Buy some carbon offsets - thats what they are for! Compare and contrast these two scenarios:
In scenario 1, farmer Brown adds greenhouse gas when the planet is already facing catastrophic climate change and should feel guilty. In scenario 2, you have paid for offsets so your guilt is transferred to whoever accepted the money, farmer Brown again - how convenient! Farmer Brown may not feel guilty. The trees have on the farm have been saved forever, for the benefit of humanity - something to be proud of, one would think. Guilt is easy to get rid of but hard to accept and there is a tendency for it to magically disappear during carbon offset transactions.
Thats a very different question (and if you want to avoid climate catastrophe, it's too late). Both scenarios are equally bad as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned. However, whenever you make a decision you should consider the risk that things do not turn out as expected. If you choose scenario 1, you can't be sure that farmer Brown will actually chop down the trees. It's even possible the "plan" was created only to get carbon offsets, with no intention to be carried out. If you choose scenario 2, it's possible the trees will be burnt anyway. Farmer Brown may not keep his word or there may be a bush-fire (then we can blame God!), for example. There is no doubt: if you want to reduce climate catastrophe scenario 1 is the right choice.
Sure, we could change scenario 2 so the carbon offset company pays farmer Brown to plant trees instead. Planting trees is a good thing - as they grow they take carbon out of the atmosphere. However, that takes decades whereas burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases immediately. It's like putting your foot on the accelerator while promising to gradually apply the brakes in the future. To reduce climate catastrophe we must take out foot off the accelerator and apply the brakes now. As before, there is also the risk that the trees won't grow or they burn down in a bush-fire. In addition, the trees will no doubt be planted where there were once trees, chopped down by farmer Brown senior some time ago. All that is happening is that we are (eventually) replacing the trees that were once there, but also burning fossil fuels. This modified scenario 2 still leads us down the path of climate catastrophe - all the science tells us fossil fuels need to stay (mostly) in the ground.
Again, we could change scenario 2 so the carbon offsets help fund renewable energy production on farmer Brown's land. Like planting trees, it's a good thing but it doesn't make any immediate difference. And it doesn't even take carbon out of the atmosphere in the longer term. It's like putting your foot on the accelerator while promising to accelerate somewhat less in the future. Sadly, I see no version of scenario 2 that makes it the right choice. At best, offsets just shift blame while making no difference to emissions. We are left with scenario 1, in which we must change our lifestyle so it is more sustainable.
Good on you! But it's very likely (in Australia at least) you accepted all the subsidies and discounts when you had them installed; they may not have even been itemised in the quote. If so, you have essentially sold carbon offsets (Small-scale Technology Certificates) to big polluting companies to allow them to emit more greenhouse gasses (the same occurs if you buy a subsidised hot water system or various other energy-efficient appliances). You have lower power bills but, by the magic of offsets, the big polluters have shifted their guilt to you, just like shifting your guilt to farmer Brown in scenario 2. When your solar panels feed electricity into the grid, or even power your fridge, it is offsetting emissions by big polluters - they have the certificates to prove it. Like farmer Brown, you may even feel some pride and think your lifestyle is more sustainable but in reality you are helping support emissions from big polluters. If you want your rooftop solar to make a real difference to emissions, don't sell those certificates.
Again, good on you! The system must be changed so the most environmentally damaging behaviours of humanity are curtailed. But at least for the foreseeable future, regular flights overseas will remain unsustainable. There is no current alternative to fossil fuel for this style of transport. It is a lifestyle that is incompatible with climate stability. The system could change so it is illegal to fly more than a certain amount, or taxation could be used to make it unaffordable for you to do so, forcing you to choose scenario 1 (and perhaps stopping farmer Brown from chopping down those trees as well). Sadly, the system has not yet changed. But the good news is, you don't have to wait for system change to force you to choose scenario 1. You can choose it now! And we have a better chance of getting a (somewhat) democratic government to introduce policies that limit flying if more people voluntarily do so.
I share your frustration at the lack of climate action shown by governments, locally and globally. Countries refuse to limit emissions until others do, or worse, the USA has just withdrawn from the Paris agreement. In the moral wasteland of politics, influence and economic advantage trump any notion of the common good and what is right. We applauded Greta's moving speeches and hate the "Blah, Blah, Blah" of the regular climate conferences, full of talk but little action. We need climate action now, not just more talk. But fighting to change the system is not climate action. Even breaking the law and getting arrested may be an "action" but it is not climate action. However loud you shout at a rally, it is talk, not action. If you are not acting to change your behaviour and reduce your carbon footprint, can you really claim the moral high ground above the politicians and negotiators we criticise? I think not. We hate "Drill, baby, drill" - it is utterly selfish - but the other side of the same coin is "Fly, baby, fly". There is no point in drilling for oil if there is nobody willing to buy it. By waiting for the system to force you to change your behaviour, you refuse to limit emissions until others do - sound familiar? The system is changing, but we need it to change more and faster. Our behaviour is also changing, but we need it to change more and faster as well.
It seems farmer Brown (and the whole Brown family) should shoulder the guilt in all the scenarios, are quite likely to be dishonestly rorting the system put in place to protect the planet and are possible arsonists as well. Even worse, they have ruined our holidays! I would be tempted to get a few pitchforks and torches, gather some mates and pay them all a visit, but I'm worried I may have slightly overstated how evil they are and it turns out they live inconveniently far away. In fact, the brown family live a different country. They are very poor compared to you and me (not even in the richest 10% of people in the world - no wonder we don't know them). They didn't profit much from chopping down those trees in the past. The main beneficiaries were rich folk living in countries like ours. They have only contributed a fraction of what we have contributed to global heating, but they are also the ones likely to suffer the most. By pursuing our own selfishness we inflict more pain and suffering on the residents of this planet, particularly those with far few resources than we enjoy.
I wrote this partly because of my long-standing scepticism of carbon offsets but more due to a growing frustration and sadness about how nearly all my friends and family continue to behave. My heart says they are not bad people. They are my friends. Maybe they are ignorant or in denial but my logical (and seemingly neuro-divergent) brain cannot help but think that their behaviour is utterly selfish and irresponsible. Nearly all of them are aware of the unfolding climate catastrophe and believe strong action is urgently needed. Several would be considered climate activists. Many have spent money to try to make their lives more "green", such as installing rooftop solar or driving cars that are less polluting. Yet few of them have changed their lifestyle. My heart sinks every time I hear that yet another friend will be flying overseas for a holiday, or to visit family, or ride a bike, or whatever - the impact is the same. Several years ago there was pressure on me to travel overseas with a couple of family members. I calculated that joining them would have had an impact equivalent to almost three years of our entire household electricity consumption from the grid, assuming it was all generated using dirty brown coal. It's one of the worst decisions anyone can make for the planet and all its inhabitants.
I'm not perfect. In the past I was flying to overseas conferences most years. I still occasionally drive a car and I'm not even a vegan. I feel I should do more but I'm no longer prepared to be arrested (and don't think it's particularly effective) and have run out of rooftops to put solar panels on. One thing I can do more is try to influence people. It's challenging to confront people about their behaviour but by creating this page I can share a link. The best time to change our ways was over thirty year ago, but the best still-possible time to change is now. If I can convince just one person to avoid one overseas trip I will consider this page to be a success - it will have achieved more than all my attendances at climate rallies. If I can convince two people then I'll use that as an offset for an overseas trip! Hey, I'm kidding, alright - I believe there is always a place for humour.