"one person’s reduction in carbon dioxide emissions anywhere on the planet fully offsets anyone else’s contribution to the total.How simple, how cheap: continue to consume the way we always have, but spend a few dollars to neuter the effect. Marvelous. Makes you wonder what all that extreme weather event hysterics is all about, doesn't it? We already have a solution. No biggie.
Carbon offsets, though much maligned, are an excellent idea. If you want to help reduce carbon emissions, consider buying some."
Robert H Frank is miffed at the flippancy, and what he considers to be an awfully misleading analogy, offered by adultery offsets at Cheat Neutral.
"When you cheat on your partner you add to the heartbreak, pain and jealousy in the atmosphere.
Cheatneutral offsets your cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and NOT cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience.
First you should look at ways of reducing your cheating. Once you've done this you can use Cheatneutral to offset the remaining, unavoidable cheating."
According to Rob:
"The site’s founders say they wanted to use humor to demonstrate why the market for carbon offsets is a moral travesty.
But the criticism is misguided. If our goal is to reduce carbon emissions as efficiently as possible, offsets make perfect economic sense."
Rob offers no evidence to refute the moral travesty point. None. It's allegedly an economics column, sans economics. He makes assertions. Offers the usual dogma.
Carbon off sets are a moral travesty. Ditto and likewise carbon trading.
Two of the most inefficient and ineffective marketing and profit making ploys invented by the environmental industry.
With adultery offsets up and running, it's a matter of time before an entrepreneur offers calorie off sets.
Carbon offsets: a small price to pay for efficiency