1. Earth is one of the biggest and most important planets in outer space.
However, there is the argument that individuals are not putting in enough effort to
save it. Therefore, many people resort to carbon offsets because it is an easy
way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.
But do carbon offsets really help the Earth at all? Carbon offsets are not proven
to actually work, but they do have numerous amounts of negative feedback that
only an individual can decipher whether true or not. Although these carbon
offsets benefit many of the top environmental business in the world, they should
not be used because they dramatically intensify the amount of pollution that is
released into the atmosphere.
Carbon offsets are “instruments that are used to reduce the amount of
greenhouses gases that are released into the air.” (Gale) An environmental
treaty, known as the United Nations Kyoto Protocol, was the first to incorporate
the use of carbon offsets in their mission of reducing the amount of greenhouse
gases that were being released. However, one of the greenhouse gases was
disturbingly Carbon Dioxide. As many people would, citizens of the treaty
questioned how carbon offsets could get rid of Carbon Dioxide. Well, the answer
was simple; since carbon offsets and Carbon Dioxide are compounded of similar
elements, one carbon offset alone would be equivalent to the decrease of one
metric ton—that is about one thousand kilograms—of Carbon Dioxide.
Therefore, creating the idea that if one carbon offset was able to do that for one
greenhouse gas, it would be able to do that for many of the others as well.
Consequently, allowing scientists to believe they found an easier and “safer” way

2. in reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. As time went on scientists used
more carbon offsets in order to kill the greenhouse gases, but the offsets not only
began to kill the greenhouse gases, it began to create pollution in the
environment as well. Many disapproving citizens wanted the carbon offsets not
to be used anymore, yet many scientific contributors, specifically Marc Gunther,
thought otherwise. Gunther asserts that “ ‘[people] have to be impressed by how
fast [carbon offsets] have moved from obscurity to the front pages. If they get
people to think about climate change, and take a first small step in the right
direction, well, they could turn out to be a gateway to more meaningful change.’ ”
(Gunther) With this same idea planted in the minds of many people, the use of
carbon offsets is one of the most controversial ways to end the emission of
greenhouse gases.
Although pollution and deforestation are not an easy topics to discuss, it
must be done for the sake of the ignorance of present and future generations on
this topic. To start off, one of the key reasons that this fact remains is because
there is always the argument that fossil fuel industries are denying the fact that
the pollution, which is mainly caused by carbon offsets, supplements global
warming. Besides, avid environmentalists, such as Bill McKibben, believe that
sooner or later the world will be looked at as one massive “carbon bubble.”
McKibben founded the global climate campaign and has written countless books
on the environment. Correspondingly McKibben states, “[people are] already
seeing widespread climate disruption, but if [they] want to avoid utter, civilization-
shaking disaster, many scientists have pointed to a two-degree rise in global

3. temperatures as the most [people] could possibly deal with.” (McKibben) Within
this quote, it is simply being indicated that scientists only give out a small
percentage of what is happening to the world because they are attempting to
convince everyone else that pollution is not as serious as it appears. Yet, many
scientists and fossil fuel industries do not see the problem with that “logic”.
Global warming is the most harmful effect of pollution, and if fossil fuel industries
continue to do nothing about it, they will continue to put the world—and its
people—in danger. Carbon offsets were created in order to eliminate harmful
greenhouse gases, so that is exactly what they should do. Unfortunately, instead
of doing this, the carbon offsets have polluted the soil and many ecosystems as
well. Therefore, increasing the chance for climate change and global warming.
In addition, fossil fuel companies are reluctant to tell the truth about
pollution because they do not want to lose any of their business’ money. Telling
people what is going on in the atmosphere and having them take better steps in
making a change would mean less money in funding their useless instruments
that “help” the atmosphere. Therefore, in order to stop a positive cost-free
change from happening, fossil fuel industries tend to over simplify what is truly
going on within the atmosphere. Allowing them to create more instruments that
can “make the Earth a healthier place”. The fact of the matter is carbon offsets
are what major “environmental corporations” use in order to keep their
businesses running. Nevertheless, what many companies do not tell individuals
is that carbon offsets also pollute the Earth with unnatural “tools” and cause
major climate change. Climate change leads to global warming and then the

4. Earth will be as polluted and disgusting as humanly possible. What many
companies craving money do not notice is that pollution creates a cycle of
negative events that can have long lasting effects on Earth. Informing individuals
on what is happening and actually spending time on making the atmosphere
healthier is what fossil fuel industries should do. Instead they are covering up the
truth, which is why more and more people are starting to care less about the
environment.
The government is also primarily responsible for the constant use of
carbon offsets. Government officials have a tendency to believe that any
company that claims they “help reduce the emission of greenhouse gases” with
special “eco-friendly” tools is the right company for the atmosphere. However,
this is not always the case. Many times government officials needed to have
taken a step back and realize that carbon offsets are not the only financial
instruments that can be used to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
However, once again the term “money” is brought into the heads of individuals.
Although money is a big part in what green energy technologies are used and
which ones are not, some green technologies actually harm the Earth more than
they help it. There are hardworking engineers around the world that are
constantly coming up with new ideas to help the atmosphere become cleaner
and free of pollution. One engineer in particular, Dr. Colin Brown, supports the
idea of government officials associating themselves with newer green
technologies ideas. He believes that “ ‘while the world's politicians have been
locked in talks with no output, engineers across the globe have been busy

5. developing technologies that can bring down emissions and help create a more
stable future for the planet.’ ”(Brown) This quote recognizes the fact that
government officials and politicians are so blinded by money, they do not see the
bigger picture. With newer green technologies being created, industries can stop
using carbon offsets, and lean toward healthier instruments that will actually help
the environment rather than harm it.
In addition to these two main topics of concern, the government tends to
focus more on what happens outside of Earth’s boundaries—space—rather than
what is actually happening on Earth. Ergo, that is the primary reason in which
the government spends, statistically speaking, 2.5 billion on a satellite to roam
around a planet to check to see if it has an atmosphere. Instead of disquieting
themselves about another planet’s atmosphere—that in which no humans are
said to live on—they should be concerned with the fact that the planet they live
on is going through global warming because fewer individuals are starting to
realize what deforestation and pollution is doing to our climate and planet Earth.
Carbon offsets not only have anything to do with the environment, but they cost
an unreasonable amount of money. Not even the biggest corporation would pay
5.5 billion dollars annually to pay for something that is not proven to work.
Carbon offsets should not be used because of their inconsistency and money
hungry corporations. They harm the Earth rather than help it.
There has been a constant pattern in these problems dealing with
pollution on Earth; people and their poor environmental choices have caused all
the problems. Many individuals do not take responsibility for the fact that carbon

6. offsets were a bad idea. They not only create disturbances in the natural air by
recommending blasting loud music on a scooter rather than driving a car to work
because it “reduces carbon dioxide released into the air”, but the followers of
carbon offsets yank up trees that were placed in a climate for a reason and
replace them with toxic filled “organic trees” that pollute the soil. Many scientists,
argue that "Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling
studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major
contributor to climate change." (The Union of Concerned Scientists: American
Physical Society) Maybe, if the leaders of carbon offsets kept their hands off of
the Earth’s natural elements and encouraged newer technologies to be
developed in order to help the Earth, it would be easier to say the Earth was
cleaner.
Furthermore, in order for the world to become a cleaner place, the world
needs to stop giving money to fossil fuel industries in order to accomplish
emission reductions. A fossil fuel company’s main goal is to, without a doubt,
pollute waters and the air. There is no point in giving money to them in order to
get rid of things such as greenhouse gases because they can end up polluting
the Earth even more. A reporter, Mathew Yglesias is a reporter for a news and
current events magazine. He believes that “This is hardly the worst idea in the
world, but you'd do more for the families and the environment if you just gave
them cash. Some of that cash might go to pay the heating bill, but some might go
to the purchase of sweaters or better insulation, ecologically friendlier solutions
that will probably help households more over the long run.” (Yglesias) He

7. actually has a logical solution that will increase the Earth’s chances of lasting. By
giving the lower income families money, they can actually pay for things that are
needed and will not let them go to waste. The reason for air pollution is the fact
that there is so much carbon released from cars and homes due to the wasted
mounts of gas. However, if that money usually given to the [already] rich and
“successful” continues to be handed out to them, the world will not get any better.
The idea of carbon offsets is respectable and it is also an enticing way to
help the environment. However, it is not well planned out. Carbon offsets work
to destroy climate change and global warming but in reality it is doing the exact
opposite. By taking down trees and digging up unnatural holes into the Earth,
the pollution rate will rise higher than expected. Many people believe that
pollution is the release of toxins into the air, but it is so much more than that.
Pollution is the disturbance of Earth’s natural elements: soil, sound and plant life.
Carbon offsets should be planned out in a more professional way so that
everyone can participate without having to worry about polluting the Earth.
Even though carbon offsets work to make the earth a better place, they
create pollution. Government officials should look into funding more of the newer
technologies that work to meet the same eco0friendly goal as carbon offsets do.
Also, humans need to realize that whatever things they do the Earth, the Earth
will react back. Even though fossil fuel industries cover up a lot of the truth about
the Earth, that does not mean that individuals should not strive to make Earth a
healthier place. After all, everyone’s help matters.

8. Works Cited
Brown, Colin "Governments Must Support New Green Energy Technologies More
Quickly." Global Warming. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013.
Current Controversies.. from "Future Climate 2: We Have the Technology to
Slash Global Emissions, Say Engineers." 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Gale, Cengage Learning "Carbon Offsets." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection.
Detroit: Gale, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
McKibben, Bill. "The Fossil Fuel Industry Is Funding Global-Warming
Denial." Global Warming. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013.
Current Controversies.. from "The Great Carbon Bubble: Why the Fossil Fuel
Industry Fights So Hard." TomDispatch.com. 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Union of Concerned Scientists. "There Is Overwhelming Scientific Consensus That
Global Warming Is Happening and Humans Are Causing It." Global Warming.
Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Current Controversies.
from "Scientific
Yglesias, Matthew. "The World Should End Fossil Fuel Subsidies to Achieve
Emission Reductions." Global Warming. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven
Press, 2013. Current Controversies. from "Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Global
Warming: We Could Cut the Climate Change Problem in Half Simply by
Abolishing Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies." Slate.com. 2012. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.