Photo credit: Pixabay

Carbon offsets have been compared to purchasing an indulgence (i.e., donating money to a church) to erase the stain of a sin.

We are all sinners in the carbon confessional, to the tune of about two metric tons of CO2 per person per month. The largest piece of greenhouse gas emissions U.S. citizens contribute to climate change is generated by from airplane travel. But many of our daily habits have a carbon footprint too:  driving, using cell phones or AC, cooking, eating meat, using plastics and having the Amazon delivery truck stop at your house.

Climate change is a cancer of our biosphere. Of course, anyone with cancer would first want to know how to eliminate it, not just how to medicate it. So not flying, not driving, and eating local plant-based foods are the first line of attack on the carbon cancer.

The palliative medicine for the climate-changing cancer embedded in our lifestyle is carbon offsets. We can buy solar panels for India or biogas stoves for Kenya to reduce the carbon there to offset the emissions we’ve produced at home.

Soothing the moral urge to compensate for the pleasures and conveniences of our lifestyles is easy to calculate and simple to purchase offsets for. Projects around the globe are certified for effective use of funds to offset carbon. Terrapass.com has a simple calculator. Terrapass estimates the cost of one month of carbon offset for one U.S. person to be $15. GoldStandard.org, whose umbrella org is World Wildlife Fund, is a clearinghouse for certifying carbon offset projects.

The questions arise: Are offsets the right thing to do? Or will they breed complacency in reducing our carbon footprint? Will the money we give make a difference? Will the recipient of our fees actually spend our dollars in addition to what they were already doing? The concept of “additionality” is one measure in the certification process.
The International Air Travel Association (IATA) says that Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from planes by up to 80%. These fuels are currently used in less than 1% of flights. The transition to SAFs is at a snail's pace with a projection of only 2% by 2025. Thirty years is the projected timeline to achieve sustainable air travel. Interestingly, thirty years is about the lifespan of planes which airlines already own. Electric-powered planes are not expected until 2040 yet Tesla’s electric multi-axel semi trucks are already in production.

Good practice: Buy Certified Carbon Offsets to cover air travel.

Better practice: Buy offsets which are Gold Standard Certified to cover your personal carbon footprint of 2 metric tons of CO2 per month.
AND stick to striving for minimal carbon footprint in the choices that you make each day.

Best practice: Live more locally. Join Climate Scientists Who Don’t Fly. Don’t drive. Go vegan. Shun plastic. Ditch your cellphone. Hang clothes out to dry. Turn off the thermostat. Thank a tree. Plant a tree.
AND consider becoming net carbon negative by purchasing some offsets beyond your own carbon footprint.

-------Therese Brummel
 

I have 500 words to resolve the contradictions in my title. Here goes.
 
Any rational and scientific view of the assembled facts, including the sixty plus tipping points that have been tipped, the increasing release of methane, and the potential loss of our ability to grow food as temps rise and growing conditions change would suggest that human extinction is a real possibility.
 
I think that facing the feelings about such a possibility is important and healthy. Shoving the feelings away, ie denial, is unhealthy and leads to a false view of the situation. One example, that of having hope that renewable energy will replace the energy found in fossil fuels is unfounded. I think renewable energy is part of the future but it won't supply the same quality and quantity of Joules (units of energy) that oil does.
 
Having non-rational hope prevents you from experiencing your grief over a situation. That can lead to ineffective action. If you feel the pain then you can see past it and take actions that actually make a difference.
 
Once you have experienced your grief over our predicament, there's more on the other side of grief. I think it's possible to find some real hope. I feel hopeful now because I have and still do take action with others. I have helped to build a community of people who are taking action. I remain unattached about the results but it feels good nonetheless.
 
Some additional reasons why there's more beyond the conclusion of extinction. First, humans are really bad at predicting the future. No expert really knows how this will all turn out. Second, the idea that facts are slippery creatures. Any scientist will tell you that they modify their positions based on new experimental evidence and so with time what was "true" can change. There was a time when most people considered it a fact that the Earth was flat. With enough time facts can change.
 
Third, our culture is steeped in rationality. So much so that it might be impossible to take in this next idea. There are other ways of being that don't involve rationality and they are just as valid as rationality. For example, intuition, beauty, nature, currently unexplainable phenomena and miracles. Miracles to me are things we can't explain from our current perspective. These things and more make up our non-rational world.

Finally, consider that anger and other negative emotions have long term health consequences. Dealing with negative feelings is a step toward a healthy life. There don't seem to be any long term health consequences caused by carrying too much happiness.

----David Cutter