Carbon offsets

I suppose the question of efficacy depends upon the desired outcome. If what is intended has to do with reducing carbon emissions, then this is a small step indeed. But I'm of the mind that every small step that makes us aware of our impact is useful.

As far as increasing air passenger duty, while this may be effective should the funds go to the correct environmental agency, I'm not convinced that this would have any effect on consciousness raising. I'm more inclined to believe that it would simply be another fee tacked onto an already steep bill and I, for one, would have very little awareness of what I was paying for.

Along these same lines, would it not be taxpayers that would absorb the cost of minister's or civil servants wandering around the world? Again, "effective" depends upon expectation. Perhaps if tax payers were aware of a significant cost they would discourage government from traveling abroad with such frequency, and perhaps this would do more in the long term than an environmental fund in the short term.

As evidence to a citizen's ignorance regarding taxation, I wonder what became of this program. I wonder if this is something we've adopted or whether there's some variation that's been implemented here. I am certainly remiss in my democratic duties regarding the destination of my tax money. For that matter, I've not once pored over an airline bill to determine what fees are paid to whom.

A similar consideration would be tacking this type of fee onto gasoline costs in urban areas, provided that public transportation is a reasonable alternative. The city of San Francisco has raised parking fines for more congested areas to reduce traffic as well as continuing to raise bridge tolls. This is the type of change that I would find most effective, in particular concurrent with reducing costs of public transportation systems. In this way individuals are encouraged to consider our impact and make every day choices in the direction of sustainability.