9 ms·

It's an interesting question but I don't think it applies here. The problem with carbon offsets is not some moral question about my offloading my guilt to anot

It's an interesting question but I don't think it applies here. The problem with carbon offsets is not some moral question about my offloading my guilt to another party. The problem is that there's double-counting. Going back to the scenario, "suppose X and Y are both emitting greenhouse gases, and X pays Y to stop". Let's break that down: 1. Initially, X is emitting greenhouse gases. I'm not sure moral terminology is helpful here, but for the sake of discussion, we can say X is "guilty". 2. Initially, Y is also emitting greenhouse gases, they are also "guilty". 3. X makes a payment to Y, and Y halts their emissions. If we say that Y is no longer guilty, because they stopped emitting, then we must say that X is still guilty. If we say that X is no longer guilty, because they purchased an offset from Y, then we must say that Y is still guilty: they started out guilty, and they sold off the rights to their compensating action (halting emissions) to X. We started with two guilty parties, and only one compensating / atoning action was performed. There is no coherent framework in which it can be said that both parties are now innocent.

nonrandomstring 5y ago
This is the stronger argument. It's more complete. Thank you for explaining. I think we don't disagree and that you recognise my "non-transferability of guilt" in your step 4. Anyway the double accounting makes a clearer case. edit: some clarity
dr_dshiv 5y ago
But carbon emissions still go down, paid for by one party. What’s the issue?
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  > But carbon emissions still go down, paid for by one party. What’s the issue? Unfairness/inequity. That's why I said my question was not a Utilitarian one. I do not speak for the PP. edit: removed possible smartass condescension
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    I read your post again but I don’t see what is not fair. If you look at the target sites for carbon credits, many are reforestation projects in the developing world. Is the concern that it is reducing industrial capacity there? Or, if it is paying another company to subsidize efficiency, is the concern that the money is staying among the rich? Or is it a “they have sinned and you can’t pay off sin?” Im assuming not. I see this as “I made a mess in the street and I hired cleaners to clean it up.” Sure, I didn’t do the cleaning myself, but I’m still being responsible for it, right?
    - nonrandomstring 5y ago
      > Or is it a “they have sinned and you can’t pay off sin?” Interesting. Yes, this is the closest of your choices. Not quite Biblical Sin :), but that will do for the moment. Please note that I asked a genuine, good-faith moral question. I'm not making an assertion here. I removed a remark that "perceived fairness is often more important in human-centred affairs than summative outcomes" - but then noticed that you teach human centred design and obviously get that. So let's explore it together. > many are reforestation projects in the developing world. Regardless of how "good" the purchased offset is, it does not impact the Kantian moral argument - in particular I am thinking about universalisabilty. I don't think it matters whether one bribes the rich or poor in this case. the question is about the ethics of transferable responsibility - for which I used the obviously extreme edge case of buying immunity from murder charges. > I see this as "I made a mess in the street and I hired cleaners to clean it up." Sure, I didn't do the cleaning myself, but I’m still being responsible for it, right? No, I think that's where I would differ. Let's say you made the mess the next day, and the next, and the one after... and each day you pay someone to clean it up. You're not off the hook. Somewhat like the broken window fallacy, you're still creating a net loss to society. Unless you think those cleaners have nothing better to do with their lives than labour cleaning up your mess. Let's consider another slightly more ordinary place this logic operates and fails. Parking or speeding fines. Why do we have motoring restrictions? Ultimately it's to reduce loss of life. Careless driving or parking gets people killed. But paltry fines have no effect on those who simply see it as an extra charge to be factored into being an anti-social driver. Now suppose that instead I can simply pay another driver to stay at home so I can speed around by the local school and park across the hospital entrance. Being "responsible for it" would be not making the mess in the first place. You're "making amends for it" - those would be better words. But if that delivers no deterrence from doing it again, a fundamental aspect of justice necessary for regulating human affairs is not served.
jay_kyburz 5y ago
Unless you consider that its not a zero sum game and that by funding Y there is more capability, expertise, and other general benefits being built. The wheels of progress are at least turning and carbon is being captured.
- chii 5y ago
  > by funding Y there is more capability, expertise, and other general benefits being built. but the sale of the emission offsets by Y has no stipulation that the revenue be spent on research and development of better capabilities?

nonrandomstring 5y ago

This is the stronger argument. It's more complete. Thank you for explaining. I think we don't disagree and that you recognise my "non-transferability of guilt" in your step 4. Anyway the double accounting makes a clearer case. edit: some clarity

dr_dshiv 5y ago

But carbon emissions still go down, paid for by one party. What’s the issue?

nonrandomstring 5y ago
> But carbon emissions still go down, paid for by one party. What’s the issue? Unfairness/inequity. That's why I said my question was not a Utilitarian one. I do not speak for the PP. edit: removed possible smartass condescension
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  I read your post again but I don’t see what is not fair. If you look at the target sites for carbon credits, many are reforestation projects in the developing world. Is the concern that it is reducing industrial capacity there? Or, if it is paying another company to subsidize efficiency, is the concern that the money is staying among the rich? Or is it a “they have sinned and you can’t pay off sin?” Im assuming not. I see this as “I made a mess in the street and I hired cleaners to clean it up.” Sure, I didn’t do the cleaning myself, but I’m still being responsible for it, right?
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    > Or is it a “they have sinned and you can’t pay off sin?” Interesting. Yes, this is the closest of your choices. Not quite Biblical Sin :), but that will do for the moment. Please note that I asked a genuine, good-faith moral question. I'm not making an assertion here. I removed a remark that "perceived fairness is often more important in human-centred affairs than summative outcomes" - but then noticed that you teach human centred design and obviously get that. So let's explore it together. > many are reforestation projects in the developing world. Regardless of how "good" the purchased offset is, it does not impact the Kantian moral argument - in particular I am thinking about universalisabilty. I don't think it matters whether one bribes the rich or poor in this case. the question is about the ethics of transferable responsibility - for which I used the obviously extreme edge case of buying immunity from murder charges. > I see this as "I made a mess in the street and I hired cleaners to clean it up." Sure, I didn't do the cleaning myself, but I’m still being responsible for it, right? No, I think that's where I would differ. Let's say you made the mess the next day, and the next, and the one after... and each day you pay someone to clean it up. You're not off the hook. Somewhat like the broken window fallacy, you're still creating a net loss to society. Unless you think those cleaners have nothing better to do with their lives than labour cleaning up your mess. Let's consider another slightly more ordinary place this logic operates and fails. Parking or speeding fines. Why do we have motoring restrictions? Ultimately it's to reduce loss of life. Careless driving or parking gets people killed. But paltry fines have no effect on those who simply see it as an extra charge to be factored into being an anti-social driver. Now suppose that instead I can simply pay another driver to stay at home so I can speed around by the local school and park across the hospital entrance. Being "responsible for it" would be not making the mess in the first place. You're "making amends for it" - those would be better words. But if that delivers no deterrence from doing it again, a fundamental aspect of justice necessary for regulating human affairs is not served.

jay_kyburz 5y ago

Unless you consider that its not a zero sum game and that by funding Y there is more capability, expertise, and other general benefits being built. The wheels of progress are at least turning and carbon is being captured.

chii 5y ago
> by funding Y there is more capability, expertise, and other general benefits being built. but the sale of the emission offsets by Y has no stipulation that the revenue be spent on research and development of better capabilities?