Offsetting can also be viewed as deciding to co-operating in a tragedy of the commons like situation. If a large enough proportion of the population/businesses decided to offset their emissions then presumably global warming would cease to be an issue. This would cost everyone a small amount individually, but the individual gain would be large. Perhaps the money could do more good elsewhere, but defecting simply encourages more people to defect as well and possibly causes the whole deal to collapse.
Not that I offset my carbon, just an interesting thought.
If everyone “defected” by donating to the most effective charity instead of offsetting, the whole deal wouldn’t collapse. The world would be a better place.
So if the problem is that people are copycats so doing a thing encourages other people to do the same, it’s better to donate more to an effective charity than to offset, since when people copy you doing that it will make the world even better.
A problem is that different people have different views on what’s most effective. If most people are quasi-egoists, then for them, spending money on themselves or their families is “the most effective charity” they can give to. Or even within the realm of what’s normally understood to be charity, people might donate to their local church or arts center. Relative to their values, this might be the best charity to give to.
The worry is that enough people will defect from the current social norms so that they break down, but not enough people defect to create a new norm of donating to effective charities instead.
Neither an “offset your harm” nor a “donate to effective charities” norm are especially well established in the general population, though. Your argument sounds like it’s based on the former being widespread?
The idea of global warming offsets is pretty widespread, but I don’t think a norm of buying them is. Specifically, I don’t think either that they’re very widely bought or even seen as something you’re supposed to buy.
(My impression is that it’s catching on as a norm among sustainably minded companies, though.)
Offsetting can also be viewed as deciding to co-operating in a tragedy of the commons like situation. If a large enough proportion of the population/businesses decided to offset their emissions then presumably global warming would cease to be an issue. This would cost everyone a small amount individually, but the individual gain would be large. Perhaps the money could do more good elsewhere, but defecting simply encourages more people to defect as well and possibly causes the whole deal to collapse.
Not that I offset my carbon, just an interesting thought.
If everyone “defected” by donating to the most effective charity instead of offsetting, the whole deal wouldn’t collapse. The world would be a better place.
So if the problem is that people are copycats so doing a thing encourages other people to do the same, it’s better to donate more to an effective charity than to offset, since when people copy you doing that it will make the world even better.
A problem is that different people have different views on what’s most effective. If most people are quasi-egoists, then for them, spending money on themselves or their families is “the most effective charity” they can give to. Or even within the realm of what’s normally understood to be charity, people might donate to their local church or arts center. Relative to their values, this might be the best charity to give to.
The worry is that enough people will defect from the current social norms so that they break down, but not enough people defect to create a new norm of donating to effective charities instead.
Neither an “offset your harm” nor a “donate to effective charities” norm are especially well established in the general population, though. Your argument sounds like it’s based on the former being widespread?
Global warming offsets are pretty big.
The idea of global warming offsets is pretty widespread, but I don’t think a norm of buying them is. Specifically, I don’t think either that they’re very widely bought or even seen as something you’re supposed to buy.
(My impression is that it’s catching on as a norm among sustainably minded companies, though.)