CARROLL: Flight of fancy
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Rocky / 2000
Denver International Airport
"The three most important words in the English language: 'Wait a minute.' "
- former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn
It may be too late for officials at Denver International Airport to heed Rayburn's advice and slow their rush to offer "carbon offsets" for sale in DIA concourses. Pious gestures meant to "let people know that airports want to do the right thing," as one official described the upcoming program, will apparently trump any desire to protect green-minded travelers from a dubious commercial come-on.
So sometime later this year, if all goes as planned, DIA customers will be able to buy a small stake in environmental projects that in theory will offset the amount of carbon emissions from their flights.
Trouble is, hardly a month goes by without another news story or study casting doubt on whether these offsets work as advertised.
Just this week, The Washington Post reported that the House of Representatives spent $89,000 last year on carbon offsets that included projects already under way or that apparently would have occurred anyway, with or without an infusion of funds. "It just, I think, demonstrated why offsets are controversial and possibly pointless . . . This is a waste of taxpayer money," Joseph Romm told the Post. Romm is no patsy on global warming, by the way. He writes the Climate Progress blog for the left-wing Center for American Progress and advocates extremely aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions.
DIA will no doubt offer its carbon offsets through a reputable company - or as reputable as they get in this line of work - but then so did our Washington politicians. "The House's purchase provides a view into the confusing world of carbon offsets," explains the Post, "a newly popular commodity with few rules."
Travelers thinking of buying offsets might want to proceed to Las Vegas instead, where gambling at least abides by strict rules.
Will educators ever learn?
Colorado's education establishment has spent the past three years sneering at democracy, trying to persuade the courts to take on a role that the state constitution assigns to the legislature. Last week they were rebuffed for the second time.
Will they finally get the message?
Will they accept the fact that the constitutional guarantee of a "thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state" is not a reasonable excuse for the courts to usurp the power of the legislature and dictate the level of education funding?
Will they concede that no amount of legal testimony will ever reveal the optimal amount needed to educate a child, because every answer involves value judgments best left to elected officials?
No, of course they won't. But at least a district court last year and now the Colorado Court of Appeals in a unanimous three-judge ruling have signaled that they understand their proper role. In blunt language, both courts dashed the plaintiffs' hopes that they'd wade into the morass of school finance - as courts have done in a surprising number of other states - and simply order politicians to spend more on schools.
The latest opinion includes unflattering references to court decisions from other states, suggesting some were based in part on "policy choices and value determinations" that are inconsistent "with the principle of judicial restraint."
Judicial restraint is of course the last thing desired by the lawsuit's plaintiffs (a gaggle of parents and school districts) and their supporters (the Colorado Association of School Boards, Colorado Association of School Executives and the Colorado Education Association). Hence their search for judges undaunted by the challenge of undermining representative democracy.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
January 30, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
steve writes:
The sale of Carbon Offsets is equivalent to the sale of Indulgences in the Middle Ages. It's only purpose is to ease the conscience of the purchaser, and enrich the recipient.
January 30, 2008
3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
as long as offsets become increasing relevant and credible...why is this a bad idea?
January 30, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
TreeBanker writes:
I'm not sure why anyone would think that the government would research their offset provider any more thoroughly than any other organization with an unlimited bank account and a willingness to make themselves look green. The federal government's spending has been the butt of jokes for as long as any of us can remember. I'm not surprised they got caught in this one.
These stories don't prove that carbon offsetting is wrong, they just prove that the system is immature and needs standards.
If we are to maintain a lifestyle that resembles the one we have now we have to make radical changes in the way we produce energy. If offset dollars help speed these projects along... I'm all for it. If offset dollars help remove the excess carbon dioxide we already have in the atmosphere...I'm all for it.
BUT...
If people and organizations continue to pollute and think they can buy their way out of it with offsets then steve's right. It's just like buying indulgences.
In a previous posting I wrote that the simple truth is, regardless of whether you believe in Global Climate Change or not, some form of carbon taxation is coming very soon.
Reduce your emissions as low as possible...Then offset the rest with a credible, verifiable system that makes sense to you.
February 10, 2008
6:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Grouchy_Old_Man writes:
Verrrrrry interesting. I have been browsing scientific journals and information. There are many charts, graphs, etc. that show that the earths CO2 levels are at the lowest point in the last 40,000 years. Makes one wonder. I think that overpopulation of the earth is the biggest problem. With only 25% of the earths surface providing sustainability for humans (all food, clothing, fuel, etc.)methinks it's time to address the human problem. At least that is something positive that could be done to help our planet survive.