reason I believe any headline that mentions offsets for carbon and loss of emission is a lie. The problems with climate change we see are not the result of carbon dioxide emissions. They have been affecting us for decades. Poor farming practices, widespread deforestation, mangrove destruction and pollution are but one of the many sins that contribute to climate change.
How severe is the damage? Half to 65 percent of the mangrove forests in the world are gone or have been drastically diminished. The farms in many regions of the world have lost as much as 80% of their organic carbon content in soil to the point that food security is in danger.
This is the reason we need to shift our thinking from the "triple-bottom line" to the accrued interest on the balance sheets. Consider carbon credits as an "balance sheet adjustment item" that is a part of this total debt, and not simply a tax on the present's emissions. Carbon credit can be used to reduce (carbon-related) the amount of debt.
How can we cut down on the amount of debt?
These are simple answers. Here's an example. CarbonNation has a CarbonNation blue fund. Its goal is to save and restore mangroves. For mangrove forests website to become large-scale, a significant amount of money is needed. In order to replant an area of 15,000 hectares the required amount is between USD2,500 and USD4,500 per head. Additionally, three years of careful cultivation by local communities is required.
Additionally, the local onshore fisheries must be improved with algae-based methods of filtering to ensure that phosphorus and nitrogen are removed from the water and that the quality of produce improves.
As the forest matures over coming years, and the algae plants start to grow carbon credits will become available. They are a great investment return and some return on principal, which is paid to community investors. What are the benefits of these financial advantages? The mangrove canopy is growing, leading to more fish. Fish breed in mangroves and provide a source of income which is essential for the majority of coastal communities.
More mangroves equate to greater protection against the rising tides and erosion of coastal areas. Mangroves are able to store carbon at up to 50 times that of forests that are low-density and are well-known to the general public. Yes, machines pulling carbon from the air and storing it underground are impressively modern-day-looking, but mangroves have been doing it for millions of years, and even providing us with food over the same amount of time.
The fund has secured significant funds and partners to support these efforts. However, you are still invited to join more partners.
*This article is very well-written, researched however I have a problem with its headline. Based on the article's text I think it could have been altered or edited by the editor, rather than the journalist.
