Rep. Peter Welch is pushing a bill in Congress (H.R. 823, the Carbon Neutrality Act of 2007) that would allow members such as himself to use office-expense money to buy carbon credits. Welch is doing it already, but with personal funds, as the law doesn't let him use our money to do that. This would allow him and others in Congress and the executive branch to offset their emissions with with tax dollars.
Welch makes contributions to two Vermont renewable energy projects for $672 to offset the 56 tons a year in greenhouse gas emissions his Vermont and D.C. offices and his traveling is estimated to produce. Thus, the theory goes, his office is not contributing to global warming.
Welch got a bunch of national
press for making the move. Freshman congressman makes environmental splash.
The Middlebury College ski team has also gone carbon neutral, paying $600 to offset its trips hither and yon.
Theoretically, paying to support renewable energy projects is a good thing (that depends of course on who does what with the money and how you feel about that particular source of energy).
Is it, however, just a get-out-of-guilt free card? Does it mean college students just pay some extra money and continue on to the slopes in their gas guzzler? Does it just allow the congressman to make a donation, jet home every weekend and get lots of good press in the process?
Does Al Gore do more good putting out a movie that raises lots of people's awareness or not taking all those plane trips the movie shows him taking?
Are there other ways to fight this fight. Fire up your electric-powered computer and tell us.
- Terri Hallenbeck
