2008 Woodie Awards
op-ed: A case for carbon offsets
Daniel Streitfeld
Issue date: 5/8/08 Section: Opinions
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.
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.
Be the first to comment on this story