Does Carbon Offsets have any similarity to Papal Indulgences?

Question

For centuries, the selling of Papal Indulgences was a major fund-raising endeavor for the Roman Catholic church. For a large fee, the wealthy could buy their way into heaven. The Pardoner was one of Chaucer's most vivid portraits of corruption, and indulgences were a major catalyst for Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Are environmentalists undermining the legitimacy and integrity of their own movement by promoting the sale and transfer of carbon offsets?

Answer 1

Yes they are.  They want to go back to the early 90's when the EU shut down a lot of the older Eastern block power plants and have a huge carbon load to sell.  Carbon offsets and the sale of green house gas emissions would put an added burden on the US if it doesn't include every nation.  It would also redistribute the wealth from the "bad" companies to the "good" companies.

Answer 2

Excellent analogy.

And essentially the same type of thing.

The environmental movement has very much become a religion of sorts with it's own zealots  heretics, converts and false prophets.

Answer 3

We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. We do not have time to go through the government red tape. With oil on the decline, we have to make massive changes, swiftly. But we have to take the time to get it right. We can not do this twice, or three times - like in the past; we have to put our money in the best return on investments and where we get multiple benefits. We have had most of this technology for 20 years but have not implemented it. We know what is cost effective; we know where we need better technology. Without governments mandating renewable resources that do not harm the environment, we are doomed. The fossil fuel depression with global warming will be the worst economic downturn in world history. But this is not doom and gloom; we have the ability to fix our mess and enough time. Solar Concentrating Electric Power Plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are what we need. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and cleanup) for oil, natural gas, coal, cigarettes, cooling towers, cars, trains and airplanes. Raising the price of fossil fuel today gives us more time to solve these problems and helps pay for the 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years. Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal.

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on 1-31-08. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve global warming. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon – anyone now want to pay $30 per gallon for gas. The problem is the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages (gone at least to run cars, heat homes, power electric plants or air travel). The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%, but I would prefer a 5% Solution over the next 10 years for a 50% reduction. At the same time, we have to be building renewable energy so at the end of 10 years we can cut an additional 20%. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak NG in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. Over the next 90 years carbon dioxide is projected to skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels, but we have to come up with what will take its place and cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuk winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy food from out side the USA to send to starving people since our grain is not available. Now what USA Presidential candidate is giving you the facts so you can make an educated decision of which one to vote for?

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and we are far behind).

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface. Watch for changes in the sight coming soon.

Answer 4

Sorry, but I see no parallels, beyond the buying and selling of course.

Getting industry to track carbon emmissions is the first step in reducing those emissions.  The current policy is already starting to establish a corporate mindset of "We have to pollute less, it costs too much."

Papal indulgences, on the other hand, was an undermining of catholic principles.  By reducing salvation to a monetary transaction, the church cheapened it, and the meaning was lost.  No one (rational) is claiming that reducing pollution is divine, so there are no mystic principles to be damaged.  Carbon offsets merely translate the indirect cost that the population woudl have to pay in the form of bad air into an economic cost that the company has to pay with money.

Answer 5

Further proof AGW is closer to religion than scientific theory.

Answer 6

That is startlingly accurate, a very good take on the situation. Same principle, better marketing.

Of course, you realize we're all doomed.

Answer 7

Carbon offsets and Indulgences have only one thing different about them.  Carbon offsets are for "forgiveness" of environmental habits while Indulgences are for forgiveness of sins in the Church's eyes.  Both only make the purchaser of these "feel" good and does not make them less of a polluter or a sinner.  

Yes, you're right, carbon credits do not aid in any sort of solution.  They (environmentalists) would be better off saving their money and not adhere to a wasteful life.

Answer 8

Wow, this is a very good analogy.  

I have felt that for a very long time, the environmentalist movement has been co-opted for a very selfish moneymaking purpose and I don't think that all environmentalists understand this.  

What would you do if you were the head of an oil company or energy company and you saw that technology would soon replace your very companies existence?  

Firstly, I would discredit the environmental movement by attacking anything I could about it.  Then, I would work on putting myself and my company in the front of the line of making money off of it so that when the technology becomes cleaner and more efficient, I wouldn't be left completely out in the cold.  Then I would reverse my stance and push for the sky is falling mentality so that everyone would fear global warming and purchase your product or carbon offset as it may.

While this is going on, no one seems to notice the chemicals being added to your food and water etc. which should be the real environmental concerns.  What will happen to the environmental movement when global warming does not happen?  Do you think we will benefit from that?  I doubt it.