Protagoras, apparently you are unaware that Shell and BP funded that bastion of scientific integrity known as the CRU of the University of East Anglia, which was at the centre of the 'climategate' scandal. The 'climategate' scandal also goes a long way in explaining the suppression of alternative and in my opinion far more convincing scientific views. When one side of the debate receives over 99% of total funding, imbalances are likely to occur.
Monckton alerted the world to what was contained within the 'Draft Copenhagen agreement'. It's there in black and white, yet some prefer to shoot the messenger. In contrast, others will tell you they believe in world government. It's a bit like the climate change debate which has splintered into so many peripheral issues and agendas, it means different things to different people. Someone easy going like Otokonoko will tell you, why not give it ago? He fails to answer his own question. If giving it ago, means trashing our economy, wouldn't you investigate a little further? I would answer yes to that.

So tell me, Lucy - how many of your generation - for whom climate change is allegedly a defining issue - are planning overseas trips? In fact, probably many overseas trips? Certainly all the Gen Ys I know seem to regard overseas travel as a basic fact of life.

You are aware, no doubt, of the massive amounts of greenhouse gasses emitted by a single overseas plane trip?

You are also, no doubt, aware that 'carbon offset' schemes are essentially useless 'greenwashing' scams?

Hmm. Seems your generation can talk the talk, but you ain't willing to walk the walk.

Come on, Clownfish. You have just illustrated the same dismissive attitude towards Generation Y that the author is working to overcome. I have flown overseas many times, and will do so many more times. I doubt, though, that I'll ever spend as much time in an aeroplane as my Baby Boomer father. It may also reflect my choice of destination, but my fellow tourists tend more often than not to be middle-aged and elderly Americans. Overseas travel is hardly a 'Gen Y' phenomenon.

But raising the topic of international travel does contribute to my argument. We have established a very good standard of living for ourselves, due in no small part to the hard work of our parents and grandparents. We have luxuries like affordable flights and electronic gadgets to do pretty much everything. It is now time to look for ways to maintain that standard of life in a more sustainable way.

I am interested to know, though, why you say that carbon offsetting is a scam.

Airlines endorse it:

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/fly-carbon-neutral/global/en

Travel agents endorse it:

http://www.statravel.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/au_division_web_live/hs.xsl/carbon_credits.htm

Environmental organisations endorse it:

http://www.wwf.org.au/act/takeaction/carbon-offsets/

Ecojournalists endorse it:

http://www.ecozine.co.uk/FlyingandCarbonOffsetting.htm

The Guardian is critical not of the idea, but of its present implementation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2006/dec/10/ethicalholidays.escape

ResponsibleTravel.com does not support carbon offsetting because they believe it is a distraction, not because they don't believe it makes any difference:

http://www.responsibletravel.com/Copy/Copy101331.htm

Certainly, what almost all of these sources have in common is the belief that we need to think carefully about whether or not we should get on a plane in the first place, which is a valid point. But, just as my father and his father before him found, there's a great big world out there. To spend our entire lives within an hour's drive of our homes would contribute to the narrow-mindedness that already plagues our world. It would also preclude the sharing of many great ideas that could do all of us a world of good. If we are mindful of the harm we are doing, and take some steps to counter that harm, surely it's a good thing?

The warmist teachers in the secondary schools and universities have done mammoth damage. They have brainwashed those lacking scientific awareness, such as this young author and many of her generation, to unquestionably accept the warmist hypothesis that human activity is the driver of climate change.
The IPCC has been searching for over 20 years for proof that CO2 emissions are a main driver of anthropogenic global warming, but has failed utterly. The strongest endorsement that the IPCC could give in its 2007 Report, was the assertion, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
Scientists are unable to explain why, as admitted by Phil Jones of Climategate fame, there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years, despite CO2 concentrations increasing over that period.
There is no scientific or economic justification for implementation of an ETS or a price on carbon.

So, Otokonoko, your argument is 'the oldies do it too, so why shouldn't we?' and 'but we really, really, really like emitting tons of greenhouse gases'.

So much for your great moral challenge.

Of course airlines and travel agents endorse carbon offsets (the Indulgences of the Church of Gaia): they make a bucket off the gullible twits who buy them.

Anyway, let's play URL tennis, shall we?

Carbon Offsets: Government Warns of Fraud Risk
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17814838

'Carbon trading: a corporate scam'
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/36791

'The great carbon trading scam'
http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1492&Itemid=6

'The case against carbon trading'
http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets/carbontrading

'Carbon Neutral Isn't: a hoax to distract from honest policies'
http://www.permatopia.com/carbon-neutral.html

'Buying carbon offsets may ease eco-guilt but not global warming'
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0420/Buying-carbon-offsets-may-ease-eco-guilt-but-not-global-warming

To continue, Otokonoko, besides entirely sidestepping my question (how many times have you flown overseas - or, how many tons of greenhouse gases have you personally generated for the sake of your own entertainment?), you fail to address the basic morality of carbon offsetting.

Is it morally acceptable to continue to do something which you say is morally wrong, by paying someone else *not* to do the wrong thing?

To take the logic to its absurd extreme: would it be morally acceptable to murder someone, as long as you paid someone else to have a baby?

Anyhoo, your final defence boils down to, 'but emitting all those tons of greenhouse gases has made me, like, such a broad-minded global citizen, man!'

I'm sure the planet that you assert is being endangered by greenhouse gases genuinely appreciates your enlightened attitude. When we're all scrabbling to survive on our desertified, flooded planet (as the Warmists shrilly insist will happen if we don't mend our wicked ways), at least we can say, 'but, hey, at least all those Gen Y kids got to smoke heaps of great dope at a Full Moon Party! So totally worth it!'