"Al Gore's carbon offsets may be an example for Big Three to follow"

The Wall Street Journal (28 March 2007) discusses a possible strategic alternative for Big Three, the US automakers: like Al Gore, carmakers could purchase carbon offsets to offset the CO2 emissions of passenger cars, perhaps even in lieu of making their cars more fuel efficient.

Nascent "carbon marketplaces hold the secret ingredients that has led many big companies - including the automakers - to come out favoring regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions," the WSJ writes. "The auto makers hate the current U.S. regulatory regime - Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards."

What if carmakers start buying offsets instead of reducing actual source emissions? This is, indeed, the greatest risk of the offset schemes: that companies and individuals buy good conscience while continuing to emit at the same rate or at increasing rates. How is the net outcome going to look?

Even Economist.com, a fervent proponent of markets, argues there are major problems.

"Calculating one's carbon output, and the carbon savings from various offsets, is very tricky and may be manipulated by unscrupulous offset firms. Trees take quite a long time to get to the stage where they are actually absorbing all that carbon—and tend to die shortly thereafter, releasing all that carbon back into the atmosphere, there to wreak havoc. By legitimating carbon usage, offset companies may actually be increasing it."

"Huge numbers of people in the rich world have to fly less, drive less, consume less, and live in smaller houses. If Mr Gore really wants to encourage this (as I do), then it would be nice to see him setting an example."