"Green" Oscars and Carbon Offsets

In what I (and apparently a few others) can only assume is an attempt to salve the left-leaning consciousness of many of the presenters at this years Oscars (as well as an attempt to save them from having to pay hefty taxes on gift "bags" full of swanky stuff that are often worth upwards of $100G) the Academy this year decided to give out carbon offset certificates. The certificates are worth 100,000 pounds of CO2 emissions, which is supposed to be a reasonable average for one year of a celebrity's life... with all the flying and heating the swimming pool in the enormous Beverly Hills mansion. As a comparison, the average American is said to have a carbon footprint of anywhere from 7 to 19 tons (or 14,000 to 38,000 pounds). You can calculate your own carbon footprint at multiple sites online like this one and this one. And you can read an excellent explanation of the concept here (gotta love Wikipedia.)

I don't disagree, in principle, with the idea of purchasing carbon offsets, but I'm not familiar enough with the economics and logistics of energy markets to speak with any authority. I do wonder about the logical conundrum of essentially paying someone else to use less energy so that one can use more. It doesn't really fit with the goal of reducing consumption overall. Anyway, I'd hate to see this become just another way that wealthy individuals can get away with behaving irresponsibly or hypocritically while the burden of change falls on regular people and the bulk of the fallout falls on the poorest. The comment here about Catholics purchasing dispensations strikes me as especially funny. I guess what irks me the most is the idea of being able to buy oneself a clear conscience, and the assumption (which may be unfair) that having the money to do so frees one from the obligation to behave more responsibly.

Then again, stars do have to fly more than regular people and there's not much they can personally do about the environmental impact of flying, and at least this offers some way for them to offset that. I guess I'm just worried about the trend-setting possibilities. I'd rather see celebrities reducing their carbon footprint through responsible choices, because that sets a good example for the public at large, but that's probably an unfair burden to place on a bunch of actors.

Another thought, though... the idea of carbon offsets creates a whole new commodity. One that the poor have more of, thanks to the necessity of living more simply. If the government sets a standard for individual carbon footprints, with a corresponding obligation (and not just suggestion) to stay within those limits, that could mean more money flowing downhill from the heaviest consumers to the lightest- in the form of purchased carbon offsets. That could make for an interesting redistribution of wealth, and possibly a different kind of cultural divide, should the environmental problems escalate beyond a certain degree. I'm suddenly imagining celebrities and corporations underwriting entire eco-villages to offset their carbon impact. Probably more fantasy than reality... but an interesting possibility nonetheless.