Basically, the bill allows up to two billion offsets each year (one billion domestic, one billion international) – each supposedly an avoided emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide. This is equivalent to almost 30% of 2005 emissions. If these offsets are just hot air, like the majority of offsets in the controversial Clean Development Mechanism (http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/384) has been argued to be, we could be avoiding real reductions until 2026! By 2050, our reductions may only be 50%, rather than the 80% recommended by climate scientists. That’s a far cry from mitigating our carbon footprint. And meanwhile, we’d be imposing onto our surrogate dieters, the developing countries that purchase the CDM or REDD credits, projects that do not promote long-term sustainable development that benefits their entire economy.

It’s a hard path to tread–do you support something because it’s a long time coming and has great provisions for some of the things you care about, and if you don’t, it might get shot down a lot more quickly? Do you demand that we think outside the box and do better? How do you do both?