carbon karma on sale now... terminal B... next to Chili's

I flew out of Denver International Airport this weekend, and remembered having heard that DIA was planning on setting up vending stations for carbon offsets in its terminals. Intrigued by the idea of a Carbon Footprint Slimming Station alongside the Dunkin' Donuts, the Taco Bell, and the Snack and News Stand, I did a little research to find out if this is actually DIA's intent. In a recent article in the Rocky Mountain News, I found that, yes indeed, by August of this year, there will be vending machines of this nature in the airport. The plan is to offer folks the option to buy offsets (likely in the form of reforestation in Brazil and solar panels in India) equal to the emissions incurred during their air travels.

Upon initial consideration, it seems like a decent idea- for those of us who feel guilty flying, it's an option to redeem ourselves and relieve any bad carbon karma. But in reality, is this a sound and ethical solution to the problem of CO2 in the atmosphere? Here we are, creating new technologies and new marketing schemes (yes, marketing schemes... DIA will take up to a 14% cut of all sales of carbon offsets in its terminals) to address a problem that cannot be solved by offsets in the long run. Even if we could perfect our ability to quantify the balance between carbon drawn down or precluded from emission by reforestation and solar, versus the carbon emitted by one person's decision to fly in an airplane, we still would only be achieving carbon neutrality. At some point, we are going to have to change our habits and begin cutting back on energy-expensive activities, or find clean alternative means to the ends we seek.

On another note, I am disturbed by the public reaction to this issue; the comments posted on the Rocky Mountain News website in response to this article express nothing but distrust of the players in the carbon market and scorn for the so-called "suckers" who would purchase offsets equivalent to their travel emissions. It is scary to think that the general public may have absolutely no intention of pursuing this option, but I can certainly understand why consumers would be critical or suspicious of the idea. For one thing, people have trouble buying into the idea that buying solar panels for the other side of the world could possibly have any positive benefits for the American traveler. Wouldn't it be a far more marketable and effective (and, frankly, believable) idea to use money earned by offset sales to install solar panels on the roof of the airport itself? Or to invest in wind farms at least in the same state? I can also see why people would be cynical of a "big-corporate-airport-owner's" sales ploy to save the world... especially when DIA is taking a cut of would-be offset money for their own 'administrative' uses.