Understanding Australian Infrastructure Carbon Reduction Initiative 2 Understanding Australian Infrastructure Carbon Red | Página 4

Even in the case of energy-based schemes, however, many people argue that offsetting is unhelpful – or
even counterproductive – in the fight against climate change. For example, writer George Monbiot
famously compared carbon offsets with the ancient Catholic church's practice of selling indulgences:
absolution from sins and reduced time in purgatory in return for financial donations to the church. Just as
indulgences allowed the rich to feel better about sinful behaviour without actually changing their ways,
carbon offsets allow us to "buy complacency, political apathy and self-satisfaction", Monbiot claimed.
"Our guilty consciences appeased, we continue to fill up our SUVs and fly round the world without the
least concern about our impact on the planet … it's like pushing the food around on your plate to create
the impression that you have eaten it."
A similar if more humorous point is made by the spoof website CheatNeutral.com, which parodies carbon
neutrality by offering a similar service for infidelity. "When you cheat on your partner you add to the
heartbreak, pain and jealousy in the atmosphere," the website explains. "CheatNeutral offsets your
cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and not cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy
emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience."
CheatNeutral may be tongue-in-cheek but the indulgence and cheating analogies have both become de
facto arguments against carbon offsetting. But do the comparisons stand up? Not according to David
Roberts, staff writer at Grist. "If there really were such a thing as sin, and there was a finite amount of it
in the world, and it was the aggregate amount of sin that mattered rather than any individual's
contribution, and indulgences really did reduce aggregate sin, then indulgences would have been a
perfectly sensible idea," Roberts has written, mirroring similar claims made by others sympathetic to
offsetting. "The comparison is a weak and transparent smear, which makes me wonder why critics rely so
heavily on it."
And what about the claim that people use offsetting as a way to avoid changing their un-environmentally
friendly ways? This is nonsense, too, according to the offset schemes themselves, which claim that most
of their customers are also taking steps to reduce their emissions directly. A report from Britain's National
Consumer Council and Sustainable Development Commission agreed with this perspective: "a positive
approach to offsetting could have public resonance well beyond the CO2 offset, and would help to build
awareness of the need for other measures."
Ultimately, the question of whether the concept of offsetting is valid must come down to the individual.
If you offset to assuage guilt and to make yourself feel better about high-carbon activities such as flying,
that can't be good. If you offset as part of cutting your footprint, or as an incentive to be greener (after
all, the less you emit, the less it will cost you to go carbon neutral) then that can't be bad – especially if
the offset projects offer extra benefits such as poverty reduction in the developing world.
Do offset projects actually deliver the carbon benefits they promise?
Arguments about guilty consciences aside, the key issue for anyone who does want to offset is whether
the scheme you're funding actually achieves the carbon savings promised. This boils down not just to the
effectiveness of the project at soaking up CO2 or avoiding future emissions. Effectiveness is important but
not enough. You also need to be sure that the carbon savings are additional to any savings which might
have happened anyway.
Take the example of an offset project that distributes low-energy lightbulbs in a developing country,
thereby reducing energy consumption over the coming years. The carbon savings would only be classified