Is carbon offsetting ever ok?

The current edition of the Ecologist has an article castigating carbon offsetting. I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiments expressed. The price of carbon used in the offsetting business is far too low, because the market price of carbon is far too low, and investing in trees on the other side of the world, trees which might be chopped down one day, has never seemed to me to be a very sensible way to deal with the carbon problem.

That said, there are, I think, two perfectly legitimate ways that individuals and local authorities can carbon offset.

1) Milton Keynes Council has introduced an innovative carbon offset fund for new developments. Anyone seeking planning permission has to make their new building as energy efficient as possible and then offset into the Milton Keynes Carbon Offset Fund any remaining carbon expected to be generated over the lifetime of the site. The council will then spend that money on measures that reduce carbon emissions eg insulating private homes or council houses. Ingenious.

2) A number of Camden businesses already offset their carbon although for all the reasons expressed in Jules Peck's article I am not convinced by the way they are doing it. But what if they had the option to offset their carbon into the Camden Carbon Offset Fund and we used the money to cut the carbon in Camden by investing in energy efficiency and energy generation measures? And what if we set the price of carbon, not at the market price which is far too low, but at the actual cost to us of extracting a tonne of carbon from the atmosphere.

I have recommended to our Executive that Camden Council introduce both of these two ideas. In my opinion, if you keep it local and verifiable there is life in carbon offsetting.