The notion that carbon credits won’t reduce emissions, as suggested by headlines like that below (from an article in the Wall Street Journal article*) will only serve to diminish the good job carbon credit programs do.
Yes, it is possible that a small non-compensation carbon tax (which is currently carbon credits) won't have a big-scale impact on the actions of major emitters. This is especially true in light of the profits made from producing carbon emissions from fossil fuels. It's more likely that taxing carbon emissions can have a larger effect on reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
Emissions today are a problem. However, to fully appreciate the importance and value carbon credits it is essential to look past the Income Statement. Instead we must look at the Balance Sheet. More specifically, our carbon debt over the long term.
If Planet Earth were to maintain a Balance Sheet, and we were asked to include in our Asset column the basic needs we have including food security, physical security, availability of water and so on... as well as in our Long Team Debt entries the levels of greenhouse gas and the extreme rate of soil organic carbon loss from our farmlands and the awe-inspiring levels of degradation of our best carbon storage area - the coastal mangrove forests, it would be clear from any analysis of that balance sheet that the current predicament is not the result of a single year's emissions. If the balance sheet of a business were to reflect this statement, insolvency would surely be on the list.
Thus, any headline that includes carbon offsets is misleading. Climate change's problems aren't just caused by carbon emissions however, they can also be traced back to decades (or even centuries). of poor agricultural practices, a flurry of deforestation, mangrove removal , pollution, and a host of other sins.
What is the magnitude and extent of the extent and severity of the damage? 50% to 70% of the mangrove forests in the world have disappeared or been significantly degraded. The vast majority of farmlands have lost upto 80% of their carbon content in soil that has led to food security being threatened.
This is why we need to move away from the "triplebottom-line" to the accrued and current debt on our balance sheet. Consider carbon credits as an "balancesheet adjustment item" for this total debt. They're not just an emission tax for today's climate. A(carbon) credit that could be used to decrease the (carbon) debt.
What can we do to reduce this debt?
These are easy solutions. Here's an example. CarbonNation has an CarbonNation blue fund. It aims to restore and preserve mangroves. Mangrove forests require significant investment to ensure they can grow. For example the 15,000-hectare mangrove that requires replanting will require between USD2,500 and USD4,500 per hectare. It will also require three years' careful cultivation by the local communities.
In addition, the local fisheries onshore must be equipped with improved techniques for removing algae to ensure that phosphorus and nitrogen can be eliminated from the water and that the quality of produce is improved.
After this period is over after which carbon credits are generated. These carbon credits Visit this link could be used to repay of the principal amount as in return for the investment to investors. This is also true for the community as the principal beneficiary of the investment in the first stage. The benefit is not only financial rewards. A higher mangrove cover will yield more fish which is a significant source of income for many coastal communities.
Higher protection from coastal erosion and rising waters can be achieved through the use of more mangroves. Everyone knows, mangroves provide up to 50x more carbon sequestration rates than low density trees. While carbon extraction machines from the air and underground storage look futuristic mangroves have been doing this for millions and years , and they continue to supply our bodies with food.
The fund has secured substantial funding and other partners to support these efforts. But, you are still invited to join additional partners.
The article is actually very well written. My issue is the negative tone and misinformation in its headline. This, based upon the content of the article suggests that the writer may have altered or added to the headline.