op-ed A case for carbon offsets

Author: Daniel Streitfeld

In the interest of truth and accuracy, in the space provided to me here I would like to address a number of startling fallacies found in Mr. Alex Garlick's latest opinion piece ("An Offsetting Notion," May 1).

The esteemed Mr. Garlick derides the validity of the now-popular carbon credits as "economically problematic and morally suspect." For those who are not aware, carbon credits are effectively voluntary donations to a variety of 'green' endeavors (tree plantings, investments in alternative energies, etc.) that individuals or institutions can make in order to try and offset the bad effects of carbon emitted by specific activities - economically speaking, they seek to address the unaccounted for negative externalities of man-made CO2 release.

I commend the College's recent efforts to reduce its carbon footprint in a multi-pronged approach - Middlebury's green initiatives includes things from becoming more energy efficient (no more trays, more energy efficient buildings) to utilizing alternative energy (solar panels and the biomass plant), and, as a last resort, to using carbon credits in order to offset activities that cannot be easily otherwise reduced (such as plane and van travel).

The honorable Mr. Garlick believes that carbon credits are morally problematic because he believes they give resource-indulgent Americans a free pass to continue, and maybe even increase, their flagrant overuse of energy. If there were no such thing as carbon credits, Mr. Garlick argues, then Americans would be forced to do what is really needed to fight global warming - reduce consumption and decrease energy usage.

Being a political science major, I would have presumed that Mr. Garlick would be aware that calls on the American moral consciousness to reduce consumption are notoriously ineffective (see Jimmy Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech). While it may be an unfortunate fact that Americans are not stirred by their political (or other) leadership to curb their consumption habits, it appears to be a fairly ingrained fact nonetheless. It strikes me as disingenuous and even dangerous to suggest that a problem as large and complicated as that of global warming can be solved simply by telling Americans to consume less, as if that simple slogan were some sort of panacea to worldwide temperature increases.

Further, the respected Mr. Garlick's presumption that carbon credits create some sort of a moral hazard situation - increasing our harmful consumption habits by removing the deterrent of our conscience - strikes me as patently absurd. I highly doubt that the types of people (i.e. environmentally conscience ones) who purchase carbon credits would actually consume more because the credits free them of any sort of consumption guilt.

Mr. Garlick describes carbon credits as a form of "moral masturbation," but even if they are a bit gimmicky (inasmuch as you cannot straightforwardly remove carbon from the atmosphere, as the offsets may seem to imply), why decry an effective form of donation that goes towards such causes as protecting forests from deforestation, investing in alternative energy technologies and generally funneling more money towards causes that fight global warming? It strikes me that any sort of program that increases the money given to these causes is a good one, even if it is couched in a slightly insincere schematic.

Further, being an economics major, I am sure that Mr. Garlick can respect the economic irrationality of the current situation - right now the marginal cost of producing greenhouse gases is zero. Carbon credits seek to bring to light the fact that there are real costs associated with releasing greenhouse gases. In fact the only reason these costs have not previously been incorporated into the market is because they are hard to predict, diffuse and will largely be accrued in the future.

In the absence of an arguably necessary federal law that seeks to limit greenhouse gas emissions, carbon credits create economic efficiency by bringing the market back into balance by urging people to pay for the true costs of the various greenhouse gas releasing activities that they engage in.

If proactive institutions, such as this one, seek to do what they can to begin to own up to the responsibilities of their resource and energy use, then that strikes me as a worthy goal. Carbon credits are effectively just an acknowledgment that our current energy consumption comes with an unaddressed negative externality, CO2 release, and they attempt to make the market more efficient by incorporating these costs. If we truly believe in the cause of global warming then it seems to me that part of our tuition money should go towards paying for the true costs of our greenhouse gas emissions. We attend an institution that produces carbon with negative effects, and we must acknowledge and pay for these negative externalities. Why, then, I am left to wonder, is Mr. Garlick so pessimistic about an idea that seems to have so many distinct benefits?

Daniel Streitfeld '08 is a Philosophy and Economics double major from Dallas, Tex.