Carbon Offets - Too Legit to Quit

An article in today's Wall Street Journal raises the question of legitimacy in the carbon offset market by the practice of double payment for offsets. The larger issue here is that of ensuring the legitimacy of offsets through a trusted and well-regulating oversight agency. Since the intent is to encourage pollution cuts that wouldn't pass without economic incentive, it is essential that those purchases are guaranteed. The article mentions the potential of double paying - payment made for cleanups that have already happened, an instance that hinders the effectiveness of exchanging carbon credits. Even when this is the case, "the intent of carbon offsets are still valid and can make real progress counteracting climate change," said Joe O'Connor, VP at Sustainable Energy Partners. "Although, there are times when the original intent of carbon offsets can get lost or blurry. The industries in place, such as Chicago Climate Exchange, are the responsible parties who qualify carbon offsets. In the cases where the carbon offsets may not be legitimate, they need to remove the incentive for the offset project." As relatively little is known about the offset industry, these questionable scenarios run the risk of bringing a bad name to an important and progressive movement if the CCX doesn't work quickly to instill trust.

The topic faces two problematic scenarios- the first being that the legitimacy of offsets cannot be questionable in order for the practice to take more mainstream acceptability. The second is that it been criticized as being a free pass for companies to go on polluting as usual. While these are both potentially troubling scenarios, the reality is that this might be the unpleasant side effects of a necessary and realistic solution. Routing capital and attention through the murky waters of carbon offsets has its drawbacks, but the critical point is that we're flowing in the right direction.

On a consumer level, the practice of purchasing personal offsets is critical into considering the impact of our actions. The standardization of factoring offsets into travel and event decisions means that we are increasingly aware that each decision we make has a direct correlation to our carbon footprint. Perhaps rising gas prices has softened the blow, but it seems that we are becoming more comfortable with the idea of paying to account for our impact on the environment. As we become more educated, for example by seeking out offset services such as Carbon Harmony, that are regulated by the Chicago Climate Exchange or supporting companies such as Tom's of Maine that offset their own energy usage through energy reducing technology and offsets, we make decisions with our loudest voice, that of a consumer. The WSJ argues the point that everyone needs to be on board for carbon credits in order to encourage climate-change legislation to pass, a valid point and an effective way to ensure the legitimate oversight of this process. Carbon offsets are not the perfect solution, but they are certainly a step in the right direction. Decisions follow dollars, so as long as companies and consumers are spending towards reducing the impact of climate change, regulation is certain to follow.