In today's issue of the Washington Post, an article by David Fahrenthold reviews the mixed bag of results that the House of Representatives has achieved in making their half of Capitol Hill carbon neutral. In November, they spent about $89,000 to offset their unavoidable carbon emissions by paying for agricultural acts that sequestered an equal amount of carbon elsewhere. All well and good, at least in theory, but carbon offsetting is a new and weird commodity. It doesn't always work that well. Some of the money went to farmers in North Dakota, to pay them to practice a certain soil conservation technique they were already doing. Some other funds went to a power plant in Iowa that was supposed to produce cleaner energy -- during a trial run that ended a year before the money got there.

Driving around town, I see a decent minority of cars sporting a bumper sticker that says "This car's CO2 offset by TerraPass" or something similar. Despite my strong concern over climate change and the clear connection between CO2 emissions and global warming, I have yet to invest in one of these balancing schemes. I think it's just that it's an unproven system. Mainly through my own ignorance of their practices, I'm not convinced that companies like TerraPass aren't just taking people for a ride. I think that if the U.S. government had some sort of verification procedure whereby carbon offsetting companies could be certified, then I would be more inclined to trust them and get on board. But, as the Post article elucidates, we don't really regulate this business yet in America. They regulate the heck out of it in Europe, but also with mixed results.

It should be noted that despite these examples of offsetting "flubs," the House achieved some real progress with some simple acts that conserve energy: they switched to compact fluorescent light bulbs and ordered the Capitol Power Plant to burn natural gas instead of coal.

Labels: action, global warming, politics