Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Carbon Offsets: The New Cure for Enviroguilt

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted November 5, 2007.


Carbon offset fees may be new, but the underlying notion goes back to the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church sold wealthy people indulgences to offset the spiritual cost of their sins.
Annalee Newitz

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Annalee Newitz

My Last Column
After 9 long years, it's time to move on. One final thought: don't ever stop ruthlessly criticizing everything that exists.
Jul 2, 2008

Three Myths About the Internet That Refuse to Die
The Internet will not magically bring the world together; nor is it likely to destroy us.
Jun 20, 2008

Using Sci-Fi to Change the World
Science fiction isn't escapist; it can help us envision how to make the world a better place.
Jun 5, 2008

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Airlines from Virgin Blue to Quantas have been touting new ecofriendly programs under which passengers paralyzed by enviroguilt over all of those jet-fueled carbon dioxide emissions can pay an extra carbon offset fee for tickets. The money these passengers pay -- sometimes as little as $1 -- is supposed to go to renewable energy or unspecified green causes and therefore make airline travel carbon neutral.

Carbon offset fees may be new, but the underlying notion goes back to the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church sold wealthy people indulgences to offset the spiritual cost of their sins and assure a place for them in heaven. And yet at least the kids in 1380 knew that indulgences were bullshit.

Geoffrey Chaucer's classic work The Canterbury Tales, written in the late 1300s, makes fun of the thoroughly corrupt pardoner character, a bombastic weirdo who constantly tries to sell everybody official-looking papers that would pardon them for their sins. Chaucer was just one of many thinkers at the time who criticized the idea that any sin can be forgiven with a little gold.

Polluting the environment isn't a sin in the Christian sense, and yet carbon offset fees are clearly indulgences for a modern, scientific age.

I don't mean to say that money doesn't help ecocauses. But the problem is far more complicated than we want to believe. Our planet is in such sorry shape partly because humans are trying to better themselves. China is industrializing in order to make its citizens richer, but last week the Chinese National Population and Family Planning Commission published a report showing that environmental pollution from coal mining has caused the incidence of birth defects to jump 40 percent in the past six years.

There's no carbon offset price you could pay to fix that. Nor is there an easy way to prevent such disasters from happening in the future if most of the world agrees that industrialization is the road to wealth. Do we use our carbon indulgence money to fund Chinese populations' return to preindustrial life, thus dooming that nation to a second-class economic status?

Perhaps we could use our money to fund education that teaches Chinese kids about alternative energy. But what kind of energy will they use in their classrooms while waiting for scientists to invent something that combusts cleanly and renewably forever?

Preservationist Marc Ancrenaz and his colleagues get it right in a recent article for PloS Biology in which they argue that preserving biodiversity must go hand in hand with eradicating poverty.

"Most traditional conservation efforts were typically designed to exclude human residents," Ancrenaz's group writes. "This failure to consider the interests of local communities has resulted in a general lack of support for conservation and subsequent degradation of protected areas." In other words, if you don't help the people in a region, it doesn't matter how many carbon offsets you buy -- the area will still suffer.

Ancrenaz discusses two novel preservation programs that incorporate community development in their biodiversity agendas: the Kinabatangan Orangutan Conservation Project in Borneo and the Tree Kangaroo Preservation Program in Papua New Guinea.

Both programs train and hire locals as researchers who can help preserve the habitats of orangutans and tree kangaroos, respectively. I don't want to offer programs like these as panaceas. Improperly used, they are no better than carbon indulgences. But at least they aim to address the deep connection between human poverty and environmental suffering. Even better would be programs that help locals develop new sources of wealth without requiring them to engage in logging or factory farming to earn money.

I'm not saying you should quit buying your carbon offsets, because maybe some of that money will make it into the right hands. But you should recognize your actions for what they are: guilt-inspired payouts that assuage your conscience rather than thoughtful remedies for problems that won't be solved with indulgences alone.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: carbon offsets, carbon emissions, climate change, global warming

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who once paid a Linux sysadmin to forgive her for using Windows.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Exploit the earth or die. To hell with "enviroguilt".
Posted by: Torgo on Nov 5, 2007 8:50 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exploit the earth or die

But the problem is far more complicated than we want to believe. Our planet is in such sorry shape partly because humans are trying to better themselves.

Is this news to anyone? Am I supposed to be newly enlightened by this? The author insults my intelligence.

On the other hand, to my mind "the planet" is only improved by humans bettering themselves, because I hold human values (health, survival) to be superior to non-human values.

As a writer who was far more articulate than I put it:

"Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature"—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears …

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank You Annalee Newitz
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 5, 2007 11:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are correct. There is no way $1 is going to accomplish anything, even if it
gets to the right person. Carbon offsets are indeed indulgences. IF the carbon
offset worked, it would be buying something that should have or would have
been done anyway, or was already done anyway. Carbon offsets and
indulgences are snake oil. You are purely giving your money to a charlatan.
Save your dollar to make a campaign contribution to a politician so that you can
get his attention on the subject of a carbon tax. In order to avoid extinction, we
have to reduce our CO2 emission by 80% by 2050. To do that, we have to do
some very serious and difficult things, including put an end to coal fired power
plants and create technologies including battery technology that we don't have
now. A hefty tax on carbon would be a good way to start a transformation away
from burning coal. Of course, the coal industry has to be almost ended
worldwide.

Torgo is the problem. Torgo is living in the past. The past is gone forever on
earth. I invite Torgo breathe hydrogen sulfide and tell us how it helps his
survival. Torgo's path leads to the extinction of humans and all mammals on
earth in about 200 years. Survival is exactly what the ecologists are fighting you
for, Torgo. The human values of health and survival are exactly what the
environmentalists are trying to promote.

Torgo: Am I supposed to be newly enlightened by this? The author insults my
intelligence.
Asteroid Miner: Yes, you are supposed to be enlightened by this. And you
would also be enlightened if you would read the previous 30 articles in
Alternet/environment. You aren't aware of the preceding conversation. Whose
intelligence is insulted by who?

Torgo: On the other hand, to my mind "the planet" is only improved by humans
bettering themselves, because I hold human values (health, survival) to be
superior to non-human values.
Asteroid Miner: If you want to survive, you had better start reading and
understanding. Subscribe to www.realclimate.org and Scientific American.
The ecologists are promoting health and survival. Torgo is promoting death and
extinction.

Torgo: there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his
survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon.
Asteroid Miner: NONSENSE. Man needs and requires air with oxygen and
without poison gasses like hydrogen sulfide. Torgo's plan leads to air that has
enough hydrogen sulfide in it to kill everybody.

Torgo: The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of
pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods
which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming
to extinguish that fire."
Asteroid Miner: WRONG. We are no longer the lowest tribe. It is the very
NON symbolic COAL FIRE that we must replace with other sources of energy
that don't put as much carbon dioxide into the air. People like Torgo are the new
vultures swarming to extinguish that [new] fire.

The new energy sources are wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear. Since there
will be many people like Torgo who haven't read the last 30 articles and
comments, and since "view expand all" no longer works for me, I will have to
post a full set of defenses of nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Environmentalists are promoting HUMAN survival
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 6, 2007 12:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bad news is, we humans get included in the mass extinction that we are
creating now. So, Torgo, look up the following URLs and read about the problem
your coal fires are creating:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/
prPennStateKump.htm

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op
=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op
=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1535

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322

The Scientific American article is the clearest. The Existential Risk that is
virtually certain to happen is the same as the End Permian mass extinction:
Hydrogen Sulfide. It is possible to avoid it, but not easy. From the .sciam URL,
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep":
"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not asteroids, most
likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse
conditions build once again? "
By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says: "The so-called thermal extinction at the end
of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per
million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today
with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric carbon
climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels
could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could
there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never
find out." The hydrogen sulfide [H2S] will finally put an end to the mining of
coal.
Note that the H2S that will come out of the ocean, if it does, will be in far greater
quantity than the H2S from coal and diesel fuel. Fossil fuel H2S is a relatively
minor annoyance. If the oceans get too warm, we humans go extinct. Here is the
chemistry: H2S + 2O2 = H2SO4 = sulfuric acid
H2SO4 + the moisture in your lungs = battery acid
Lungs + battery acid = dissolved lungs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

4.3
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 6, 2007 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indulgences for yuppies. Great topic.

Realistically, as the article suggests, I don't think the "new" ecomonic powers like China and India are going to stop to think about this stuff while they're on a roll, especially since the US didn't for centuries, and still doesn't.

Do the math: A few yuppies buying carbon indulgences or teaching jungle villagers to plant trees when a zillion ordinary Chinese and Indians want cars, cell phones, and other gadgets. It's like trying to put out the California fires with a garden hose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pay to plant a tree and be guilt free!
Posted by: Axiom69 on Nov 6, 2007 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem I see see with carbon offsets is that they falsley let someone believe that they are "carbon neutral". This relieves their guilt about driving an SUV or living in a McMansion. I can pollute the environment all I want as long as I pay a few bucks to have someone else plant a tree! Wrong answer! We need to educate people about just how much each of us contributes to the polluting of our earth. Perhaps all new products could come with carbon or pollution labels similar to the nutritional labels on food products. Instead of vitamins the label could list a number of common toxins and the amount that the product put into the environment. For example on a new car there could be a label along with the average city/hwy mileage that listed how much pollution that new Hummer would spew into the atmosphere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul Cardwell
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Nov 6, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polluting is not a sin in Christianity? Get a theologian to discuss theology. In Christianity, we are called to be stewards of creation. Steward is from "keeper of the pig pens" (sty ward(en)). Back in Chaucer's time, pork was the main meat and garbage disposal system. Therefore the lord of the manor entrusted the control of this essential function to a trusted servant. Ultimately this office became chief administrative officer of the manor, but still under the lord. Failure to perform this function properly had major repercussions. Likewise, if we are not proper stewards of creation, there will be severe repercussions for us. Thus endeth the homily for today. :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon indulgences
Posted by: aka_bozo on Nov 6, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an amazingly good analogy!! And the poster who said “yuppy indulgences”; also a great phrasing. And the poster that noted that the Chinese and Indians couldn’t care less, is also very true.

Looks like there are two solutions:

* Stop having kids

* If you do have kids, ya better plan to get them out-of-the-way of the fascist armies, needed when the glorious shortage wars come.

As both solutions require “individual responsibility” and "planning for the future", I suspect these options will be lost on the average dumb-ass peasant. And the liberal peasants will, as always, expect society to save THEIR kids when the time comes for the glorious wars.

Free will is vastly overrated.

Btw, if you're Canadian you might consider leaving, as YOU'RE the closest country with water - in case you haven't figured THAT one out yet. Rudy might have to bring freedom and democracy to the Canadians NEXT. And, most of the dumb-ass American peasants suspect you guys are godless commies ANYWAY, with your socialized health-care and all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW!
Posted by: higginslads on Nov 6, 2007 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A sitting member of Congress is introducing a measure to impeach the vice president of the United States and the story isn't visible on Alternet. This should be the leading story on a website that bills itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream. Some alternative! More like left gatekeeper.

For those who are interested in doing something constructive about our current state of affairs, please call your representative and urge them to support Mr. Kucinich's bill. The Capitol switchboard is:

1-800-828-0498
1-800-862-5530
1-800-833-6354

Just ask the operator for your representative's office. If you don't know it, tell her/him where you live and she/he will look it up. Once transferred to your representative's office, politely tell the person who answers the phone that you urge your representative to support Kucinich's articles of impeachment against the vice president. You will probably be asked for your name and address.

I just did this. It's the first time I had ever called my representative (Rodney Frelinghuysen in NJ). It was easy and I felt better after doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW!
Posted by: higginslads on Nov 6, 2007 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A sitting member of Congress is introducing a measure to impeach the vice president of the United States and the story isn't visible on Alternet. This should be the leading story on a website that bills itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream. Some alternative! More like left gatekeeper.

For those who are interested in doing something constructive about our current state of affairs, please call your representative and urge them to support Mr. Kucinich's bill. The Capitol switchboard is:

1-800-828-0498
1-800-862-5530
1-800-833-6354

Just ask the operator for your representative's office. If you don't know it, tell her/him where you live and she/he will look it up. Once transferred to your representative's office, politely tell the person who answers the phone that you urge your representative to support Kucinich's articles of impeachment against the vice president. You will probably be asked for your name and address.

I just did this. It's the first time I had ever called my representative (Rodney Frelinghuysen in NJ). It was easy and I felt better after doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AnnaLee Gets It Right
Posted by: Urgelt on Nov 7, 2007 8:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks, AnnaLee, for not succumbing to the hype surrounding carbon offsets. Your voice of reason is just what people need to hear.

I wish the carbon offsets trading scam would gain similar clarity in the press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon trading is an extra tool.
Posted by: bim on Nov 7, 2007 9:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carbon trading is another tool to offset climate change. It by no means says we can't increase energy taxes or lower allowable limits of pollution. A recent poll showed only 15% of Americans support increasing the gas tax, so taking that too far will put the GOP into office and put us back where we now are. The current system gives no incentive to reduce pollution below mandatory levels. Carbon trading creates a sliding scale of a tax which fixes that problem and the most enviro friendly companies get the biggest windfall of this tax and thus have more money to invest in green technologies. Theres a reason Al Gore and so many other environmentalist support this system. Keep in mind it is just one more way to fight pollution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Karbon Kenny
Posted by: kkenny on Nov 21, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't pay for carbon offsets. Get them for free here:

www.freecarbonoffsets.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]