A carbon offset, in brief, is paying to reduce emissions elsewhere instead of reducing your own. So, for each metric ton of carbon dioxide a home still produces after conservation efforts, you buy a metric ton's reduction from a company that directly reduces carbon dioxide emissions through their projects. (On the Emmy Awards show last week, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart had a funny discussion about carbon offsets. Irreverent, but it made some good points.)

I love the idea that we can build our homes to the best of our technical ability -- achieving high levels of energy performance and carbon reduction that are practical and affordable -- and then "buy away" the rest of our sins through carbon offsets. Some argue that the strategy is lame, because it doesn't reduce the demand for polluting sources of power. Some argue that it encourages people to simply "buy the ability to indulge" instead of changing their fundamental bad behavior, but I disagree. If done right, carbon offsets could reduce the energy demand created by homes significantly, and support the production of and demand for renewable energy. There's the difference: No priest is able to ensure that the money paid for absolution actually eliminates sin, but regulations can ensure that money paid into carbon offsets actually eliminates carbon emitted in another sector.

I love the concept in theory. In practice, the implementation of a reasonable and honest system for delivering on the concept of carbon offsets is proving to be difficult. However, I'll bet you a buck and a beer that in 5-10 years, the system will be ironed out and the concept will be a part of our daily transactions. Call me selfish, but I still want to stay warm and go on vacation while I'm protecting our future. I bet you do, too.

What do you think of the concept of carbon offsets? Would you be willing to pay to help reduce emissions overall, even if you can't do anything more yourself to cut them? Let me know. I want to find out if I'm just a voice in the wilderness.