The suggestion in headlines like the one shown below, that carbon credits will not reduce emissions (from a Wall Street Journal* article) is a way to doubt the great work credit programs can do.
It is true that the tax is small and voluntary, such as carbon credits, is not likely to have an impact on major emitters' behavior particularly when compared to the profits from producing fossil fuels, and the release of carbon. It's more likely that less expensive renewables are more likely to have an impact on our dependence on fossil fuels over taxing them.
The current emissions crisis is a serious issue. To comprehend the significance of carbon credits, however, we must move beyond the income Statement and take a look at our Balance Sheet. And more specifically, our long-term carbon debt.
If Planet Earth had a Balance Sheet, we would have listed in our Asset column our essential needs (physical security, food security etc.) and also in our long Team Debit entries our accumulated greenhouse gas emissions, the extreme soil organic carbon loss from farms and the alarming levels of degradation to the best carbon storage zone Mangrove forests on the coast and the Mangrove forests of the coast, it will become apparent that our current dilemma does not result from one single year of emission. Insolvency could be in the cards should Planet Earth had a balance book.
Thus, any headline that includes carbon offsets is misleading. The climate change issues are not only the result of carbon emission however, they can also be traced back to decades (or even hundreds of years). Poor agricultural practices are the biggest problem as is widespread deforestation, mangrove loss as well as a myriad of other sins.
What is the magnitude and extent of the extent and severity of the damage? The mangrove forests of 50% to 65% have gone extinct or have been severely degraded. The farms in many regions of the world have lost more than 80% of their soil organic carbon to the point that food security is at risk.
This is the reason we have to move our thinking away from "triple-bottom-line" to the accrued balance sheet debt. Carbon credits can be considered as a "balance sheet adjustment item" that relates to the total debt and is not only a tax on current emissions. A(carbon) credit could be used to decrease the (carbon) debt.
What can we do to lower the burden of this debt?
The answer is simple. Let's look at an example. CarbonNation's family of funds has created a CarbonNation Blue fund that aims to restore and preserve mangroves. Mangrove forests require substantial funds to be able to grow. For instance one hectare of mangrove forest that needs to be replanted will require between USD2,500 and USD4,500 per hectare. Additionally, it will require three years of meticulous cultivation by local communities.
In addition, fisheries that are onshore require better and more efficient filtering methods based on algae so that the nitrogen/phosphorus waste can be eliminated, and the yield and quality of the products are improved.
After the forest has matured and plants begin to emerge and carbon credits are created. These carbon credit could be used to pay back the principal as well as dividend Browse around this site to the investors. The upside is more than just financial benefits. Mangroves can provide a larger amount of fish cover so there's more revenue. A lot of coastal communities depend on mangroves for their source of income.
Greater protection against rising tides and coastal erosion is possible with more mangroves. As almost everyone already knows, mangroves provide more than 50 times the carbon sequestration than low-density trees. Yes, technology that takes carbon out of the air and storing it underground is modern, but mangroves have been doing this for millions of people, providing food for the community for many years.
The fund has been able to secure substantial funds and partnership agreements, more partners are encouraged to get in touch with the fund.
*This article was actually well-written. But, the issue I have is with the negative tone and inaccurate information in the headline. This, based upon the content of the article suggests that the editor could have changed or added the headline.