SlimParker

I've had this sense for a while, for instance that paying $30 to a fund to offset your carbon on a commercial plane flight is much like being allowed to flog your dog because you give to the SPCA. Your participation in that flight irreversibly damages the environment. How could funding a tree in a banana plantation begin to reverse this damage? That's if your money ever gets anywhere close to an actual useful project instead of another misguided environmental farce or scam.Another facet of this is that, as with higher gas prices, the rich are the last ones in the game. You can "buy" your way out of any environmental responsibility if you are in the financial elite. At a corporate level, as long as you were profiting handsomely from your endeavours, you could afford to pollute as much as you want to, offsets will be just another cost of efficient, dirty business.Anyone want to try to persuade me otherwise?Thank you for all the thoughtful answers so far, O was particularly interested in the response by Agu-Luna, whose response looks like the "classic" rationale/pitch for this kind of scheme.What I perceive as the fatal flaw in offset theory is ignoring how humans think and act, in the most basic way, how we are driven by finding efficiencies in the system. In the scenario Boom paints, it inevitably becomes "worth it" for the company to come clean to save the carbon penalty: "At some point-perhaps right away-the bean counters are going to go, you know what, it is going to cost us $20 million to NOT install scrubbers, but if we DO install them, we can collect more revenue, it will maintain our margins, and we can advertise how environmentally responsible we are"No, if it it works out cheaper to do it dirty and pay carbon tax, you do it that way and engage a PR firm. It's the way oil companies work already.

robinchen2k

I agree. But hopefully the money that people give to make themselves feel better about driving SUVs DOES actually go to an environmental program, otherwise I would look down even more on this type of "activism."

MorganS

I hate to bore you with the Truth, Animal flatulence contains Methane..one of the trace gases that contribute to the 'greenhouse effect'...and AGW is a hoax, just another unique way to take money away from you...Climate Change is very real..and sucks for some, and good for others, to think humans could wield such power is arrogant.

NickelJohann

It is a bit like escaping your responsabilities to build roads and schools for the community (or cleaning the streets) and instead pay taxes through which this is going to be done....

mbs1960

In the Middle Ages you could buy indulgences that allow you to go right on sinning without any consequences. Today you can buy carbon offsets that allow you to go right on polluting without any guilt. Both actions were & are farces. Your example of guilt free beating of a dog because of a generous donation to the SPCA is spot-on. If you really are serious about Earth's climate being altered in a negative way by our activities, then you are insane or immoral to be a part of the 21th century tech that DEMANDS the use of energy. Oh and while you are at it give up meat, and get off Al Gore's Internet...!

cookie4551

Carbon offsets are a total scam.Great money making idea though.

DaveR8090

I am an electrician in Southern California and I see the hypocrisy every day. I work in neighborhoods with houses equipped with 9 AC units but there is a Prius parked out front. You wont see the Ferrari or the Hummer because they are parked in the garage out of site.you will also see examples of folks with a few solar panels on the roof (not unlike a dude in TN) that at best offsets a 10% of the electrical load yet recieves accolades from 60 Minutes. My parents who are both in their late 70's just spent $30,000 on a photovoltaec system that offsets 100% of their electrical load and will never see the payoff. That is an example of being responsible.

willow

i totally agree with you, wait a few hours for an alarmist with a crap argument against it

mickt

No, it's just a way of raising taxes.

Boom

Oh, I don't know about persuading anyone, but I do think the idea has merit if properly set up. It is an experiment in operant conditioning that could provide incentives for polluters to change their ways. Let's say there is a big company that is polluting a lot and is resisting installing scrubbers on their smokestacks because they cost...ummm, just for purposes of example-ten million dollars. The bean counters are going hey, if we spend ten million dollars on environmental stuff like scrubbers, our profit margins will drop by X%. So we won't do it unless we HAVE to. You know that's a classic example of how business operates.Then let's say there is another company that is more oriented toward environmental issues that looks at the same problem and decides that it is important to make the investment, so they spend the ten million bucks.If these two companies are direct competitors and one pollutes less, which one would you prefer to do business with? Personally, I'd choose the more environmentally responsible business, even if their products cost a little more. And I'd be upset with the other company for being less responsible.In a perfect world and a perfectly balanced free market, and assuming that the logic of investing in a cleaner environment makes sense to the bulk of the buying public, economic forces would eventually result in every industry that has smokestacks installing scrubbers, and everyone would be happier.But that's not the way things work; competition is often not direct, and one industry may be more environmentally attuned than another. A lot of people don't really care all that much how much they pollute, or they don't see the long-term benefits either to themselves or society at large. A good example of that is automobiles-although they are still drags on the environment, compare the cars of 40 years ago with what we drive today. Back in the 60s and 70s people would remove the pollution equipment installed at the factory in the mistaken belief that it would improve the performance of their cars when there were other things that could be done that would work without compromising the environment...they just didn't know any better.The point is that the free market is not enough to force the changes that we need to make...and you are absolutely right, the rich are the last ones in the game. So if they don't care enough to be responsible, tax them and pay the money to the ones who do. At some point-perhaps right away-the bean counters are going to go, you know what, it is going to cost us $20 million to NOT install scrubbers, but if we DO install them, we can collect more revenue, it will maintain our margins, and we can advertise how environmentally responsible we are. Plus we collect the money from XYZ corporation down the street, who is stinking up our office space.Of course, it isn't all that simple, but looking at it on a corporate level rather than an individual one makes more sense to me. I look at an extra $30 bucks on a plane flight as a disincentive to travel by air as much, or an incentive to book on an airline that is maybe receiving carbon credits to upgrade to more efficient planes and charging less...I don't know how that might work. And I don't look at a single banana tree vs. a $30 surcharge as being the main benefit. I look at providing incentives to industry to change. And industry traditionally will not change until there is a profit motive built in.Will it work? I don't know, and I can't say I understand the details well enough to make a judgement one way or the other. But I think the concept is certainly worth entertaining, and if it is laid out well enough, I'd be in favor of trying it. Stranger things have certainly worked.EDIT: Well, like I said, I don't know about trying to persuade anyone, it is simply an interesting topic to explore, but you bring up a couple of interesting points in your additional comments-first, you say:"What I perceive as the fatal flaw in offset theory is ignoring how humans think and act, in the most basic way, how we are driven by finding efficiencies in the system."However, the offset theory does not ignore how humans think and act, it is classic operant conditioning using a token system. Operant conditioning is an effective way to modify behavior, assuming that the system is set up right. That's where the possible flaw is-what they're talking about doing is setting up a behemoth system to modify behavior and applying it at a corporate level. In principle it is sound, but designing the system so it works properly is a major challenge.Next, you say: "No, if it it works out cheaper to do it dirty and pay carbon tax, you do it that way and engage a PR firm. It's the way oil companies work already."Which is correct inasmuch as it is indeed the way oil companies (and many other industries) work already. Let's take the $10M hypothetical cost to install scrubbers, and hand it over to the bean counters; if it costs $5M to engage a PR firm, hire lobbyists, and contribute to political campaigns, that is a savings of $5M and it heads off the legislation, that's going to sound like a lot cheaper way to go to the bean counters. In my $20M (again hypothetical) future scenario, the company is buying carbon credits already and goes gee, it's cheaper to just spend the $10M, then WE can sell carbon credits to the polluters and brag about how environmentally responsible we are.Will it work? Depends on how the system is set up, but the fact is 'efficiency' is defined in all sorts of ways. Catalytic converters and pollution controlled engines weren't considered 'efficient' by any number of definitions at one time in the past, but does anyone really see much point in taking converters and other pollution control gear off their daily use cars in this day and age? Dirty does not always=efficient. Companies that want to stay dirty just don't want to spend the money.Can the government design and implement a program that will provide an effective incentive to pollute less? That is the question.