Christian Science Monitor Essay

An article in the Christian Science Monitor last January tries to educate consumers about the value of carbon offset programs and whether they have any real effect on global warming. The article, published January 10, 2007, discusses the concept of carbon offsets and the efforts of some companies to become carbon neutral. The ideal are based on the idea that as consumers we emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases or are responsibility for having been emitted. In an effort to reduce that amount, the so-called â€Å"Carbon footprint†, consumers are being offered the chance to buy â€Å"carbon offsets†, a process by which a company takes some action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted. If enough offsets are purchased, the person or company can become â€Å"carbon neutral† meaning that their actions are not increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the world. This article, â€Å"Do Carbon Offsets Live Up to Their Promise? †, is about the first report by someone trying to evaluate whether this is a good environmental effort or a giant fraud. The report, by the non-profit organization Clean Air-Cool Planet, argues that three-quarters of the 30 companies currently selling carbon offsets are doing a less than mediocre job of it. The companies were ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, 75 percent ranked less than a five. The article also details what criteria were used to evaluate the carbon offset programs. The intended reader of this article is the highly-informed readership of the Christian Science Monitor. The newspaper is one of the most well-respected in the country for journalistic excellence and assumes a certain amount of base knowledge in its readership. As such, the article could have been better at explaining some of the basic terms it used, but appeared to be scientifically accurate. Surprisingly, many of the article’s sources were people active in the environmental community. This would seem like an inherent bias in the article, but many of those people were willing to point out flaws in the carbon offset system. One representative of the Sierra Club told the Monitor that if carbon offsets were viewed like papal indulgences and people used them as an excuse to keep polluting, they could potentially be harmful to the planet. The article was also peppered with scientific facts including the idea that methane is a more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide without feeling like a science lecture. This article made me angry because it seemed to make it clear that carbon offsets are a sham. The article indicated that one criteria of the evaluation done by Clean Air-Cool Planet was to determine how many of these greenhouse gas reducing activities would have taken place regardless of whether the offsets were purchased. For companies who use producing alternate fuel sources as a carbon offset, it appears that this new trend is simply a way to capitalize their projects and make even more money. Other companies called planting trees their â€Å"carbon offset†. Since trees are a renewable resource, I am skeptical about when and where these trees were being planted. If they were planted to replace a forest that had just been clear cut for the local paper mill, then calling them a â€Å"carbon offset† is fraudulent and ridiculous. This article made me very leery of those who use carbon offsets in general, as it appears that this may indeed be a way for the indulgent to continue their polluting ways, never change their lifestyles to reflect the needs of the planet, and feel better about themselves while nothing is being done to stop global warming. This article left me with the impression that much of the hype about stopping global warming has been just that, hype, and that we will realize in a few years that the problem is getting exponentially worse despite our â€Å"efforts† to fix it.