Yusaf Islam (aka "Cat Stevens"), who thinks that Salmon Rushdie should be murdered in the name of the Religion of Peace™ is singing "Peace Train" on Al Gore's Live Aid Concert, which may have had a bigger carbon footprint than Afghanistan.

The mind boggles.

[Update a little later]

The American Thinker is on the case.

Part of the complaint here appears to be claims that one should not be able to offset carbon emissions with carbon credits. I'm unclear on why market methods are considered appropriate for buying and selling businesses or spurring space flight, but they aren't considered appropriate for buying and selling some allotment of carbon emissions. Or what is wrong with the idea of carbon credits. If rich people want to pay poor people to produce less carbon in order to offset increased carbon emissions from the rich people, then that sounds like an excellent economic opportunity for both parties. Now there may be considerable fraud with carbon credits, but that is an addressable issue that doesn't require us to forgo carbon credits.

Couple of things...

First of all, a lot of these guys are preaching that we "all" have to accept poorer lifestyles, actively conserve, etc., in order to save the planet... while they're out consuming more than most of us could ever dream. That rubs a lot of people wrong.

Secondly, there doesn't seem to be just some fraud with carbon credits, there seems to be more fraud than reality. I'm still trying to figure out how Al Gore's company is actually reducing carbon emissions. That (together with the preaching) is why so many people compare carbon credits to indulgences--they appear to be placebos and snake oil offered by rich hypocrites. Only, we haven't yet seen a Martin Luther (to make the analogy, he'd have to be a prominent environmentalist) nail a complaint to their door.

It seems to me that if they were at all serious about saving the earth's resources, then they would've had a virtual concert, consisting of multiple performances local to where the performers were. Then it could've been streamed live on line.

Now, that might've been a worthwhile event!

If rich people want to pay poor people to produce less carbon in order to offset increased carbon emissions from the rich people, then that sounds like an excellent economic opportunity for both parties.

Who are the poor people getting paid?

What are they being paid?

How does paying poor people help the environment?

Part of the complaint here appears to be claims that one should not be able to offset carbon emissions with carbon credits.

The other, more prominent, part of the complaint is providing a world wide platform to a singer, who wants to censor an author via murder. That situation is exacerbated by the singer's song choice of "Peace Train". Apparently, one is to accept "Peace" with Islam or rest in "Peace". Hop on the Train, man.

Apparently, cooperation or death is not just an option provided by Islam either, because any prominent person questioning the underlying theories of why "our climate is in crisis" gets threats as well.

So please, let's not narrow the complaint to carbon credits alone.

Karl: the reason people shouldn't participate in the carbon-offset bullshit is because it's bullshit. This is where completely free-of-restrictions capitalism fails, IMO. People shouldn't be able to simply buy and sell anything they want to because it makes them "feel better" if it has no basis in reality and in fact contributes to the pile of lies and misconceptions that prevent people from understanding how the world actually works. A more benign example might be paying for an astrologer to map out your life. Harmless, you say? Well, say you use that "life map" which is based on a farrago of half-digested Babylonian hooey and use it to make a decision that ends in disaster for yourself and your family. Your defense may be that you entered into it of your own free will, but you did so based on superstition and lies, so how free was your will?

Carbon offsets are just another version of astrology.

A pigouvian tax would be both the most transparent and the least economically destructive solution to the carbon problem, should the economic costs over the next two centuries (relocation of pacific islander refugees a century from now, some construction of levees in urban areas) prove higher than abatement.

Market participants would atleast know what the costs of abatement are, and investors in green technologies will be able to control their risk without having to deal with massive swings in this bullshit carbon offset market.

There was a brouhaha over the trading of NOX credits a few years ago but that was a fixed supply that dwindled to nothing over time and meant a real reduction in NOX emissions. This scheme about carbon offsets doesn't reduce anything. It just lets rich hypocrites keep their lifestyle and not feel guilty about it.

I'm being followed by a Ji-hadist, Ji-hadist Jihadist!
I'm being followed by a Ji-hadist, Ji-hadist Jihadist!
And if I were to blow my nose, I might even lose my toes.
And if I were to shake too hard, a loud noise would be heard.
I'm being followed by a Ji-hadist, Ji-hadist Jihadist!
I'm being followed by a Ji-hadist, Ji-hadist Jihadist!
.......