The whole "carbon offsets" thing seems to me like eating a shitload of unhealthy potato chips and sodas, and then going "oh no, I'ma get fat now", and eating an apple and drinking some water on top of the first crap.
Personally, I'd rather drive my large sedan, use canola-based tires, replace my home's bulbs with LEDs, hang heavy curtains, and recycle more than I dump. Holy shit. I even ride my bike to work sometimes .

Couldn't this family lose the guzzling SUV and get the hybrid and maybe....skimp on the self-righteous pat on the back of the $100 a month to offsets? Use that $100 a month to go towards that hybrid SUV that they can't afford?

The only people benefiting from carbon offsets are the people selling them.

"Conserve, or conserve not, there is no offset"

One serious problem we face is that everyone who consumes resources believes, as you do, that they are different, that they MUST consume more than their share. Why can't you "not fly"? What are you doing that is so important?

Offsets are more like eating a bunch of unhealthy food, and then paying someone else to eat a salad, thinking that it all balances out.

QFT.

There is no real accountability for the CO2 offsets at all. For instance, you can sell an offset based on planting a tree, and write off the CO2 it will absorb over the next 99 years (but ignore the eventual decomposition, and any risk of it not growing or burning to the ground).

Also, the other thing about cap and trade under Kyoto is that countries who's economies have tanked since the 90s (notably Russia) can sell offsets to make money, since the CO2 emmissions are based on 1990 data. This is one of the reasons Kyoto was slammed as a global wealth redistribution scheme (by Clinton, nonetheless).

They only saving grace of this would be if the money spent really does go towards things that actually do really help with greenhouse gasses...otherwise it is just self gratification on the part of the purchaser (environmental masturbation?)
As much as the higher gas prices really suck, I think they are likely to spell the death of the Hummer well before anything else...and the fact is all of the monster SUV's together probably don't equal what some countries, such as China, produce while making poisonous, shoddy products to export to the US....

Of course, SUV's are actually less safe than your average sedan or wagon as well. The illusion of safety in SUV's is one of the largest auto buying fallacies there is...nearly as much as thinking paying someone for "carbon offsets" is going to save the effing environment.

I know. I have seen so many SUV's tip over in accidents with smaller vehicles....

I am also hoping that gas prices will kill the Hummer. I don't know if it's as bad in other places in the U.S. but I see so many Hummers in L.A. it's insane. What's funny is that it seems to be tiny little ladies who are driving these things and of course very rage-filled tough guys. I wonder if paying a lot of money for gas is a status symbol to them.

There are a ton of Hummers around Baton Rouge and new Orleans.

So you HAVE to fly but a family of four who has an SUV are somehow less righteous that you? How many people does your car seat? Do you use all of those seats and it's available cargo capacity? Don't get me wrong, I agree with your implication that they're douchebags. I just don't think you (or I) are somehow lesser douchebags because we drive our single no kids having asses around in a fuel efficient but stull utterly wasteful and damaging sedan.

My car seats two, burns oil, and I have a lead-foot.

I need a picture of me throwing the horns right here, but you can just imagine.

So, when you have to replace your car, buy something smaller and slower. Don't get all angsty about cutting emissions; just make it part of your normal day, every day. Make it a habit.

"Dear Santa,
This year please assuage my liberal guilt.

PS. also bring pony."

My car gets about 10 MPG less than a Prius and I drive maybe 50 miles a week so I'm not actually terribly worried about replacing it. My point was actually that everyone could have a smaller carbon footprint and that trying to make character judgments about people based on their choice of automobile is a specious standard since all automobiles are, environmentally speaking, a grossly inefficient and shitty form of transportation.

Indeed.

I don't think it's a bad idea in cases where emissions cannot be avoided. It distributes emissions so that there may not be a overall positive net effect. But in cases where alternatives are available and you refuse to use them and instead pay "offsets" then you're actually increasing emissions in relation to potential "savings" (read as these later people are smucks and just trying to feel better about their emissions) .

How typically American to suppose we will be able to fix everything by simply throwing enough money at it, and by making a few minor concessions in terms of our sacrosanct oil-dependent consumerist lifestyle. How self-deluded. As a society, we are like the dope addict who tells himself he's going to cut back, or stop mainlining the shit, and it'll all be okay. The addict's denial and rationalizations on a civilizational scale...

There needs to be a fundamental paradigm shift that recognizes the biosphere as our collective #1 priority, that views the concept of wealth in terms of health and well-being and spiritual prosperity for ourselves and future generations, not in terms of the amount of legal tender and fancy gadgets and technological wonders at our disposal. Needless to say, most of us are not 'ready' for such a change in attitude. The consequences we have set in motion are about to give us all a crash course in environmental priorities and how connected we all are with one another and with the Earth which sustains us...

Stupidest. Statement. Ever.