The notion, as portrayed in headlines such as this (from an article in the Wall Street Journal Article*) that carbon credits won't lower emissions is simply another method of obscuring the positive impact carbon credit programs have done.
It's the case that carbon credits are not likely to have an effect on the emissions and behavior of major emitters. This is especially in contrast to the earnings that result by the production of fossil fuels. It is more likely that less expensive renewables will have more impact on our dependence on fossil fuels than taxing them.
The present emissions issue is serious. However, in order to fully understand the importance of carbon credits, we have to not be looking at income statements and instead look at the balance sheet. Our long-term carbon debt.
If Planet Earth was to keep a Balance sheet and listed our essential requirements in the Asset column, as well as our long-term debt entries, our accrued greenhouse gases as well as our extreme amounts of organic carbon in soil loss due to our farms and the staggering degrading levels in the mangrove forests in the coastal zone Anyone who reads this report will realize the fact that our current situation is not due to a single year's worth of carbon emissions.
That's why I am of the opinion that any story that contains offsets for carbon and emission reductions is misguided The issues we're seeing related to climate change aren't simply caused by carbon emissions, but decades (centuries?) of poor farming practices, rampant deforestation, mangrove removal , pollution, as well as a myriad of other crimes.
What is the magnitude and extent of the destruction? Around 50 to 70% of mangrove forests worldwide are gone, or damaged. Many areas of the world's agricultural land have lost as much as 80% of the carbon in their soils that has led to food security being threatened.
This is the reason we need to shift our thinking from to the "triple-bottom line" to the interest that is accrued on the balance sheets. Carbon credits can be thought of as an "balance sheet item for adjustment" that is a part of the total debt and is not simply a tax on the current emissions. An (carbon) credit that could help reduce (carbon) debt.
What can we do to reduce this amount of debt?
The answer is simple. Let's look at an instance. Within the CarbonNation group of funds we've created the CarbonNation Blue fund, which aims to do one very simple but highly effective thing that is to protect and restore mangroves. Mangrove forests require substantial investment to ensure they can grow. For instance, a 15,000-hectare forest which requires replanting will require between USD2,500 and US4,500 for each hectare. Additionally, it will require three years of careful cultivation by local communities.
In addition, fisheries that are onshore require better and more efficient filtering methods based on algae so that the waste of nitrogen and phosphorus can be eliminated, and the yield and quality of the product is increased.
When the forest matures and the plants emerge with carbon credits, they are produced. Carbon credits are used to repay the principal amount, as well as a dividend to the investors. These financial benefits aside which are the advantages? Mangrove cover increases, which means greater fish. Fish reproduce in mangroves and they provide an income source that is important for the majority of coastal communities.
Better protection from rising tides and coastal erosion Click here! is possible with the presence of mangroves. Mangroves are capable of storing carbon at fifty times the rate of forests that are low-density and are well-known to the general public. Although the machines that extract carbon from the atmosphere and store it underground seem like they're from the future, mangroves have been doing exactly the same thing for millions of years. Mangroves also supply food to us for the same time.
The Fund has received substantial funding and partnerships for its efforts. Any interested partners are invited to connect.
*This article has been very thoroughly researched and written. One issue I have with it is the negative headline. This is based on text in the article and suggests it was added or modified by an editor.