Carbon Offsets . . . hoax or a real value?

Question

The intend of carbon offsets is a good one, and very idealistic, but does it really work? Gore may be purchasing them in bulk to live a "Zero Carbon" lifestyle, but does that make it okay for him to fly in a private plane, live in a mansion that uses 20x more power than the average household? He may preach to the public to conserve energy and to buy carbon offsets which we can get from his company, but why not cut back further on his own use?

Answer 1

Hoax

Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.
FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/heresy.html

Answer 2

I do believe that there is a conflict of interest there. If he makes money when someone buys carbon offsets then he is nothing more than a salesperson when he pitches them.

I have also read where some people are attacking this process by comparing it to making it ok to hunt endangered species as long as you contribute to an organization that raises those animals to release into the wild. It would just be better to not hunt the animal to begin with. The same goes with the environment. It would be better to reduce some of the carbon release rather than keep it up but fork over money to offset what is released. What would be the best is to reduce AND fork over money to reduce carbon.

Al Gore has a problem with reality.

Answer 3

You've treaded onto dangerous ground. People will argue that Gore's cause excuses his personal life, that he only uses that personal jet to spread the message, that he only lives in that energy wasteful house of his because it was built late - but I only hear excuses.
Carbon offsets are a lie. Gore buys all of those credits from himself. They're not REAL credits, there a weird points system, and because of it he justifies his use of energy by saying he 'offsets' it by using the carbon points you don't. My advice? Use all of your offsets so Gore can't touch them.

Answer 4

Not sure how effective long-term they will be. Still looking into the data.

Also remember, he is former Vice President Al Gore. Which means he has 24/7 secret service protection. Trying to fly on a commercial jet would make a screwed up mess for everyone else on the flight. Believe me, it is much preferable for him to fly privately.

And I believe his mansion is outfitted with solar panels, energy efficient appliances, etc.

To me, any adjustment in lifestyle which reduces your consumption, recycling of goods, etc. is an improvement.

Answer 5

carbon offsets are basically the same as someone trying to sell land on the moon,

Answer 6

An interesting phrase in your question: "buy carbon offsets we can get from his company,". Hmmm...that, alone, raises my suspicions(which I have anyway)!