I am on the fence regarding the purchasing of carbon offsets to compensate for one's energy use. On one hand, it has created a thriving market, and the money pumped into the market should aid in expanding existing and developing new technologies. On the other hand it leads to sentences like this:

"I feel much better about it," said Sheets, human resources director for an online-education company in Northern Virginia. "I don't feel as guilty about flying to Vegas tomorrow for the weekend."

"There's a Gold Mine In Environmental Guilt" is the article that quote is from, and it captures very well the environmental zeitgeist. 

Experts who study offsets say a cultural shift is at work, in which the American public has become accustomed to feeling guilty about climate change, and, instead of writing letters to members of Congress or donating to an environmental group, they have learned to buy their way out.

"What people liked about offsets is that it allowed them to feel like they were in control," said Jonathan Isham, a professor at Middlebury College in Vermont. Offsets are perhaps the purest expression of the impulse, experts said, because hybrid cars and energy-saving light bulbs save buyers money in the long run.

And that is what it all comes down to, purity. Selflessness so strong that the self doesn't even need to be involved in the solution. This brings us of course to Al Gore.

I don't mean to pick on Gore but he was the subject of a recent disagreement that I had with someone I respect. My friend's opinion was that Gore is doing a good thing by continuing to push the boundaries of the climate dialogue and raise awareness. My point is given the zero-sacrifice ethos of the hyper-aware we need, to quote Elvis, "a little less conversation, a little more action."

Earlier this year Gore launched "a three-year, multimillion-dollar advocacy campaign Monday calling for the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The Alliance for Climate Protection's campaign, dubbed 'we,' will combine advertising, online organizing and partnerships with grass-roots groups to educate the public about global warming and urge solutions from elected officials...The alliance will initially spend $300 million over three years..."

$300 million is a nice chunk of change, but instead of urging solutions, perhaps they should be a solution.  Off the top of my head, and with the help of this Energy Star worksheet, here is a suggestion for using the money:

• $105 million - 30 million 15W compact fluorescent bulbs (replacing 60w bulbs)
• $105 million - 30 million 25W compact fluorescent bulbs (replacing 100w bulbs)
• $90 million - to pay for bulb distribution, promotion, and air fare.

According to the Energy Star spreadsheet the life cycle impact would be

• 36 billion kWh - energy saved
• 55 billion lbs of CO2 - air pollution reduction

At the launch Alliance CEO Cathy Zoi told The Associated Press: "We're trying to get a movement happening to switch public opinion so that our leaders feel, 'Wow! We really need to make this a top priority issue'“

Priorities begin at home, and 60 million bulbs would certainly provide "a little more bite and a little less bark."