Money cures all?

In the checkout line of my local Whole Foods Market are a stack of cards you can buy to purchase carbon emission credits. As I think I posted about awhile back, companies like Whole Foods and the Vail Resorts group have been buying power credits from energy companies utilizing renewable sources to offset the electricity they use from conventional power plants at their local stores and vacation properties. Now, the public can do the same? Worried about how much pollution you're creating by that commute to work or that electricity you're using to watch television at night? No problem. Buy some carbon emission credits, and you've essentially funneled some money to a windmill somewhere to make clean energy for someone else.

It seems, though, that this has become more of a fad, rather than a lifestyle change. As pointed out by a recent article in The New York Times, carbon trading is hip, but may not necessarily be making the impact celebrities would make us think it does:

“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”

Seems he may have a point. Even during the most recent Academy Awards, Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio proudly announced that the entire extravaganza of the Oscars was totally green, as they had purchased enough carbon emission credits to offset all the carbon production from the electricity used during the festivities. The audience of celebrities and Hollywood executives gave a standing ovation, as if to pat themselves on the back for their wonderful deed for society, and later exiting the awards show in their gas-guzzling limos to go to indulge in the post-Oscar parties that I'm sure were full of environmentally unfriendly party favors, gift bags, imported foods, and unrecycled garbage.

After the Al Gore won an Oscar for his film about the encroaching dangers of global warming, many in the press called him a hypocrite by citing his use of electricity in his large mansion in Tennessee. The more modest ranch house of George W. Bush in Crawford, TX, in comparison, was found to be much more progressive in it's measure to be "green"--kind of odd for a President seemingly in bed with the energy and petroleum industry.

Now I'm not trying to berate Al Gore. Most of you have read about my growing admiration of him for his efforts to increase awareness of global warming. My point, though, is that I think some of the rich in this environmental movement are sending the wrong message. Simply throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily going to change how society views the problem. It only makes those with less money feel that they can't help decrease our production of carbon emissions because they don't have the funds to buy credits like the Hollywood stars that are the so-called role models of the movement. It's a bit sad that many in the public look up to the celebrities for guidance, but that's the reality. And we do have the Ed Begley, Jr.'s running around in Hollywood, but they seem to be looked at as radical freaks. However, perhaps we need the rich to take some more radical, lifestyle changing steps like him.

Anywho, I think I'll go drive down to the Whole Foods that's just a few blocks away from my home now to buy some bottled water that was shipped over from Iceland, and buy a few carbon emission credits to offset all that car exhaust I just blew into the atmosphere in addition to the pollution created by the plane and trucks that had to transport my water over here in the first place.