From: a wicked concerned reader
Date: March 11, 2007 12:53:09 PM EDT
You should amend that post. Treehugger did not say those things... they reported on them... the story is a report on a group and a (slightly suspect) study from the Netherlands that did (sic).
To be honest the issue is muddied in the story. They are not talking about SIA/OR type offsets as much as large-scale offsets in treaties (say the US claims its forests instead of limiting greenhouse gas emission) as well as major trading in carbon offset futures.
I think this story has gotten sensationalized in the blogosphere due to shoddy reporting.
- END -
From: a concerned reader
Date: March 12, 2007 6:31:03 AM EDT
My bad. I guess that story IS from Treehugger.
Sloppy on their part if you ask me as that indulgence reference comes from this story and the report quoted in it (which was the one I thought you were linking)
I'm not sure where Ontkush got his facts on Catholic indulgences either... the Dutch were not the only ones offered indulgences. In fact the church still gives them out now. Regardless, it's a disingenuous analogy. If you can't travel without using carbon-gas producing technology (meaning no flights, no drives, no taxis, etc.) which only a miniscule number of us can do, and you buy into wind power to make up for the carbon you used (which is an alternative), how is that like the church taking money (which went to build St. Peter's) to improve your lot in Purgatory?
Basically this story was the type of off the cuff garbage that makes the web such a dangerous source of information. I just think that if you are going to start making these arguments in public, you had best be on your game (or at least be able to write). I think too that he is talking about computer manufracturers offseting their production, not about offsetting travel. On second read, what the hell is he talking about?