http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com

.

This said, I still question offsets, especially when they are used not simply for individuals to offset their impacts, but by large corporate polluters seeking to avoid having to reduce their emissions.

The issue is complicated, to be sure, but it seems that many of the projects that are being included as eligible for offsets either aren’t really reducing emissions (and in some cases actually increase them), or would have been done anyway (or really need to be done anyway) and thus don’t take the place of real reductions in the CO2 output of industrialized economies.

If we end up with a cap and trade system–an idea I’m not sold on–how we deal with offsets will be a key variable in determining whether or not the system actually meets its goals. From the various experts I’ve been following, I come away pretty well convinced that the more offsets you allow into the system, the less likely you’ll get the results you’re looking for. There’s a pretty good discussion on this, as well as cap and trade in general at:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/15/cap_trade_a_critical_look_at

One other concern is that when you calculate the value of an offset–not its monetary value, but rather its carbon-reducing value–you have to do some kind of life cycle analysis. If the project you are using to offset your travel, for instance, is planting trees, you have to look at how much CO2 the trees will sequester over their lifetimes, a matter of decades. The problem is that the CO2 emissions you are aiming to offset are taking place NOW, in January 2010. But the sequestration won’t even start in any serious fashion for a few years, until the trees get big enough to really start putting some carbon away, and the full impact won’t be felt for decades. And, as you note, there is always the question: wouldn’t these trees have been planted anyway, or something similar done on that land that would capture carbon, sometime over the coming years?

So for me, while I support your decision, Tracy, I would hate for folks to extrapolate and come to the conclusion that carbon offsets make for good public policy.

Of course there is the class issue. If you have enough money to even consider a carbon offset, you are in a certain economic class. Many people in the world cannot even consider such a measure, can barely pay for what power/travel/or fossil fuel heat they get now. Nor can a struggling small business person in tough times consider them, even if they do live well.

Lovelock says we’ve changed the planet in irrevocable ways – from development to overfishing to carbon, and it is forever changed. We are faced with learning how to adapt, and bring the biosphere along with us in that adaptation. We can’t put it back like it was. The hopeful news is, we are just beginning to be aware of what we must do to make this adaptation as a species and as a planet.