Environmental advocates have endorsed carbon neutrality; they purchase carbon offsets to neutralize their impact on fossil fuel consumption and therefore global warming. But why the half-step? Why not try for a negative carbon footprint? Don't use any hydrocarbons and buy the offsets.
Being "carbon neutral" has also become a trend in business – acquiring carbon offsets to allegedly neutralize the effects of the hydrocarbons they have burned. Typically, this involves planting trees and so forth.
But wait – if they believe that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming, and if they believe that offsets can be purchased to neutralize those negative effects, then why don't they cease burning hydrocarbons and also purchase carbon offsets, which would mean a net gain for the environment?
What they are doing is like donating to the humane society to offset the dog fighting ring you run in your garage, and then claiming that you are "dog harm neutral." The way to remain neutral is not to engage in the behavior at all. Do you think they would get off your back about driving an SUV if you planted a few trees?
Consider TV networks that "go green." The very idea would make for a great sitcom. A TV network going green is like a mugger donating a portion of his take to crime prevention, because if he really wanted to reduce crime he would stop mugging people! If a network really wanted to go green, it would stop broadcasting. After all, earth-threatening amounts of greenhouse gasses are produced during the creation of television, and species-threatening amounts are created when millions of people power up their TVs to watch the network products.
TRENDING: Greatest Show on Earth: The Hur report hearing
This is another example of how some people are all for reducing commerce to save the planet, until it hits close to home.
If a company were really genuine about going green, it would close its doors, liquidate all of its assets and use the proceeds to purchase carbon offsets. After all, virtually all businesses use energy, so they are part of the problem as long as they exist.
The entertainment industry also dons a green facade these days. But we have to ask ourselves how people who live lifestyles of the rich and famous, and who can easily spare a few dollars for offsets, claim with any credibility that they are not part of the problem. A regular working guy can't afford to buy credits.
If you accept the premise that burning fuel is the fast track to destruction, then how can you not be shocked by this bravado? The next time a movie star bemoans global warming, does it not make sense to ask him why he doesn't stop making movies, which between their production and viewing burns millions of watts of energy per year? Of what value is a movie if its creation takes us that much closer to our doom?
Logic dictates that if they were genuine, they would stop making movies and spend their fortunes on carbon offsets. This way they would be recycling their money because it was made by burning fuel, and it would then be used to offset the burning of that fuel.
How can musicians who fly around the world spewing tons of pollution from their planes and give concerts that people burn tons of fuel to travel to, and who cause untold energy to be expended in MP3 players and stereos, have the nerve to lecture us about dialing back our lifestyles to save the planet?
Why should we take their word about the effectiveness of carbon offsets? Doesn't it seem funny that after people pointed out that proponents of global warming burn just as much fuel as anyone else, they came up with the idea of carbon offsets? Actually cutting back on their own consumption never crossed their minds. Why in the world would they want to reduce their own comfort and convenience when they can get kudos for making you do it?
Also, if carbon offsets really work, why not just plant a few forests and we can all go back to living our lives like we did pre-warming?
The value of carbon offsets is that they allow people who live in energy-hogging mansions to lecture people who live in small apartments about excessive energy use.
Even the godfather of global warming is financially involved in a cable TV network. A network is a global warming contributor any way you look at it. If the network is successful, millions of people will have their TVs on for hours watching its shows, which means some gas-belching power plant somewhere will have railroad cars full of coal shoveled into it like an engineer shoveling coal into a steaming locomotive. He, of all people, didn't even choose a carbon neutral occupation, yet we're supposed to give up drive-thru windows to reduce fuel consumption? Please.
There are no contradictions. There are only two possible reasons for this behavior: either they don't really believe in global warming and this is all window dressing, or they think that they are above having to sacrifice to stop it, but we should be forced to. Either way, they are slap-in-the-face hypocrites.