Carbon off-setting would only be a true solution if there was some way to put the wood (from the fully grown trees) back under the ground (thousand of feet down, where the oil is now) such that we can be sure that the trapped CO2 will never find its way back into the atmosphere. But this is probably impossible.

Carbon off-setting is a distraction from the only meaningful task of reversing global deforestation (especially of the rainforest).

The only certainty is that at some point in time ALL the oil on the planet will have been burnt (by China & India if not by the rest of us). When all the resultant extra CO2 is in the air, the world needs to have as much permanent forest as possible to reduce the adverse effects of the extra CO2.

Whether the remaining oil (and coal etc..) lasts 50 years or 200 years is the only uncertainty. It is certain that it will all be burnt regardless of whether the average western citizen reduces their ‘CO2 footprint’.

I am just trying to be realistic about what will happen. All we can do is plan for a world where there is a lot of extra CO2 in the air.

Yes, some off-set schemes can make a small difference but it is so difficult to tell if the schemes may have been funded by some other body had the scheme not been in existence etc. At the end of the day we all need to make our own decision how we feel about flying but let’s not let people think they can have their cake and eat it - they can’t.
Have a look at :
http://www.sinkswatch.org/ and
http://wildberrys-blog.blogspot.com/search/label/offsetting

Only 6% of airlines offer carbon offset programs, but are they the way forward? Setting carbon limits on airports should be far more effective at driving down aircraft emissions.

I think we need to find a way whereby the net emissions impact from airlines is zero. Unless an alternative to jet fuel is discovered we will have to live with some form of offsetting (although I accept the limitations of offsets). Climate change is rapidly reaching tipping point and we need to be a lot more drastic in our response. The airline industry is relatively easy to ring fence and in many ways it plies a luxury good. Governments should look to use airlines as a platform and then extend their reach to other industries. Nothing less than net zero is acceptable.

But I don’t think offsets are the way to go. They don’t encourage airlines to reduce their own emissions, just pass on an additional cost to consumers. It’s the same with passenger taxes.

I favour an approach (see http://www.reallifenews.com/environment/2007/06/an_alternative_approach_to_air.php) where airports are set limits on the total carbon emissions of the flights to and from the airport. This applies real commercial pressure to reduce flight emissions as airports will favour those airlines with lower carbon so they can maximise the number of flights.

Airlines with higher emissions will find it harder to get landing spots or will be charged higher landing fees - making them non-competitive.