Carbon offsets for the most part are a lame copout which largely have little or no effect and in some cases actually excuse increases in emissions. Advocates include Al Gore, Prof. Garnaut (re PNG forests), the nation of Norway and no doubt some of our frequent flying cabinet ministers.

The first type of offset is carbon sinks such as tree planting; it claims to rapidly and permanently absorb large amounts of CO2. It generally costs about 10% of what it would take to cut back emissions in the first place. The second type is clean development which claims to prevent emissions for which there is a presumed entitlement. Both kinds of offsets expose all kinds of fraud, exaggeration, time shifting, double counting, undercosting and lack of verification. Examples; the World Bank paid Chinese CFC manufacturers $US550m to change their formula but the actual cost was more like $40m if I recall. The Toronto Bluejays baseball team claim nuclear energy offsets their travel emissions.

Guilt and political expedience are powerful forces. There are plenty of good reasons to plant trees so might as well get in a little rural pork barrelling at the same time. If we buy coloured beads for a sustainable basket weaving community in the mountains of Peru that surely balances hot gas spewing from a Latrobe valley power station. Politically offsets are a winner so expect them to continue.

There is nothing funny or humorous in this essay.

It is just another example of dim-witted "right" wing "thinking".

Meanwhile the religion that does govern our "culture" is the "religion" of never ending CONSUMERISM. Summed up in the t-shirt slogans "Its All About Me" or "I Shop Therefore I Am".

This brand-name obsessed "person" was even celebrated as the "person" of the year by Time Magazine two years ago.

The word consume means to destroy. And that is exactly what the never ending world wide "religion" of its all-about-me consumerism is doing to the planet.

And no amount of sophistries from Lomborg can hide the fact.

Ho Hum I agree with your much better analogy of CONSUMERISM as a religion than the author's 'Green Religion'.

Unlike Religion, there is much evidence that we are damaging our environment and over-using resources so the parallel with Religion is unwarranted and only detracts from the validity of the author's argument.

After getting that off my chest I have to say I agree with the author in essence about carbon offsets. All you are doing is shifting responsibility away from the emitters and it does nothing to reduce harmful emissions. What is the point of an offset if the pollution is still occuring? It also means an emitter can now pay a fee to a tree planter even if the trees have been there for the past fifty years. There is a great risk that environmentalism will become a commodity to be dubiously exploited without any real impact where it is needed.

It is distorted logic and does nothing to reduce emissions or encourage innovative energy alernatives nor will it reduce consumption. Carbon offsets are the easy way out to avoid the real and electorally unpopular issue that we need to reduce our lifestyles to reduce our impact.

In passing, I visited St Peter's last year. It struck me as a monument to ego, power and excess, having no connection whatsoever with Jesus or his teachings. It was about aggrandisement rather than humility, directing resources to the vanity of the popes and their acolytes rather than to helping the spiritual development of allcomers.

Yes, I see parallels.

There is one important difference between the Church of pre-Reformation and the Green "church". It didn't matter one bit for the global climate, or humanity outside Europe, as to whether it was Tetzel or Luther who was right. However, if anthropogenic warming is the correct interpretation, then if it contiunes it is indeed the end of civilization as we enjoy it now. And it is only a fool that does not look for alternatives for energy production and does not seek to reduce CO2 output, even if just from the precautionary principle.

However, I don't believe carbon offsets will work, and airlines which claim their aircraft are carbon-neutral are nothing but liars.

This article is quite sad: superficial, ahistorical and just plain silly. Hopefully the author will find a cure for his insecurities.