Shenanigans An offsetting notion

Author: Alex Garlick

Carbon offsets are not the answer to our planet's environmental crisis - in fact, they are economically problematic and morally suspect. The College feels differently. The Snow Bowl recently spent $7,138 on carbon offsets, the study abroad office is encouraging its students to spend $36 on offsets for their foreign travel, and in the most egregious case, the SGA is considering a bill that would make it mandatory for student groups and some sports teams to purchase offsets for their travels. The College funnels its offset money into Native Energy, a for-profit corporation based in Charlotte, Vt. Native Energy invests the money in wind farms and methane digesters, thereby creating renewable energy. This is a good thing, because for the carbon-neutral individual, creating renewable energy is better than sex.

Enough is enough. It's outrageous that our tuition goes up five percent every year when we're wasting money on carbon offsets - now they may be forced upon innocent student groups.

The moral problem with carbon offsets are that they reflect the dark side of American capitalism - I refer to the notion that we, as Americans, feel that when confronted with any problem, we can just spend our way out of it. (And then we wonder why there's so much anti-American resentment in the world.)

The United States is in an environmental (and macroeconomic) mess right now because it consumes too much. Consider an item as environmentally benign as a book. It starts as a tree, and requires energy to be transported, turned into pulp, made into paper, bound and have ink applied to it. Throughout this whole process petroleum is needed to ship the book to each of the stages of production until it reaches the hands of the reader.

Carbon offsets fail to dampen consumption - they encourage it. Offsets allow more consumption because they remove the best deterrence against pollution - our conscience. One could argue that the money spent on offsets used to curb deforestation would otherwise go towards consumption, but it actually may encourage more of it.

The money spent on carbon offsets goes to a good cause, but if an individual is interested in curbing deforestation or covering landfills (as the offset company TerraPass does), why shouldn't he just invest in it directly and skip the moral masturbation?

Instead of encouraging more consumption, the best path towards carbon neutrality would be curbing consumption. Is Mother Earth better off with me riding a bike to town or taking my car and then writing a $.35 check to Native Energy?

Buying carbon offsets is the modern-day equivalent of the Catholic Church selling indulgences to sinners trying to repent. This practice caused Martin Luther to rebel and start the Protestant Reformation. In order to reverse the country's course towards environmental destruction, the United States may need a similar revolt.

If an individual wants to offset his carbon output, he should be allowed to. I am not calling for the dissolution of the offset industry. However, the notion that the College is funding this practice with our tuition is offsetting. While carbon reduction is a worthy endeavor, carbon offsets are a waste.

Alex Garlick '08.5 is a Political Science and Economics major from Needham, Mass