Just Say “Emerging Markets”

You can always count on Washington for good old fashioned dim-bulb cheerleading of bad ideas. Case in point, today’s announcement by Daniel Beard, the House’s chief administrative officer, that he’ll be blowing 89 grand of taxpayer money on carbon credits.  Needless to say, the Washington Post article on his decision indicates that not everyone’s happy:

 “This could be nothing more than a $100,000 press conference,” steamed Salley Collins, spokeswoman for the House Administration Committee, which oversees Beard’s activities.

The Post article then goes on to quote a bunch of people, including a Tufts university professor, who think that carbon offsets are, to put it plainly, a load of hooey.

“Voluntary offsets are of limited value to solve the increasing threat of climate change,” warned researchers at Tufts University last year. “They should not be seen as a way to buy ‘environmental pardons.’ “

But that doesn’t bother Beard! No sir! All that guff is negative thinking, right? And who wants to be a party-pooper in the Green Capitol of the future?

 “What can I say? I just disagree,” Beard said. “Obviously, this is an emerging marketplace, but it’s a marketplace of the future, and the Capitol is leading. My question is, why wait?”

Priceless.  He "just disagrees." He doesn’t even make a minimal attempt to refute any of the arguments against carbon offsets, just throws out a buzzword — "emerging marketplace" — and dishes some pablum about "the future" and "moving forward."

This isn’t the first time the Post has encountered skepticism about carbon credits.  Fiscal conservatives have been calling the offset market’s bluff for a while, and even amongst environmentalists, the practice is looked on rather suspiciously. Here’s what the Post reported back in August:

But in some cases, these customers may be buying good feelings and little else.

A closer look reveals an unregulated market in which some improvements bought by customers are only estimated, extrapolated, hoped-for or nil. Some offsets support projects that would have gone forward anyway. Others deliver results difficult to measure.

Now, look, $89,000 is (unfortunately), probably too small an amount to make much of a stink about. But this is a near-perfect example of how bad policy and bad ideas get pushed forward in Washington despite all common sense, expert advice, and evidence indicating the idea’s complete lack of worth.  Just say "emerging marketplace," though, and all’s swell!