No, because given a socially optimal level of carbon, there’s no net harm to offset—any carbon emissions are net socially neutral, or positive. (That doesn’t imply there are no distributional concerns, but I’d buy the argument that purchasing DALYs generally is better in that case.)
I’m not a strict utilitarian, and so the issue I have with offsetting harm A with benefit B is that harms affect different individuals. There was no agreement by those harmed by A that they are OK with being harmed as long as those who benefit from B are happier. This is similar to the argument against buying reductions in meat consumption, or reducing harm to animals in other cost effective ways, to offset eating meat yourself—the animals being killed didn’t agree, even if there is a net benefit to animals overall.
No, because given a socially optimal level of carbon, there’s no net harm to offset—any carbon emissions are net socially neutral, or positive. (That doesn’t imply there are no distributional concerns, but I’d buy the argument that purchasing DALYs generally is better in that case.)
I’m not a strict utilitarian, and so the issue I have with offsetting harm A with benefit B is that harms affect different individuals. There was no agreement by those harmed by A that they are OK with being harmed as long as those who benefit from B are happier. This is similar to the argument against buying reductions in meat consumption, or reducing harm to animals in other cost effective ways, to offset eating meat yourself—the animals being killed didn’t agree, even if there is a net benefit to animals overall.