The Oblivion Offset
everyone here gets caught up in the pleasure of the pain,
everyone hides shades of shame,
but looking inside we’re the same, we’re the same
And we’re all grown now, but we don’t know how
To get it back to good
- matchbox 20
I enjoyed reading Micheal’s blog about paddlers carbon output. Be sure to read it. It’s a good conversation to have. Thing was, I would have filled his comment box to post my thoughts. . so . . instead you get Monday’s blog. LOL!
You know you can do anything with numbers. There is always a proviso and an “if but”. So be that as it may, let’s get some quick numbers; A one way flight on a Boeing 747 between London’s Heathrow Airport to O’hare Airport in Chicago emits about 2,205 lbs of Co2 per person according to the Carbon Neutral Company. To put that into perspective, CNC requests about $20 in carbon neutral donations to offset your trip. Interestingly the average American travels about 12,000 miles per year by car which depending on the vehicle comes in around 13,000 lbs of carbon emitted! Of course for my part I work at home an never travel anywhere near those miles. Total flights in my lifetime? . . 3. According to the calculator on the “Inconvenient Truth” website I am way below average in the carbon emissions department. (small house, newer furnace. . . on and on)
Another way to look at things is by individual energy use. An average American uses about 9 TOE (metric tonnes of oil equivalent), An average Canadian uses just slightly less. The average Brit uses about half that. (Kudos you guys and your $9/gallon gas! LOL!) (lEA, Energy Balances of OECD Countries 1999-2000)
Thing is we should all do our part. To reduce carbon, to reduce waste, to reject war, end starvation and poverty, kill racism, fight the aids crisis in Africa, make sure every person has decent health care, “one bedroom and a bath”, . . on and on. Come on, most of us know what’s right and good. Most of us. The problem of course is what I’d like to call the “Oblivion Offset”. For every one person that actually gives a damn there are another few hundred, (thousand?) that don’t. In the end it’s sad to say but the Oblivion Offset just crushes the actions of the few. Crushes them. Of course with time and education things can/may change. History does show some positive change occasionally on a societal level so there is some hope. Still though is it valuable to point fingers at our neighbors?
As I said, It’s impossible to judge someone else’s number of flights, miles driven, energy consumption, etc., without understanding their complete lifestyle. It’s hard to tell what actions they take individually offset other individual actions. (I think there is a whole glass houses, casting stones, judge not lest.. thing going on there too.) These days we all are aware of “carbon footprint” calculators. So we of course are thinking more about it. Good. These tools give us away to examine our own co2 output. They are meant for us to judge. . ourselves.
In addition there are many, many other issues we face these days and we as individuals impact every one of them. I’d like to see a “Gluttony offset” calculator. How much food do I consume and how much less should I consume to leave more for those who have little? How about a “Medical Care” offset for every person that sees doctors for every little hang nail to leave more time for those without access or insurance around the world? How about a “Military Offset”? One less hummer would provide money how many children’s vaccinations? Of course I’m being a bit silly, but the point is there are all sorts of places we can hold ourselves and others feet to the fire if we so wish. The bottom line is we have to each do our own part or push for societal change. We shouldn’t in my opinion, use these tools to judge how many times our neighbor mows the lawn. We just don’t have the right or capability to judge properly.
If we fly across the planet to paddle or present then will purchasing offset credit be acceptable?
In a recent article in Scientific American (focused on global obesity by the way), called “Rational Atheism” by Michael Shermer, he is talking about the Science versus Religion debate. In it he quotes Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises who said, “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitudes. It has no chance whatever to succeed. . . People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.” He also quotes Carl Sagan who said, “You can get into the habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it”.
See also ClimateCrisis.net
* the numbers. . remember this is a blog and not a scientific paper. The numbers here came from various commercial and governmental websites and are certainly up for debate.


Great posting, Derrick. You make some excellent points (especially the one about pointing fingers at our neighbours). It’s a topic which we need to have in my opinion, as most of us paddle for recreation, not to put food on the table. There is a whole school of thought (and economics) that suggests only crises promote real change. I think that’s true, but wouldn’t it be ‘adult’ of us to make the necessary changes for our children without having a war or some natural termoil to get us moving? Hopefully others will chime in with their take.
I agree Michael. We have to keep up the chatter. I wish I could feel that we could make change without a disaster to force it. It’s hard enough for one person to make change, it seems sometimes it’s bloody impossible for society unless there is major up evil.
“A one way flight on a Boeing 747 between London’s Heathrow Airport to O’hare Airport in Chicago emits about 2,205 lbs of Co2 per person according to the Carbon Neutral Company. … Interestingly the average American travels about 12,000 miles per year by car which depending on the vehicle comes in around 13,000 lbs of carbon emitted!”
It’s not clear exactly where you got these numbers but your interpretation of them isn’t fair.
It would be more fair to indicate the C02 consumed for a two-way trip, 4410 lbs, since that is more typical. Note that the 13,000 lbs produced by the car includes round trips. Thus, a single trip to England consumes a wopping 34% of the CO2 production of a car over a whole year! It’s even worse if you concider that a typical trip is a week long. This would mean the rate of CO2 production is 4410 lbs in one week for the airplane trip versus per 250 lbs/week for the car (17 times the rate of the car). Also, the driving is likely more of a necessity than the trip to England.
You’re right David. However, my goal was only to show some numbers for those who may not understand what we are talking about, not interpret them. The bottom line comment is there are really big issues in the world and I’m not sure debating the carbon footprint of a few kayakers is fair. Just compare 1 kayaker to one American football player by example. How many flights there? Or a National Geographic photographer? A politician? In the end I think we each have to do what we can as individuals but it does us no good to complain within our community where we as generally environmentally conscious kayakers, are a very tiny drop in a very big bucket. For my part, my lifestyle offsets any flights I may take, and maybe this applies to others as well. Who’s in the position to judge?
As I commented on Michael’s blog, those planes are going to fly whether we are on them or not. So, while interesting, this doesn’t present a solution. It will take a humongous change of thought and attitude and, I suspect, fear for real change to occur. I also suspect we are all sitting around waiting for technology to save us. Oh well.
I agree that it does not makes sense to point to kayakers especially. It’s any user of airplane travel. It really is an argument about what individuals might be able to do to reduce their “carbon footprint”. One won’t be able to do anything if the argument is “look at what the other person is doing”.
“those planes are going to fly whether we are on them or not” –> After a certain point, fewer passengers means fewer flights. One has to start somewere.
Derrick, it’s thoughtful and correct to ask who’s in a position to judge your lifestyle or mine. But it’s also thoughtful and correct to put the question out there, so it can be part of what we ask ourselves about the way we live our lives.
Do the pluses of a green and silent sport really balance out my 500-mile round trip to float a sea kayak at the Apostle Islands? If I were coldly honest with myself I would acknowledge that they do not, especially if I aspire to make that trip 3-4 times in a season. In the endless queue of vehicles streaming back down to the Twin Cities on a Sunday evening, it doesn’t matter so much that my car transports a kayak instead of a jet ski. I’m still one of the cars.
Would I be content to spend that whole summer in rivers and lakes around the Twin Cities, knowing it was better for the planet? Again, cold honesty makes me admit that I wouldn’t. But I’m not at all uncomfortable about that answer unless I first ask myself the question.
Hey Kate,
Of course you are right that we must examine these things for ourselves. I dare say it’s fairly easy to offset that trip to the apostle islands. Similar to a savings account, we can “save” our energy consumption year around, in all different aspects of our lives to compensate for our little adventures. In fact it’s not really reasonable to to suggest that people should not travel to paddle. If we live light enough in our daily lives, our trips would still not push us into the use of an average consumer. In the end it comes down to our complete lifestyle, of which paddling is only a small part. Well, at least to my mind.
If I were to winnow it down a bit more, the more compelling suspicion is that I am no different from anyone else on the planet in that I can rationalize nearly any choice I make — even the bad ones.
The “saving energy” part is a perfect example. Do people who use carbon offsets truly conserve for later like managing the cash in our pocket, or like managing the limit on our credit card? Are we as scrupulous as “$1.43 is enough for a coffee but not a latte” or as general as “there’s always been enough room on this card for anything I might need at Target today.”
Not suggesting that I or anyone live so locally that we sacrifice all passion & extravagance. Instead, noting that it’s a very human tendency to give myself credit for going without an air conditioner or a new car and then being a tiny bit complacent about examining my other choices.
totally right! Which brings us to the next quandary. Can people self-regulate in any meaningful way at all? Even a few million people with great self will are not enough to effect the trends. The majority will be happy to buy something with a “green” sticker on it never knowing what “green” means. And of course people in affluent societies have no good gauge of their own use because the have nothing to compare it to other than their neighbors. And then like you say, then can rationalize anything anyway. So if people cannot self regulate, then does government impose? Not that ours would or has the wisdom anyway. LOL!
So. . the big question is, will any real change occur or will we have to wait for an environmental crash to force change upon us in a rather ugly way?