Putting it into words

From time to time there are concepts that occur to me that for whatever reason I can never correctly phrase in order to express my thought. It is always a very frustrating time unless and until I am able to put that thought into expressions in an understandable way. I think I finally came up with a way to express my dissatisfaction with a popular movement.

It was stimulated by a newspaper article discussing "green gift-giving" for Christmas, an ironic statement if I ever heard one. As with most generalizations and/or stereotypes, there are numerous exceptions, but you will still somewhat frequently find linked people who are against the crass commercialism that constitutes the "Christmas Spirit" and people who are "environmentally conscious". Hence they are against the green of Christmas but for the Green of Christmas...ha, what a brilliant statement I have wrought!

Anyway, to my point, one of the comments in the Horrid-gonian (as I like to call our local rag, the Oregonian...quite possibly the worst paper I have ever come in regular contact with) had to do with the schlock value of giving someone a "carbon offset for their SUV". And it finally clicked for me how I could express the downright absurdity of "carbon offsets" and "carbon neutral living".

Now, up front I should say I am not for mindless destruction or excess use. For decades I have habitually flicked off lights/appliances not in use, do not drive mindlessly or aimlessly...I take the fastest, most direct route possible, of that I can assure you...and so forth. Yet there is an implicit critique of my lifestyle by many people who consume far more energy than I do because of the (alleged) inherent "earth-unfriendly" nature of my lifestyle.

And it bugs the living snot out of me to have the snobby, snarky elitist know-it-alls carping at me day and night, in every medium they can. There are shots at people who live as I do in song, in sitcoms, in dramas, in "news" stories, in editorials, in movies...and frankly, it is really, really old...and ridiculous.

You see, there is a belief that if you plant x number of trees and similar actions then it mathematically "offsets" your carbon use (and oh how I hate the "carbon footprint" phrase...I have heard it so much lately it just makes me want to give a primal scream and rip the voice box/pen/etc. out of whoever is saying/writing it).

And here is why that bothers me so much. The implicit assumption is they can use as much carbon based energy as they want and still be "better environmental people" than those who are not "purchasing offsets" because they have a few trees planted. This ignores the balance between the carbon energy use the earth state can naturally absorb/repair as opposed to the amount being consumed. If, as is assumed by these people, it is in a negative balance, then more energy consumption will exacerbate the situation even if you subsequently do what you believe will correct it (the numerous examples of man trying to "correct" nature and ending up harming it instead notwithstanding).

Memo to these snobs: You have still consumed that energy. If the goal is to reduce worldwide carbon energy use, instead of using insane amounts and then (allegedly) being okay as a person because you purchase "offsets", why not purchase those same offsets while...oh, I don't know...using LESS resources yourself? If you know going in that x number of people are going to drive their less efficient rigs or use y amount of excess energy...though often enough the complaint is against essentially ANY energy use as being excess...instead of using more energy yourself and complaining about them, why not use less energy and "make up" for their supposedly devastating excess use?

Ah, but that would require more than feel-good lip service to the cause, wouldn't it? I have a friend who, to her credit, actively seeks to minimize her impact. She recycles religiously...and not just her own materials, but those of random strangers, she carpools whenever possible, and so forth...but people like her are somehow "lesser conservationists" because they are not "living carbon neutral"? I call shenanigans. She is far better for the environment on her own than all of you self-righteous nincompoops.

The whole concept of offsets is ridiculous. You have not reduced energy consumption, you have not moved towards reducing your impact...you have still used that energy and your example is horrendous.

Among non-blind followers Gore, for example, has become a punch-line for his ridiculous energy consumption in his personal residence at the same time he is bleating his doomsday global warming stuff and winning Oscars. Yet imagine the criticism he himself would level at someone like George Bush if he lived in such a house?

The bottom line is simple; If you are going to preach "reduce" then you need to do what the grass-roots true believers are doing and reduce, not expend tremendous amounts of resources, then claim innocence because you purchased "offsets". If you reduce and do the same thing, then you might have an argument you are making an improvement. Unless and until then...shut up. We are really sick of hearing about our minimal energy consumption from people using more in a day than we use in a year.