The idea that carbon credits don't help reduce emissions, as suggested by headlines like the one below (from an article in the Wall Street Journal article*), only serves to diminish the good work that carbon credit programs do.
It's the case. However, the small voluntary tax that's carbon credits has not had any significant impact on the behavior many major emitters, especially when contrasted with the earnings by fossil fuels. It's more likely than not that taxing emissions will have a more significant impact on reducing the dependence of fossil fuels.
Today's emissions are a problem. To understand the importance carbon credits however it is necessary to move beyond the Income Statement and look at our Balance Sheet. And more specifically, our long-term carbon debt.
If Planet Earth were to maintain a Balance Sheet, and we were required to record on our Asset column, our most basic needs such as physical security, food security, availability of water, etc... and in our long Team Debt entries the accrued amounts of greenhouse gas, the extreme level of soil organic carbon loss from our farms and the awe-inspiring extent of degrading our most efficient carbon storage areas such as the mangrove forests along the coast, it would be clear from any analysis of that balance sheet that the current predicament is not the result of one year's emissions: if it were a balance sheet, insolvency would be on the list.
Thus, any headline that includes carbon offsets is a lie. Climate change's problems are not just caused by carbon emissions but can be traced back to years (or even centuries). Poor farming practices are the biggest problem as is widespread deforestation, mangrove loss and a host of other crimes.
What's the magnitude of the damage? Half to 65 percent of mangrove forests in the world are gone or have been drastically diminished. Many farmlands around the globe have lost up to 80 percent of their soil organic matter, to the point that food security is at risk.
This is why we must shift our focus from to the "triple-bottom line" to the accrued interest on balance sheets. Consider carbon credits more of an adjustment to the balance sheet that is related to total debt rather than a tax on today’s emissions. Carbon credit can be used to reduce (carbon-related) debt.
How can we reduce the amount of debt we owe?
They are straightforward solutions. Here's one example. CarbonNation BLUE is a CarbonNation fund. This fund focuses on one easy, yet efficient goal is to protect and restore mangroves. In order to achieve the scale of mangroves, forests require substantial funds. A 15,000-hectare mangrove that must be replanted will cost between USD2,500 to USD4,500 per ha. The investment is combined with three years of careful cultivation in the local community.
Additionally, it is necessary to offer more efficient algae-based filters for nearby fisheries so that any phosphorus and nitrogen waste can be removed as well as the quality of the produce can be enhanced.
As the forest matures over the future years as algae plants begin to grow carbon credits are made accessible. These credits could be used to provide an investment return and a return on the principal to community investors. The benefit is not simply financial gains. Mangrove cover increases, which means the same amount of fish (fish breed in the mangroves as it keeps them safe from predators) which is one of the major income sources for many coastal communities.
Mangroves with greater numbers protect erosion of the coast and rising tides. Mangroves can store carbon at up to 50 times the rate of forests that are low-density, as most people know. Although the machines that extract carbon from the atmosphere and store it underground look modern Mangroves have been doing exactly the same process for thousands of years. Mangroves also supply us with food in the same way.
The fund has secured significant financing and also other partners for its efforts. However, you're still welcome to contact more partners.
*This article is actually very researched and well-written. My problem is with the negative Take a look at the site here and somewhat misleading tone of its headline which, in light of the text of the piece, I suspect might have been added or modified by the editor, rather than the journalist.