Commentary

The amount of greenhouse gas (mainly CO2) that we produce is our carbon footprint. We produce CO2 when we drive, when we use electricity, when we heat our homes. (We produce CO2 in other more indirect ways, but these are the biggies.)

In the global warming buzzosphere, offsets are a way of countering greenhouse gas emissions from one place by reducing greenhouse gas emissions someplace else. Or, specifically, countering your own carbon dioxide emissions by paying to reduce CO2 emissions someplace else.

Does this not sound like the American dream? Like paying someone to clean your house so you don't have to?

Well, offsets are controversial for basically two reasons.

1. There is a fear that offsets will take away an important tool that we have in the fight against global warming: guilt.

   An offset, the argument goes, let’s people continue to lead CO2-intensive lives and not make changes to their fundamentally anti-environment behavior.

   This makes sense on a certain level. Those of us who want to stop global warming want to see everyone understand the problem and see that there are more efficient ways of living. And an exciting car doesn’t have to be a gas-guzzler.

   But what is so bad about someone offsetting their CO2 rather than reducing it directly? If the net result is that CO2 emissions have been reduced, why do we care how they do it?

   VP Al Gore, for example, was criticized by a group recently because he didn’t seem to be reducing his own carbon footprint. The group got a copy of Mr. Gore’s electric bill records that showed that he uses more electricity in 1 month (over $1,300 worth), than most American’s use in 1 year. Mr. Gore’s office responded that he purchases carbon offsets to neutralize his CO2 emissions.

   The Al Gore electric bill is a silly issue. As my wife observed, “when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, Al Gore is way ahead of the game”. But the issue is a good example of the change your lifestyle vs. buy an offset debate.

   If the net result is a reduction in CO2, both solutions are valid. Partly, this is a matter of making steady incremental improvement. I would argue that the chances of getting Soccer Moms and Dads to sell the minivan and buy a Toyota Prius are not as good as the chances of getting them to buy an offset that will reduce CO2 someplace else.

   And that brings us to offset controversy reason number two.

2. Does an offset reduce the CO2 that it says it reduces? Is it somehow a half-empty promise?

   In the US offsets do not have a formal legal or regulatory definition and there are many different techniques used to offset CO2 with supporters and critics for each. The underpinnings of an offset are often difficult to understand.

   The players in the US offset market understand this problem and are working on setting standards that would help out in this area greatly.

At this point, it’s safe to say that not all offsets are created equal.

More information on offsets to come…