Carbon Offsets

First of all, it would probably be a good idea to define a "carbon offset" - here's the definition from greenie David Suzuki (with an included example for clarification):

"A 'carbon offset' is an emission reduction credit from another organization’s project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tons of CO2-equivalents (or 'CO2e') and are bought and sold through a number of international brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms.

"For example, wind energy companies often sell carbon offsets. The wind energy company benefits because the carbon offsets it sells make such projects more economically viable. The buyers of the offsets benefit because they can claim that their purchase resulted in new non-polluting energy, which they can use to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions. The buyers may also save money as it may be less expensive for them to purchase offsets than to eliminate their own emissions."

Sounds almost too good to be true, right?

Well, it might be.

Because of their increasing popularity, carbon offsets finally have rightly come under some scrutiny. Are they effective? Does the environment become "greener"? Who's profiting? These are the questions that are finally being asked.

...and the answers are not pretty for the environmentalists.

First, Businessweek examines the "feel-good hype" surrounding carbon offsets and coins what has to be one of my new favorite terms, the "checkbook environmentalist" - someone who thinks he can solve the supposed global warming crisis by merely buying carbon offsets to counter his own massive pollution. (see Al Gore and John Edwards as examples)

What's good about the Businessweek piece is that, from what I can tell, it is not reporting this information through a liberal or conservative lens. Rather, it's simply reporting on current trends which don't seem to be working:

"Done carefully, offsets can have a positive effect and raise ecological awareness. But a close look at several transactions—including those involving the Oscar presenters, Vail Resorts, and the Seattle power company—reveals that some deals amount to little more than feel-good hype. When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates. One danger of largely symbolic deals is that they may divert attention and resources from more expensive and effective measures."

Read the entire piece for more information on TerraPass, Waste Management Inc., Hollywood ignorance, and how they all tie together.

The Financial Times follows Businessweek's lead - here's what its investigation uncovered:

"A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

"Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway."

So...here are the results:
1) companies are paying for carbon emission reductions, which don't actually occur
2) companies are profiting off carbon trading for cleanups it was already planning
3) the new lucrative business of carbon trading helps big spenders to think they're actually saving the planet when, in actuality, they're diverting resources from other measures which may in fact help

Looks like Gore's ideas aren't as environmentally sound as he thought.

Lorie Byrd makes a fantastic point in addressing the heart of the carbon offset issue, particularly with "limousine liberals" like Al Gore and John Edwards:

"...If global warming is truly a dire threat to the existence of life on earth as Gore and others claim, and if human activity contributes to the problem, what could possibly justify the excessive (I would even say obscene) energy consumption of Gore and other limousine liberals? If paying someone else to behave better than you do (through offsets) is a sufficient answer, I have to wonder just how real the problem is. I also wonder just how much bad behavior can be forgiven with the purchase of offsets."

Another fear of those of us on the right is the idea that government will limit economic progress and, therefore, our general well-being, by creating a "global warming tax" (like Britain) or federally sponsoring the production of ethanol (which corn growers LOVE - but Rebecca Hagelin refutes). John Stossel rightfully argues on the side of economic progress - which will, as a result, help the environment (in response to celebrating Earth Day):

"Human ingenuity and technology not only raised living standards, but also restored environmental amenities. How about a day to celebrate that?"

And...

"President Bush chides us for our 'addiction to oil.' But under current conditions, using oil makes perfect sense. Someday, if we let the free market operate, someone will find an energy source that works better than oil. Then richer future generations won't need oil. So why deprive ourselves and make ourselves poorer with needless regulation now?"

So...it would seem that the world is just fine as it is, and do-gooders like Al Gore really aren't helping anyway. Seems like a win-win to me - the less he can help, the better.

See Sister Toldjah for more.