The C02 you can't reduce you can offset: Website listing offset resources including gold standard:

[Harper_is_Bush]

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/carbon_neutral.asp

Gold standard offsets are efficiency and renewable energy projects (ie. moving away from fossil fuel) which are independently verified by a third party.

There's only three gold standard listed on Suzuki's site, but I know that many of the other resources listed (ie. Native Energy) are respected and worthy of investment, as are many others listed.

EDIT: scroll down to "resources" to see the offset listing section.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. This Whole Offset Thing Premise Is Amazingly Silly To Me.

It seems so ridiculous how they try passing it off as a direct trade-off when it doesn't even come close to being that.

Why don't they just call it what it is and ask for donations to fund green projects? Wouldn't that be more honest?

Making a claim that if I donate 80 bucks I'll reduce emissions of CO2 globally by the same amount as my car outputs is just quite simply false. Fact is, God knows how much of that 80 bucks first gets split up for administrative costs. Second, God knows how long it'll be before whatever's left even turns into some physical project.

This isn't any carbon offset; it's merely a donation to fund future green projects.

I obviously agree that's a great cause and that we all should be contributing to environmental causes, but I just don't like the way they try marketing it as some direct offset to our activities without requiring us to be responsible and directly cut our own emissions if we choose. That's just undeniably false.

The reason why as of right now I do not support this concept, is because I think the whole complexity of marketing it as carbon offsets and the additional administration involved in that makes this far more financially inefficient then if it just simply was a direct donation site for funding of green projects.

Regardless, I still find the premise that my $80 will immediately reduce the worlds CO2 by the amount my vehicle outputs as being extremely disingenuous and silly.

[Harper_is_Bush]

2. "This isn't any carbon offset; it's merely a donation to fund future green projects."

Well duh.

And you should still be responsible for cutting your own emissions as much as possible, even without being "required" to do so. Offsets are a method of funding (donating...whatever) green projects that create renewable energy sources.

[crispini]

5. That's not exactly true.

It really depends on the site. For example, I read about one project where a manufacturer had a certain amount of carbon emissions, but they were below the amount that the EPA allows. That company could have totally continued polluting had they wished to, with no repercussions. Instead, they chose to purchase advanced scrubbing equipment and sell their carbon they reduced on the CCX. They used the money for their carbon credit to pay off the equipment. That's smart, and it does in fact result in a reduction that might not have otherwise have happened. I can't find the link right now, but when I get a chance I'll try to find it specifically.

And I disagree that carbon offset companies market it as you say, "without requiring us to be responsible and directly cut our own emissions if we choose" -- every single carbon offset vendor's website that I have looked at make a point to say, "Reduce everything you can, and offset the rest." I think that's a good message, and sensible. I can put in CFL's, cut down my driving as much as I can, and ease off on the shopping shipping :) but I can't afford to buy a hybrid right now, and I can't afford to not take business trips when my company sends me. Carbon offsets allow me to help even with that restriction in place.

[Lisa]

6. it also helps normalize the practice

My municipality recently instituted a "no recyclable paper in the trash" policy, subject to monetary fines ... this has resulted in considerable savings, in terms of both revenue and landfill space. It's been going for a couple of years now. I could not imagine something like this being successful without a couple of decades of "blue box" programs, which made recycling both convenient and accepted. Ditto things like car pooling, workplace transit passes, and other measures which have been identified as good for emission reductions.

If companies see that people are expecting lower-impact products, and are demanding verified offsetting for "carbon zero" status, they will adopt it rather than lose business. While I agree with the view that offsets can be abused as a way to avoid making sacrifices (as can the Clean Development Mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol, on a country-to-country basis), I think you make a very important point that at present, there are unavoidable situations where one has to resort to fossil fuels (in my case, if my mom gets sick and I have to jump on a plane and be there within 24 hours). And I would like to have a choice about how to reduce my impact. Monitoring, certification, and transparency will address many concerns about where the money is going (after all, we're all tired of Enron-type shenanigans).

[Harper_is_Bush]

3. evening kick. n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

4. midnight kick. nt