Carbon offsetting might not be perfect, but it is better than doing nothing. We are going to have to try a great many different things if we’re to save the environment; carbon offsetting is just one of these things.
(New Debater) To come back on the opposite point, can carbon offsetting be WORSE than doing nothing? Surely it cannot – for all that I’ve heard of audits showing schemes to be inadequate, I’ve not yet heard of an offsetting scheme which actually has a positive carbon footprint.
The ‘false sense of security’ argument doesn’t appeal to me – it implies that by carbon offsetting one is instantly absolved of all responsibilities to reduce their footprint in other ways. Why should we feel this way? In my own experience, carbon offsetting companies do not promote this mantra themselves, and those who use carbon offsetting either incorporate it into an energy efficient lifestyle when their own emissions can’t be reduced (how else can you travel to a meeting overseas without taking a day off?), or it becomes the one energy saving action of those who would not normally do anything.
In regards to the final sentence opposite, I would need figures as to both the effectiveness of alternative schemes and the ineffectiveness of carbon offsetting before this can be taken for more than a value judgement disguised as a fact.

On an intergovernmental level, two forms of emissions trading currently exist (as part of the Kyoto Protocol – the current mechanism of global emissions targets). Countries that emit less than their target level of CO2 or equivalent gases (most commonly mainland EU countries) may ‘sell’ their extra reduction to other countries that may have failed to do so – in this way, the equivalent global level of emissions is reduced as if they both had hit their target emissions level. But not every country has an emissions target: as it stands, developing countries are not obliged to reduce their emissions. Developed countries may invest in reducing emissions in developing countries rather than at home – by planting more forests (there’s not exactly as much room to do so in the UK), upgrading outdated and inefficient factory equipment, and other such schemes. The same level of emissions can be reduced at a fraction of the cost abroad as it can at home.
Commercial carbon offsetting is a principle based on the latter of these forms of offsetting. Working on the basis that emissions are global, and as such from an environmental perspective it does not matter whether the emissions come from France or India, they provide the opportunity for a high emission (such as a plane flight) to be offset by more cost effective measures in a developing country.
Why such a long explanation? Whilst we all understand the principles of carbon offsetting and emissions trading (although they are technically different), there are some very important points that get missed. Most important is the positive nature of the way developing nations are brought into climate change through offsetting. As it stands, there is no demand for any developing nation to reduce its carbon emissions. A lot of people don’t like this – America didn’t, never ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. It comes down to the question of whether we in the developed world can demand that developing nations obey the same strict standards of carbon emissions reductions as we must face in the developed world, when they are still enlarging their industrial output, often at a rate far faster than the European industrial revolutions. If the answer is no, then perhaps emissions and offsetting are the best way forward to involve developing nations in reducing global emissions whilst allowing them to continue on their path towards industrial development.
To look at carbon offsetting from the other perspective: who has ever avoided flying because of the emissions that they would be responsible for? Unless you know of 100 other people who would do otherwise, chances are the plane you were planning on taking still took off. In spite of technological advances, the cost of flying (another matter altogether) is such that it is only set to increase. With the state of public transport in areas of the UK, some people inevitably have to drive. Others simply choose to as a lifestyle choice. This is just the same on a national level – Canada and America have both shunned the Kyoto Protocol in various ways because of the economic costs. (Scientists even reckon that America stands to gain from at least the next century of global warming due to better crop conditions!). Individuals and nations continue to balance environmental concerns with other economic concerns, and this will not change (even if it should.) Being aware that some things aren’t going to change, but that whilst trying to change them there can still be a positive step taken, carbon offsetting provides such a solution.
In every situation where carbon is offset, it can be argued that the original emission being neutralised should never have been produced in the first place, so the saving made to neutralise it could and should have happened anyway. But this is not a perfect world (although we shouldn’t stop trying to make it so). We can neither demand that the developing nations reduce their emissions (they simply wouldn’t agree to any treaty that says such, and what are we going to do about it, invade?!), nor that the polluter changes their lifestyle here and now, even if it does mean giving up their job and moving.
So, that’s carbon offsetting. Certainly not without practical flaws (discussed elsewhere), but a first step solution in the development of a global climate change regime. Hopefully one day there won’t be a need for carbon offsetting, but in today’s world it provides at least a temporary solution to a global problem.