A leading skeptic of global-warming science is challenging celebrity activists such as Al Gore and Sheryl Crow to lower their "carbon footprint" to the same level as the average American by Earth Day in April 2008. "I simply believe that former Vice President Al Gore and his Hollywood friends who demand we change the way we live to avert this over-hyped 'crisis' not only talk the talk, but walk the walk," said Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican. "How hard is it for these elitists to become as frugal in their energy consumption as the average American? I think the American public has a right to know they are being had."
A so-called "Gore Pledge" was introduced last month when the former vice president appeared before a Senate committee to discuss his views on climate change. Mr. Inhofe asked Mr. Gore to sign the pledge to reduce his use of products that produce greenhouse gases, but he declined, instead citing alternative carbon trade-offs. Mr. Gore says he pays a self-imposed "carbon tax" to offset the environmental impact of his large home and global travels.
Do these so-called carbon off-sets really work? Over at SSRN, I found a paper that uses formal models to conclude that:
Carbon offsets can be purchased by consumers who wish to mitigate their emissions. In a model where the demand for such offsets is driven by consumers who feel guilt about their emissions, it is show that the introduction of offsets are complements to existing "dirty‟ consumption and can cause such consumption to increase. Net emissions are shown to decline, however, regardless of whether prices are regulated, chosen strategically or offset prices are endogenous.
The paper concludes that "voluntary purchases of offsets would likely reduce environmental harm." As the purchasers of off-sets feel less guilt, they increase their consumption (explaining Al Gore's huge electric bills and Laurie David's private jets?), but that effect is more than offset by a decrease in net emissions.
I have to admit that the math in the paper is way over my head; the narrative analysis, however, seems very plausible. So maybe the answer is not to demand that Hollywood elites cut their consumption, but simply to insist that they document their purchase of carbon off-sets before hectoring the rest of us?
