Shenanigans: An offsetting notion
Alex Garlick
Issue date: 5/1/08 Section: Opinions
Carbon offsets are not the answer to our planet's environmental crisis - in fact, they are economically problematic and morally suspect. The College feels differently. The Snow Bowl recently spent $7,138 on carbon offsets, the study abroad office is encouraging its students to spend $36 on offsets for their foreign travel, and in the most egregious case, the SGA is considering a bill that would make it mandatory for student groups and some sports teams to purchase offsets for their travels. The College funnels its offset money into Native Energy, a for-profit corporation based in Charlotte, Vt. Native Energy invests the money in wind farms and methane digesters, thereby creating renewable energy. This is a good thing, because for the carbon-neutral individual, creating renewable energy is better than sex.
Enough is enough. It's outrageous that our tuition goes up five percent every year when we're wasting money on carbon offsets - now they may be forced upon innocent student groups.
The moral problem with carbon offsets are that they reflect the dark side of American capitalism - I refer to the notion that we, as Americans, feel that when confronted with any problem, we can just spend our way out of it. (And then we wonder why there's so much anti-American resentment in the world.)
The United States is in an environmental (and macroeconomic) mess right now because it consumes too much. Consider an item as environmentally benign as a book. It starts as a tree, and requires energy to be transported, turned into pulp, made into paper, bound and have ink applied to it. Throughout this whole process petroleum is needed to ship the book to each of the stages of production until it reaches the hands of the reader.
Carbon offsets fail to dampen consumption - they encourage it. Offsets allow more consumption because they remove the best deterrence against pollution - our conscience. One could argue that the money spent on offsets used to curb deforestation would otherwise go towards consumption, but it actually may encourage more of it.
Enough is enough. It's outrageous that our tuition goes up five percent every year when we're wasting money on carbon offsets - now they may be forced upon innocent student groups.
The moral problem with carbon offsets are that they reflect the dark side of American capitalism - I refer to the notion that we, as Americans, feel that when confronted with any problem, we can just spend our way out of it. (And then we wonder why there's so much anti-American resentment in the world.)
The United States is in an environmental (and macroeconomic) mess right now because it consumes too much. Consider an item as environmentally benign as a book. It starts as a tree, and requires energy to be transported, turned into pulp, made into paper, bound and have ink applied to it. Throughout this whole process petroleum is needed to ship the book to each of the stages of production until it reaches the hands of the reader.
Carbon offsets fail to dampen consumption - they encourage it. Offsets allow more consumption because they remove the best deterrence against pollution - our conscience. One could argue that the money spent on offsets used to curb deforestation would otherwise go towards consumption, but it actually may encourage more of it.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Sarah
posted 5/01/08 @ 2:16 PM EST
I agree, Alex, that we should do everything in our power to reduce our consumption and carbon output before we purchase carbon offsets. And this is precisely the goal of Middlebury's carbon neutrality initiative. (Continued…)
Post a Comment