The suggestion in headlines like that below, that carbon credits don't reduce emissions (from a Wall Street Journal* article) is a way to doubt the good work that credit programs can achieve.
It's true. But, the tiny, voluntary tax that is carbon credits has not had any significant impact on the actions of many major emitters, especially when contrasted to the profit made from producing fossil fuels. It is more likely that the less costly renewables are more likely to have an influence on the dependence of 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 looking at the Income Statement and look at our Balance Sheet. More specifically, our carbon debt in the long run.
If Planet Earth had a Balance Sheet, and we were able to list in the Asset column the essential needs (physical security, food supply etc.) and also in our long Team Debit entries our accumulated greenhouse gas emissions, the extreme soil organic carbon depletion from farmlands, and the shocking levels of degradation to the best carbon storage region - the coastal Mangrove forests, it would become clear that our current situation does not result from just one year of emission. Insolvency is on the agenda in the event that Planet Earth had a balance sheet.
This is the reason that I believe any article that mentions carbon offsets or emission reductions is misleading. The issues we are experiencing in the context of climate change is not just the result of carbon emissions, but also decades (centuries). Poor farming practices, rampant destruction of mangroves, pollution and many other wrongs.
How widespread is the extent of the damage? About 50% to 65percent of the mangrove forests in the world are gone, or destroyed. Many farmlands around the globe have lost more than 80% of their organic matter in the soil, to the point that food security is in danger.
This is the reason it's crucial to shift our attention from the triple-bottom line to the accrued credit in the balance sheet. Think of carbon credits as an "balance sheet item for adjustment" that is a part of this total debt, rather than simply a tax on the present's emissions. A (carbon credit) that is able to be used to lower (carbon) and debt.
What can we do to reduce our debt?
It's not hard to find the answers. Here's an example. CarbonNation's funds family has set up the CarbonNation Blue fund to help restore and protect mangroves. These mangrove Visit this website forests require significant investment to reach their full potential - a 15,000 hectare forest that has to be replanted requires between USD2,500 to USD4,500 per hectare of investment, as well as three years of careful cultivation by local communities.
Also, onshore fisheries need better and more efficient filtering methods based on algae to ensure that waste nitrogen and phosphorus can be eliminated, and the yield and quality of the produce enhanced.
When you reach the end of this period as the forest matures and the algae plants begin to grow carbon credits are created, which can be used to pay back the principal as well as the investment's return to investors, which includes the community. They are the main beneficiary of the initial stage of investment. What are the advantages of these financial advantages? Mangrove cover increases, which means greater fish. Fish breed in mangroves and it provides the income which is essential for many coastal communities.
Mangroves that are more dense provide protection from coastal erosion and rising tides. As most people already know, mangroves have a 50x higher carbon sequestration rate than low-density forests. Although the machines that extract carbon from the atmosphere and store it underground seem futuristic mangroves have been doing exactly the same thing for millions of years. They also provide us with food for the same time.
The fund has already secured significant funding and other partnerships for this effort, but additional partners are welcome to get in contact.
This article is thorough, well-researched, and I have a problem with the headline. Based on the article's text I think it could be altered or edited by the editor, rather than by the journalist.
