A philosophical question on carbon offsets
September 17, 2007 3 Comments
In my research for an upcoming conference on the subject of carbon offsets, I came across an interesting analysis about the qualitative meaning of an offset:
The offset is among the most unusual of commodities. It’s substance is intangible, the absence of something. Some pollution would have existed, somewhere, sometime, the seller says, and now it won’t.
An offset is often not a reduction of emissions but its subversion altogether. You cannot reduce something that never existed in the first place, contrary to the perception that when one pays to offset carbon, they reduce existing carbon emission.
Offsetting does not a represent progression either, really, because progress is moving forward, and the goal of reducing carbon means curtailing the sort of activity that societies past referred to as progress. Of course, working towards a goal still sets up a framework for making progress, but it is a not a traditional paradigm for progress. Usually production and accumulation yield progress; now reduction and conservation are the means towards it.
This begs the question: is real emissions reduction a major retreat from the old paradigm of industrialization and production? Will there be a new, more environmentally conscious type of industrialization, will First World countries try to prevent Third World countries from industrialization, or will a third way emerge in the form of offsets projects in the Third World that advance modernization and limit emissions?
Solar panels and wind power and the like seem poised to be progressive, environmentally friendly, economy-boosting technologies.
The problem with wind and solar power is that you still need a back-up source of energy for both of those because natural conditions will not always be favorable to a constant production of power. We’ll need to have a mix, and environmentalists need to realize that some concessions will have to be made on their part, like allowing for more hydroelectric power. I’ve read some interesting things about the possibility of celluotic power coming from wood and other bits of plants that we can’t otherwise consume.
If you compared the wealthiest countries with the poorest countries, you’d also see that the wealthiest countries have the highest carbon emission rates, while the poorest have the lowest. So, there is a direct correlation between wealth and carbon emissions. As for offsets, if only I could get someone to go to jail for me if I ever committed a crime. In the end, it depends who is controlling the offset industry. If it’s companies from developed countries doing so, we might as well go back to some kind of colonialism, but if it grows organically from those undeveloped countries (I believe 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world terminology have become passe, especially since the 2nd world doesn’t exist anymore, although Putin is trying), then it could be a solution of the globalized market. The problem still remains that the biggest cause of carbon emissions is transportation, and I’m not sure you can restrict other people’s mobility.
Interesting, Chris!
In this context, some propose better public transportation, which I certainly support.