eCO2pass

One of the popular sound bites in the discussion of global warming is comparing carbon offsets to the purchase of Papal indulgences in the old Catholic church. The logic is simple: Rich people used to be able to buy the right to sin by purchasing indulgences; now they can buy the right to pollute by purchasing carbon offsets.

And like most soundbites with simple logic, it’s absolutely actually illogical.

Papal indulgences were a system based on something intangible and subjective: sin. You could sin all you wanted, but if you had the money, you could avoid any shame or punishment. The “net level of sin,” if you will, was not actually reduced by the indulgences. It was a criminal and immoral system.

When it comes to CO2, on the other hand, you are dealing with something objective and tangible. Seen from the perspective of the atmosphere, all that matters is the net level of CO2 hanging around

So even if Al Gore sends x number of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere via his car and air travel, his efforts in educating the public on global warming—as well as subsidizing the forces that reduce CO2 via offsets—actually produce a profoundly negative net carbon footprint.

Put simply, Papal indulgences did not reduce the net level of sin; carbon offsets do (at least theoretically) reduce the net level of carbon.

Sure, from a psychological standpoint, offsets act like indulgences in that they reduce the guilt of overconsumption and can appear to sanction pollution. But if the net effect is keeping carbon under 500 ppm over the next 100 years, who the hell cares?