Carbon footprints

Someone in my office forwarded me an article about Air Canada this morning discussing the airline's initiative to offer "carbon offsets" for their flights. Air Canada customers now have the option to pay a voluntary surcharge in addition to the price of their ticket, the proceeds of which will be contributed in their entirety to Zerofootprint, a not-for-profit organization that operates carbon offset programs. The cost to assuage your guilty conscience? Anywhere from a buck or so to $40 for long-distance international flights.

On the one hand, I have to applaud Air Canada for having the cajones to bring attention to the fact that air travel contributes to carbon dioxide emissions and therefore accelerates global warming. On the other hand, I have to say that the idea is kinda stupid and self-serving. It would be like Marlboro offering its customers the option to pay an extra fifty cents per pack to be donated to the American Lung Association. Sure, it's a nice gesture, but it's really just a publicity stunt.

If Air Canada had really wanted to make an impact, they would have made the surcharge mandatory for all flights rather than simply offering it to customers on a voluntary basis. Hmmm, but that might have caused them to lose customers, wouldn't it?

I don't want this to sound like I'm bashing Air Canada. Any company that initiates ways to reduce its environmental impact deserves some praise, and this new carbon offset program is just one way in which Air Canada has adjusted its policies to be more earth-friendly. Of course, many of those measures are also cost-efficient (minimizing fuel use, reducing waste, etc.), so it's a bit of a win-win for the company and the environment. Funny how that works out.

What we really need is for national governments to start imposing real environmental charges on the things people buy every day. Cars could be subject to varying levels of environmental tax depending on their fuel-efficiency; inefficient lightblubs and appliances could be taxed at a higher rate than energy-efficient ones. Personally, I'd rather see the taxes imposed on the products themselves rather than on the industries that make them since (a) they'd be more visible to the average consumer (which would mean that people's purchasing habits would probably change more rapidly) and (b) industry never pays their taxes anyway. The proceeds of such taxes could be earmarked for clean-up efforts, research and monitoring, so there'd be no need to fear that your taxes are being used to help another Republican get elected.

The only problem is, who would have the guts to spearhead that kind of bill? Clearly the Republicans are out; too tied to industry. Ditto the Democrats; also, they're just way too pussy. Sigh; I guess there's no hope for the US. Don't worry too much about it, though; in a few years global warming will have kicked in enough for everyone to justify moving to Canada, where we can all enjoy free healthcare, legalized drugs and mile upon mile of warm, sunny beaches without a glacier in sight.