“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes... “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”

“This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.

If you're going to use a Reformation analogy, it would be helpful to know what an indulgence does. It would also help to understand that Luther was attempting to bring about a stricter, purer Christianity, not a liberal faith that would stand in contrast to the no-fun-allowed Catholic Church, but if you don't understand the former you have no hope of understanding the latter.
K the C | 04.30.07 - 12:45 pm | #

I'm not sure I understand the whole carbon offsetting thing. It seems to me - and I could be wrong - a little like bringing a basket of fruit and passing it out to everyone in a restaurant so you can smoke two packs while you're there. The damage would appear to have been done, the fruit wont' help. Flying private jets and living extravagant lifestyles would still appear to damage the environment, if what we are told is true. But perhaps I'm just missing it.
Dave G. | 04.30.07 - 12:45 pm | #

Just keep quiet and ration your toilet paper, Dave.
Liam | 04.30.07 - 12:58 pm | #

If you want in on the indulgences too, you can always check out www.freecarbonoffsets.com.

On a less silly note, I think finding a market solution to any "global warming" problem we have is a great idea. I applaud the left for looking for a market, rather than government, solution for a change. I think they would have much more support, especially on the right, if they weren't used by people like Al Gore to free themselves of the sacrifices they're demanding of us peons. In other words, if the global warming alarmists were more practical and less moralistic and, well, alarmist, then I think more people would be receptive to the "carbon offset" message. (Of course, it would also help if they were actually shown to, you know, WORK.)
Stephen | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 1:00 pm | #

Carbon-offsetting is a proposed method of making carbon emissions reduction acceptable to the major energy producers and consumers in a global market economy.

You can take if for granted - and the present facts bear it out - that the main opponents of effective carbon reduction are and will be:

China
the US
Saudi Arabia and other major carbon producers

I think it's also quite likely that you will be paying four dollars at the pump by the end of the year.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 1:02 pm | #

Jimmy Akin has a post about this:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/ def...der_writes.html
chris | 04.30.07 - 1:41 pm | #

If we're paying $4.00 at the pump at the end of the year, that means we'll be paying at least $4.25 at the pump by mid-September.
Franklin Jennings | 04.30.07 - 2:54 pm | #

K of C,

One of us misunderstands Hayes point; I think it is you.

Hayes seems to want a stricter, purer environmentalism.

And I disagree one needs to understand what indulgences actually are. One need only understand how they were abused in the late middle ages by Tetzel et al. Since, you know, that's what carbon offsetting is being compared to.
Franklin Jennings | 04.30.07 - 2:57 pm | #

...abused by Tetzel et al

Aha! So al has a history of abusing these types of things.
cricket | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Yeah, and unlike Al, Tetzel couldn't purchase carbon offsets or put solar panels on his roof either!
mike the analyst | 04.30.07 - 4:19 pm | #

Where can I buy some methane offsets? I like beer and chili and Mexican.
kentuckyliz | 04.30.07 - 9:04 pm | #

Speaking of rationing TP, you know that super-cool alternative fuel they're making from corn (ignore the fact that the process seems to use more fuel to produce than is actually produced, not to mention that it's sending up the price of corn for poor countries)? Maybe there's use for all those cobs, after all!
SouthCoast | 05.01.07 - 2:32 am | #

"...ignore the fact that the process seems to use more fuel to produce than is actually produced"

See, that's what bugs me about a lot of the alternative energy folk. They think we should all be driving electric cars, apparently thinking that electricity can be gathered off the front lawn every morning like manna from heaven. Electricity comes from power plants - coal, nuclear or hydro. Energy is lost sending it over transmission lines, and more is lost storing it in batteries, which are notoriously inefficient.

A TINY electric car will run for only a few hours on a full charge, and lacks the power to push its way through a wet paper bag. This is no solution at all. Mass transit, heck yeah. Hydrogen, maybe some day. But fossil fuels carry a great deal of bang for the buck, and will not easily be replaced. Unless someone comes up with a working Fusion-O-Matic, like in Back To The Future.
Tim J. | Homepage | 05.01.07 - 9:12 am | #

Financial Times recently had an article about carbon-offsets and how, for some programs, there is little if any impact (net benefit), and that in some cases people may be paying corporations for something they are doing anyways. Like oil companies pumping CO2 in the ground to pump out more oil.

Also in context that global warming is brought on by CO2 (and other gases)emissions that have been increase for a century or more of "fossil fuel" driven industrialization, then mere off-sets are not sufficient. CO2 emissions need to be reduced beyond what Kyoto proposed.

And for those out there in editorials and other press media stating we are soon reaching a tipping point for life here on earth, then we need to off-set/reduce CO2 to levels of a century or more ago. We know scientifically that increasing CO2 levels are not a recent phenomena.

Or perhaps, such drastic measures will be unnecessary as we can employee other technologies to adapt to a changing environment.
dpt | 05.01.07 - 3:26 pm | #