Jake Gyllenhaal recently paid for $10,000 worth of trees to be planted in Mozambique through a company that promises to help individuals offset their carbon output; what the company markets is something analogous to international carbon credits on a personal scale. It works roughly like this: Jake pays the company, they plant a tree, the tree consumes some CO2 during its lifetime, and Jake thus makes great strides towards offsetting his personal carbon output. Hooray for Jake.

But can it be so simple? Can it be that the emissions from Jake’s Oscar night limo are tidily eaten by trees in Mozambique, which in addition to cleaning the air also increase the aesthetic merits of the Mozambican landscape? Perhaps. But how is Jake to know that the trees were actually planted? And what if they were planted but died before their time? And what if the trees were imported from long distances, thus adding CO2 to the already ailing atmosphere? Well, perhaps the company Jake used is legitimate and accountable. But what if it’s not? What legislation — Mozambican, American, or otherwise — oversees the operations and verifies the claims made by the tree planting company? Is planting trees the most effective way to offset your CO2 output? What about the argument that forests take in light rather than reflecting it, as another landscape such as a desert might, thus increasing warming?

America isn’t adhering to the Kyoto Protocol, and there is currently no legislation regarding the future of our nation’s carbon output (although Monday’s Supreme Court ruling which holds the EPA accountable for regulating carbon outputs seems promising). And without official standards or accountability, how can we hope to know which personal carbon offset companies are legitimate? Al Gore’s Web site, climatecrisis.net, encourages visitors to offset their personal carbon output by donating money to any one of three carbon offset groups, one of which subsidizes wind power. This brings us to even thornier matters: Is subsidizing wind power really going to increase consumption? Would the people who purchase wind power do it anyway, regardless of the price? And what about the wind power companies? Are they nonprofit or for-profit? And how does that affect the way they handle their funds — funds that were donated by visitors to Al Gore’s Web site?

Even Gore’s Web site admits they “can’t guarantee” that their offset programs will “generate all the estimated environmental benefits.” On reading this, I wanted to know the statistics. How likely is it that the offsets really will generate their estimated benefits? Given the current phrasing, it could be anywhere between 90% and 5%. There’s little accountability here; simply a call for faith. I’m being implicitly asked to have faith that these companies have good intentions and good science. Well, I learned from 12 years of Catholic school that simple faith isn’t much of a foundation, especially not for good science.

Once we move beyond these tangled issues of accountability and blind faith, we get to matters that are trickier still. Carbon credits are growing hugely in popularity; $6 million of carbon credits were purchased in 2005, versus the $110 million sold in 2006 (here, let’s reflect reverently upon America’s ability to be influenced by movies). Hordes of eco-conscious citizens are now buying offsets to make all kinds of events such as weddings, frat parties, religious services, etc. carbon-neutral, and celebs such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, and Brad Pitt (not to mention Jake Gyllenhaal) are donating to plant-a-tree funds. Land Rover has recently begun purchasing offsets for its production emissions, and movie execs went so far as to buy carbon offsets to cover the entire production of “The Day After Tomorrow,” so as not to make that day come any sooner. Whether these offsets are actually working is one question, but the knottier issue is this: Isn’t it irresponsible for people to continue living unsustainably, even if they’re paying for it? Instead of offsetting one’s air conditioning costs, why not just shut off the AC and open a window? Shouldn’t people start making lifestyle changes instead of shuttling their funds off to Mozambique?

Well, yes. We should make changes to our lifestyles. But realistically, I’m not going to refuse to go home to Connecticut because the cross-country flight is spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Yes, I can make fewer flights, but I’m not going to stop flying altogether, which is why I wish I knew where to buy my carbon offsets. And I won’t know with any degree of certainty until our nation hops onboard the eco-consciousness train and starts enacting legislation regarding carbon offsets and other efforts to reduce our nation’s contribution to climate change.

If you have some carbon offsets you’d like to sell to Ruth, please email her at ruthmccann@stanford.edu.