Carbon Offsetting in order to be "carbonneutral" only procrastinates real change.

http://www.cheatneutral.com/

If you don't understand carbon offsetting, check out cheatneutral to get the perfect analogy.

Carbon offsetting is cheating!

-gina-

Post edited by: greeniac13, at: 05/13/2008

what a funny website, purchasing infidelity offsets, haha.

This website is hysterical, and I think it does an excellent job of satirizing the carbon neutralizing concept. I thought I was the only one who thought the idea of offsetting carbon use was bogus- but this underlines so many of the problems. It becomes so clear in the website that paying someone not to cheat or to emit less carbon is not the same thing as not doing it yourself. After all, if someone is able to reduce their carbon emissions they should do it anyway, even if you do not pay them too.
It reminds me of how back in the day (middle ages maybe?) rich people could pay the church to be absolved of their sins.
I also think that it is morally problematic to pay people in developing countries so that we can fly around the world with a clear mind- why should people in the U.S. have all the fun? We all have to reduce as much as we can.
It's all ridiculous. We have to take responsibility for our own actions.
If you want to donate money to a well-run, practical, culturally sensitive, morally responsible, successful project designed to reduce carbon emissions then more power to you, but don't do it to allow a clear conscious as you destroy the environment.

I think carbon trading is different. There is some sense in reducing carbon emission where it is easiest first. But this has the potential to work (although there are lots of problems with carbon trading as well) because there is a CAP on how much carbon can be emitted. If, before you took an extra plane trip you HAD to buy permission from someone who had the right to fly but was actively choosing not to, this might reduce the amount of carbon emmissions. It would still be a bizarre and unfair way to go about things, but at least it might achieve its objective.

While I think that this website is pretty funny, I don't know if it is exactly a good analogy for carbon offsets. I will definitely admit that carbon offsetting is a short-term solution and should not, by any means, be a license for people to pollute as much as they want. We should be mindful about energy use and reduce what we can. That being said, there are still energy needs that must be met, and, given our current infrastructure, are likely to be met with the help of fossil fuels. We do not yet have an infrastructure in place that can provide for the quality of life that most Americans are used to without relying heavily on fossil fuels.

That's where carbon offsets can make a big difference. By purchasing carbon offsets, individuals, businesses and organizations can fund new renewable energy projects and carbon mitigation technologies, thereby helping to establish a clean energy infrastructure. For example, see (http://www.nativeenergy.com/pages/our_projects/14.php) where you can actually see and read about renewable energy projects that are funded by carbon offset purchases. Renewable energy, for example, is still more expensive than fossil fuel sources (which, of course, do not include the environmental costs in their price); however, as more renewable energy power sources are established and more research is conducted, the more affordable clean energy becomes for everyone.

I don't think that most people are purchasing carbon offsets to appease their guilty conscience and pollute as much as they want. I think most people purchase carbon offsets because they care about the environment and want to lessen their impact, but don't have the resources to build their own renewable energy system or reduce all of their electricity use. Hopefully, someday our government will implement a mandatory cap and trade system and there will be a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Until then, we might as well all chip in to establish clean energy technologies and provide for a clean energy future, even if it is "cheating."

The laughable aspect of carbon offsets is that people who are polluting are getting the message that they may continue to pollute so long as they are "neutral" by paying money into a Carbon Offset company.
That's absurd.

It's better to just reduce polluting habits in the first place. (i.e. to parallel cheat neutral, just don't cheat.)

If you want to help others to reduce their habits, or support renewable energy, go ahead and make a donation, but it's not an excuse to pollute even more. Don't delude yourself into thinking you've actually cancelled out the pollution.

Renewable energy projects like the one you mentioned are not laughable, the energy projects on www.nativeenergy.com are sustainable and aim to achieve real change, but unfortunately they are packaging it as a guilt salve just the same as cheatneutral. That's not the right way to characterize it.

I firmly believe that you must be misguided and the service that you truly support is really REC's and other renewable energy projects, but not the Carbon Offset cottage industry as a whole.

Or is it possible that you are really in support of the way the carbon offset industry is marketing change as a guilt salve?

I recently heard about someone who was going to have a wedding in another country and wanted to offset the air travel so they could claim their wedding was "green". I think that's delusional. Clearly they are setting themselves up for failure if they are trying to have a "green" wedding. It's absurd!

I understand the argument that you (and cheat neutral) are trying to make, and I agree with it to a certain extent. However, I think there is more to the story (i.e. not everyone who purchases carbon offsets is doing it so that they can pollute as much as they want and still claim to be an environmentalist).

I think that the problem you are really targeting is one with current culture- a culture of convenience that encourages Americans to consume, pollute, and look for short cut solutions (such as, perhaps, carbon offsets).

I am simply defending the idea of carbon offsets for what I see them as- a short term solution that is funding real change and real renewable energy projects and carbon mitigation projects around the world.

I agree with your statement “It's better to just reduce polluting habits in the first place. (i.e. to parallel cheat neutral, just don't cheat.),” but I just don’t believe that it is completely feasible for everyone to do, especially for businesses that exist to make a profit (whether that is a good thing or not). I applaud you if you are completely carbon neutral on your own just by reducing your energy consumption. I know that I have tried to reduce my energy and electricity consumption as much as possible, but I have not found it possible to completely eradicate my carbon footprint. For example, as much as I try to eat local, it isn’t totally possible- so there are carbon emissions attached to a lot of the food I eat. Or I have to get to work or to school and so I need to take public transportation. Also, even though I have cut down on my usage of electricity, I still use lights, and hot water, and I am using electricity to power my computer right now. For these things, for the things that I cannot completely get rid of feasibly, I purchase carbon offsets. If I could build my own renewable energy system and power all of my electricity needs and if I could grow my own food and walk everywhere I needed to go- that would be ideal and hopefully someday that can be realized. Until then, carbon offsets are a way to help me make a positive difference.

You mentioned RECs. I am a big fan of RECs, and I think RECs and carbon offsets complement each other. The main difference between carbon offsets and RECs, from what I understand, is that RECs represent an amount of renewable energy that is going into the power grid, while carbon offsets actually represent a decrease in carbon emissions- whether it is through renewable energy or other carbon mitigation techniques like capturing methane or planting trees. RECs can represent a reduction in carbon emissions as well, but it isn’t necessarily inherent in the definition. Both carbon offsets and RECs could then theoretically serve as “guilt salves” for peoples consciences. Or, they could both serve as practical options for people who are trying to reduce environmental impact. Obviously, the best thing to do is to reduce consumption, but when you can’t reduce your consumption, both RECs and offsets offer a practical way to contribute towards a cleaner future.

Perhaps you are correct that carbon offsets should not be marketed or characterized the way that they currently are, but I think that is just an issue of semantics. Whether I am becoming “carbon neutral” or not by purchasing carbon offsets, the reality is that new carbon-mitigating projects are being built and these projects may not have been built without the assistance of carbon offset sales and companies like 3Degrees or Native Energy, for example. I don’t think any carbon offset company is selling carbon offsets as ‘a way to pollute as much as you want and still feel okay about it.’ Perhaps that’s the way that it is perceived, and if so, you are completely right; it is an absurd idea.

The only reason I wanted to make a distinction about this is that I would hate for carbon offsets to be discredited. I have seen some of the good results of carbon offset sales and I am pleased that more people are aware of the issues of climate change and excited about mitigating environmental footprint by purchasing carbon offsets.

American lifestyles are absurd. Always needing to consume more and have more and travel more. These things are absurd. But I don’t believe that carbon offsets in themselves are a bad idea. It is a short term solution- it is a way to build an infrastructure of clean, non-polluting power and technologies that capture carbon dioxide. A long term solution is changing the way that people think and consume, but I have hope that that will also change.