The idea that is often portrayed in headlines like the one below - that carbon credits won't reduce emissions - only obscures the good work that carbon credits programs are able of.
It is true that the tax is small and voluntary like carbon credits is unlikely to have any significant effect on the behavior of major emitters in particular when compared with the income generated from the production of fossil fuels, and the release of carbon. It is probable that using less expensive renewables will over time result in greater impact than taxing carbon emissions.
The current emissions are a major issue. However, carbon credits are essential. We need to move beyond the Income Statement to concentrate on the Balance Sheet. Particularly, our long-term carbon debt.
If Planet Earth was to keep the Balance sheet, it would list our essential needs in the Asset column and also our long-term debt entries, our greenhouse gas emissions that we have accrued as well as our extreme levels of soil organic carbon loss due to our agricultural land and the astronomical degrading levels in the coastal mangrove forests, any reader would see that our current problems are not due to a single year's worth of carbon emissions.
This is the reason why I believe any headline that mentions offsets of carbon or reductions in emissions is a lie. The problems that we're experiencing with climate change don't have to be due to carbon emissions. It can also be a result of years (centuries) of inefficient farming practices. poor farming practices, massive mangrove destruction, deforestation and pollution are only a few of the many errors that lead to climate change.
What is the extent of the extent of the damage? Mangrove forests across the globe have seen a loss of between 50 percent to 65%. A lot of areas of the world's agriculture have lost more than 80 percent of their soil carbon, which has led to food security being threatened.
This is the reason we have to shift our perspective from "triple-bottom-line" to the accrued balance sheet debt. Think of carbon credits as a "balancesheet adjustment item" for the total debt. They are not simply an emission tax for today's climate. An (carbon) credit that can help reduce (carbon) debt.
How can we cut the amount of debt?
These answers are quite simple. Here is an example. CarbonNation has a CarbonNation blue fund. It aims to save and restore mangroves. Mangrove forests require substantial investment to ensure they can grow. For example, a 15,000-hectare forest which must be planted could require between USD2,500 to USD4,500 per hectare. It also requires three years of careful cultivation by the local communities.
Additionally, onshore fisheries in the vicinity will need to be provided with better algae-based filters to ensure that the nitrogen and phosphorus waste produced can be filtered out as well as the quality Visit this site of produce can be improved.
When the forest matures and plants grow, carbon credits are generated. These carbon credit could be used to pay back principal, plus a return for investment, to investors. Apart from the economic benefits, what's the advantage? An increase in mangrove cover will lead to a greater amount of fish. Mangroves keep fish safe from predators. This is among the main sources of income for a lot of coastal communities.
A greater number of mangroves means better protection against coastal erosion and rising sea levels. Mangroves are fifty times more efficient in carbon sequestration than lower density forests, which almost everyone is aware of. Yes, the machines that extract carbon from the atmosphere and store it underground look futuristic. Mangroves have been doing this for millions years and also provide us with food.
The fund has already secured substantial financing and also other partners for these efforts. However, you are still invited to join more partners.
This article is well-written and researched - my issue is with the somewhat misleading and negative tone of the headline that, based on the content of the piece, suggests that it might have been added or modified by the editor rather than the journalist.