Easterbrook’s broader point is that the real battles in the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are with the large emitters of carbon, such as coal-fired power plants, and in countries like China and India, where carbon emissions are increasing at rates significantly higher than in the U.S.  If individuals are to choose between reducing their own carbon footprint or writing checks to organizations like TerraPass, Easterbrook votes for writing the check, and checks made out to China in particular.  While I acknowledge the relatively trivial importance of personal actions in the fight against global warming, I believe Easterbrook lets people like Gore off the hook too easily.

My primary objection to Easterbrook’s “either or” approach is that it provides the convenient solution for Americans as they evaluate the impact of their activities on the planet.  China may pass the U.S. in terms of aggregate carbon emissions within the next few years, but the U.S. will retain the crown as the undisputed per capita carbon emitting champion of the world.  In all likelihood, no culture in the history of mankind will ever exceed the per capita energy consumption of modern America.  That statement sounds like hyperbole until you consider the evolution of global energy consumption and mankind’s current path of increasing energy efficiency.  How can we expect a gluttonous American society to appreciate the need to invest in clean energy projects in China and India if we never face up to our own wanton ways?  The message from advocates like Gore is being broadcast across the country, but proof that Americans actually understand the toll of human activity on the planet will come only in the form of widespread changes in personal behavior.  And even if Easterbrook is correct, Gore’s personal behavior undermines even the appeal of writing a big check.

The bigger question is Why can’t we be expected to do both – reduce our personal carbon footprint and invest in the greening of China and India? Certainly Al Gore and his celebrity friends can do both.  Carbon offsets are an innovative addition to the toolbox for fighting global warming, but they’ve become just another in a long line of “either or” excuses for Americans.  Now we can add China and India to the list.  Given our history of profligate energy consumption, we are in no position to occupy the moral high ground in criticizing pollution in the developing world.  However, we may be able to gain some credibility by getting our own house in order and demonstrating policy leadership with government action.  In the meantime, if public and private organizations create mechanisms for investing in clean energy projects in China and India, all the better.  At least then, we might have some appreciation for what the Chinese and Indians are going through.