By Bart King
In an effort to reduce my personal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, I try to restrict my travel. However, my wife and I have wanted to visit Costa Rica for several years, and earlier this spring we flew into the capital San Jose and then on to the small Pacific Coast town of Montezuma.
Despite the fact that I encountered only one recycling bin in the country, Costa Rica is considered an international leader on green issues. More than a quarter of the country's territory is under federal protection, and government initiatives have led to a 10% increase in forest lands over the last decade to a current level of 51%. In addition, Costa Ricans generate roughly 97% of their electricity from renewable resources, and they are in a race with the tiny island nation Maldives to be the first carbon-neutral country.
Costa Rica's primary industry is tourism, for which it maintains a certification system for sustainable practices, and it felt good spending our second honeymoon in a country that values its pristine beaches, rainforest canopy and howler monkeys. Nonetheless, I wanted to attempt to offset the carbon emissions created by our travel.
I understand the moral dilemma associated with carbon offsetting, and I agree that I cannot buy absolution from my carbon sins. Critics argue that offering carbon offsets for an international flight, road trip or extravagant wedding is just an easy way to allow consumers to continue living guilt-free, carbon-intensive lives. And they're right. It is easy.
An Internet search revealed a list of 24 organizations selling carbon offsets ranging from $2.15 to $99 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). I clicked into the website of one of the non-profit organizations, which directed me to choose from among offsets for my home, car, flight or event. Next I entered my departure and arrival cities and opted to triple my cost by accepting radiative forcing--a theory that suggests high-altitude emissions contribute more to climate change than those at ground level. I then proceeded to checkout where I was quoted a total of $15.97 for 1.6 tons of CO2, payable by credit card--all in under two minutes.
If I was not making other eco-friendly lifestyle changes, paying this fee would make me guilty of greenwashing in the same way that some companies use offsets to cover up environmentally irresponsible products or business practices. From the car company that offers to offset a driver's first year of mileage to the dairy producer who claims to operate on 100% wind power (despite the fact that they own no wind turbines), carbon offsets as marketing tools are misleading and even damaging. We should not condone the message that carbon emissions can be bought back, or that we can opt out of dirty energy sources, because neither are true.
However, when combined with choices to use less energy, offsets do have moral validity. And to their credit, most companies offering carbon offsetts are clear about the importance of reducing energy consumption as much as possible before choosing to offset the rest.
