ABSTRACT

Do carbon-offsetting schemes morally offset emissions? The moral equivalence thesis is the claim that the combination of emitting greenhouse gasses and offsetting those emissions is morally equivalent to not emitting at all. This thesis implies that in response to climate change, we need not make any lifestyle changes to reduce our emissions as long as we offset them. An influential argument in favor of this thesis is premised on two claims, one empirical and the other normative: (1) When you emit + offset, the net result is the same as that of not emitting. (2) With emissions, the net result is what matters morally. I argue against both premises. The net result of emitting + offsetting is never equivalent to that of not emitting, and even if it were equivalent, the net result is not the only thing that matters morally. My conclusion is that although we should offset our emissions, avoiding emissions is morally preferable. This conclusion supports a stronger claim: that carbon offsets cannot relieve us of our duty to make significant lifestyle changes so as to reduce emissions and thus lesson our contribution to the harms of climate change.

摘要

碳抵消计划在道德上抵消排放吗？道德对等论声称排放温室气体和抵消这些排放在道德上等同于根本不排放。这篇论文意味着，为了应对气候变化，我们不需要改变任何生活方式来减少排放，只要我们能够抵消排放即可。支持本论文的一个有影响力的论点基于两个主张，一个是经验性的，另一个是规范性的：（1）当你排放+抵消时，最终结果与不排放相同。(2) 对于排放，最终结果在道德上才是重要的。我反对这两个前提。排放+抵消的最终结果永远不等于不排放的最终结果，即使相等，最终结果也不是唯一在道德上重要的事情。我的结论是，尽管我们应该抵消排放，但避免排放在道德上更可取。