It seems the idea of carbon offsets trading if in fact an international set of limits is adopted would be a good way to provide a mechanism to balance resources in an overall positive way to obtain a reduction that would be less of a burden to those least capable of investing in the means to reduce carbon emissions output.

But on an individual basis it seems much less productive compared to finding ways to actually reduce one's carbon footprint by adopting ways to use less energy by efficiencies that conserve while providing the same level of living benefits. For instance many Europeans enjoy a standard of living equal to or better than Americans but on average have a carbon footprint half that of Americans. Identifying the differences and why we in American use more carbon based energy would assist greatly in reducing our emissions without any substantive reduction in living standards.

David B. Brooks

Cheating in a relationship hurts your significant other. In other words, its effects are local. CO2 emissions, on the other hand, only exert their effects globally. Your town doesn't warm up if it emits more carbon dioxide. The CheatNeutral comparison is incorrect and misleading.

Imho, the best way for an individual to affect the CO2 balance is to make charcoal out of yard waste. Burning yard waste pollutes the air and composting yard waste releases CO2. By turning yard waste into charcoal, you are locking that Carbon into a form that will not degrade for hundreds of years. So plants suck the CO2 out of the air, and you lock it in the ground. The added benefit is a soil ammendment that is wonderful for plants. Look up Terra Preta for more info.

I suggest diverting your donation (equal to offset) from an unknown location to a local organization that is working to curb global warming.