The idea in headlines such as the one below that carbon credits won’t cut emissions (from a Wall Street Journal* article) only serves to make doubt the great work credit programs can do.
Yes, it's true that the effect of a small tax, mostly voluntary that is the same as carbon credits are currently - is not likely to be a major influence on the behaviour of the majority of emitters, especially when compared with the profits to be made from generating fossil fuels and emitting carbon. It is likely that more affordable renewables will ultimately have a bigger impact on decreasing our dependence of fossil fuels, than taxes.
Today, emissions are a major issue. However, to fully appreciate the importance and value carbon credits it's essential to look past the Income Statement. Instead it is better to look at the Balance Sheet. We should be focusing on our Long-Term Carbon Debit.
If Planet Earth maintained a Balancesheet and we were required to list our basic requirements, like food security, water security, physical security and so on. as well as our Long Team entry for debts, including our total debt and extreme levels of organic carbon in soils from farms, and the remarkable degree of degrading mangrove coastal carbon storage areas It would be clear that this current predicament is not the result of the emissions of a single year.
Therefore, any headline that mentions carbon offsets is a lie. Climate change's problems aren't just due to carbon emissions however, they can also be traced back to years (or even hundreds of years). poor farming practices, the utter destruction of mangroves and pollution and many other sins.
What's the magnitude of the destruction? Mangrove forests across the globe have seen a loss of between 50 percent to 65percent. Numerous farms around the world have lost as high as 80% soil organic carbon, which is threatening food security.
That's why we should shift our focus away from to the "triple-bottom line" to the accrued interest on balance sheets. Carbon credits are a "balancesheet adjustment item" for the total debt. They are not simply 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 our delinquency?
It's not hard to discover the answer. Here's an example. CarbonNation Blue is a CarbonNation fund. This fund focuses on one easy, yet efficient goal that is to help restore and protect mangroves. Mangrove forests require substantial investment to ensure they can grow. For example the 15,000-hectare mangrove that must be planted will require between USD2,500 and US4,500 per hectare. It will also require three years of careful cultivation by the local communities.
Further, nearby onshore fisheries are required to be equipped with more effective algae-based filtering methods to ensure that the nitrogen and waste phosphorus produced can be filtered out and the quality of the produce improved.
Once this time has passed after which carbon credits are generated. Carbon credits can be used to repay of principal , as well as a return of the investment to investors. This also includes the community, which are the primary beneficiaries of the investment at the beginning. What is the upside to these financial benefits? Mangrove cover increases, which means increased fish. Fish reproduce in mangroves and they provide the income that check here is important for numerous coastal communities.
Higher protection from coastal erosion and rising waters is made possible by the presence of more mangroves. As most people know by now, mangroves offer more than 50 times better carbon sequestration rates than lower density forests. Yes, machines pulling carbon from the atmosphere and storing it underground are impressively futuristic-looking - however, mangroves have been doing it for millions of years, and providing us with food over the same amount of time.
The fund has already secured substantial funds and partners to support these efforts. However, you're still invited to join more partners.
The article has been thoroughly researched and written. My issue with it is its negative headline. This is based upon text in the article and suggests that it was added or modified by an editor.