The idea portrayed by headlines like the one below (from an earlier Wall Street Journal article*) the idea that carbon credits can't reduce emissions - just serves to undermine the positive work carbon credits programs are capable of accomplishing.
It's it is. However, the tiny voluntary tax of carbon credits has not had a major effect on the behavior many major emitters, especially when contrasted with the earnings from producing fossil fuels. It's more likely that less expensive renewable sources will eventually be more effective on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels than taxing those emissions.
The current issue with emissions is a serious one. But, to fully appreciate the value of carbon credits we must put aside income statements and instead look at the balance sheet. And more specifically, our Long-Term Carbon Debt.
If Planet Earth was to keep the Balance sheet, it would list our essential needs in the Asset column, as well as our long-term debt entries, our greenhouse gases that have been accumulated as well as our extreme levels of soil organic carbon loss due to our farms and the staggering levels of degradation in coastal mangrove forests Any reader will see that our current problems are not the result of one year's worth of emissions.
It is due to this that I believe that any headline that includes carbon offsets or emission reductions is incorrect. The problems we are experiencing with regard to climate change are not only carbon emissions. It's also decades (centuries). of poor farming practices, rampant deforestation, mangrove removal and pollution, and a variety of other sins.
How extensive is the extent of damage to mangrove forests? Mangrove forests across the globe have been wiped out by between 50% and up to 65%. A lot of areas of the world's agricultural land have lost as much as 80 percent of their soil carbon, which has led to food security being threatened.
This is the reason why we have to shift from the "triplebottom-line" to the current and accrued debts on our balance sheet. Instead of being a tax on our emissions now, think of carbon credits as an item of adjustment to the balance sheet. Credits for carbon can be a (carbon) credit that Additional resources can aid in reducing (carbon) debt.
How can we cut down on the amount of debt?
These are easy to answer. Here is an example. CarbonNation has an CarbonNation blue fund. Its goal is to restore and preserve mangroves. These mangrove forests require significant investment to reach their full potential - a 15,000-hectare forest that needs to be planted will require between USD2,500 and USD4,500 for each hectare in investment, and three years of meticulous cultivation by the local community.
To reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus waste generated, the nearby fishing grounds on the shore should be outfitted with efficient filtering systems based on algae. This will allow for higher quality food products.
At the end of this period as the forest matures and algae plants are brought online carbon credits are created that can be utilized to pay back the principal as well as a return on investment to investors, as well as the community - who also are the main beneficiaries of the first stage of investment. Apart from the financial benefits, what is the upside? Increased mangrove cover leads to greater fish. Fish breed in mangroves and provide a source of income which is essential for many coastal communities.
More mangroves equate to better protection from the rising tides and erosion of coastal areas. Everyone knows that mangroves offer the same carbon sequestration rates that low-density trees. Although the machines that extract carbon from the air and store it in underground storage look futuristic mangroves have been doing exactly the same process for thousands of years. Mangroves also supply food for us in the same way.
The Fund has received significant funding and partnerships for its efforts. More partners are welcome to contact us.
*This article is very well-written, researched and researched, but I do have a problem with its headline. Based on the text of the article I believe that it may have been modified or added by the editor rather than by the journalist.