It's interesting to read this post. I've always had mixed feelings about these things, not only for the reason you mentioned of paying a tax on our sins, but also because I was never confident the investment would do something concrete that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Is there any type of public accounting that could show people something like: "project X was made possible by the X amount of donations. Project X would not have happened otherwise."

In short, is there any way to know that these solar/wind/etc. projects are happening because of the money people give to Carbonfund or Terrapass, and that they would not have happened if it weren't for these funds?

I haven't really checked their sites out much, so forgive me if they address this question themselves.

Diana

Although carbon offsets get slammed alot for being guilt taxes, I agree with the above that they are actually really useful.

One objection I've heard is that you can only displace so much carbon without changing behavior yourself. At an absolute level that's true, but should we ever get enough carbon offsets in play at the consumer level that there's a shortage we will have a pretty incredible level of support for alternative energy programs going on.

Also by allowing us to fund alternative energy projects directly, if these programs are financially succesful, it sends a message to policy makers that we're willing to impose a tax on ourselves to create change.

I am glad Kaela brought up the issue of discrepancies in evaluating the cost of a ton of emitted CO2.  That is indeed a puzzlement.  And possibly it is related to something that puzzles me, which is how a particular activity is quantified, CO2-emission-wise.

(This occurred to me in connexion with a hopefully green-sounding statement on that remarkable website about creating a "tribe" on a Fiji islet, a couple of days ago, for which poor David got slammed, for not Paying Attention to Absolutely Everything, and Remembering It Too.)

For example, take an airline flight from point A to point B.  We have an average fuel consumption for that route, and we have an average number of passengers on that flight.  So is it just a matter of division, and our offsetting calculation is nearly done?

But actually, the book-keeping for that flight has hardly begun.  What about the energy consumed in "recovering" the petroleum, transporting it to a refinery, refining it, transporting it to the airplane?  What about the energy consumed in marketing the flight, and selling the ticket to me the passenger?  What about if it is an e-ticket, or a paper ticket?  What about the energy consumed by all the airline's employees in their travel to and from work?  What about the energy consumed in my ground travel to the airport at point A, and my ground travel from the airport at point B?  What about the energy consumed in the production and transportation of the food served on-board?  What about the energy consumed by the baggage trucks, and the boarding ramps?  Is it not fair to add in some part of the energy cost of even the construction of the airplane, the employees' uniforms, the airport?

I understand the moral quibbles about "offsetting," but I myself have no objection to it in principle.  Nevertheless, the way it is apparently being done nowadays strikes me as very very silly.  And that is not at all good, if we hope to establish it as a conventional part of our way of life.

Carbon emission from air travel is about three times more harmfull than other emissions, so it makes sense that it's more expensive.

Research your organization before you put your money on the table!  I'm currently "shopping" for an offsetting program and found that for 2005, carbonfund.org:

-Had $39,421 in revenue.
-Spent $12,625 to directly offset carbon emissions.
-Spent $16,242 on education programs, press releases, and developing their website.

In other words:
-32% of their revenue directly mitigates CO2 emissions
-68% of their revenue goes into developing their company and educating the public on carbon neutrality (including developing their website and issuing PR statements about their role in balancing CO2 emissions)

That means that for 2005, 32 cents of every dollar you donate was applied directly to reducing CO2 emissions.  The other 68 cents went to PR and education (which means paying for their website, educating the public, issuing press releases about their company, and so on.)

Check it carbonfund.org and other non-profits on guidestar.org.

Is 32% a high enough number?  You have to make up your own mind.  But when you do, keep in mind that start-ups like this one need capital to build their own internal structure for the first couple of years.  And it costs money to print brochures, develop materials, and spread the word.  Eventually, I'd HOPE that 32% would AT LEAST double. (Some mature non-profits spend 70%+ of their revenue on "direct services."