I found the article largely reflective of my household. My wife definitely was not a big fan of CFLs at first, though she didn't go so far as to change any back, and I didn't try to force the issue with places like her bedside lamp.

I did redo the our whole bathroom with CFLs, and frankly my wife didn't notice. She has since come around to accept CFLs as a good thing. But it's taken 1-2 years of easing her into it.

So while I would hardly blame women for global warming (it's usually the men buying the Hummers, etc.), I really don't think this article is that outrageous. Do all women have problems with CFLs? Are all men pro-CFL? Certainly not, but, again, I don't think the article is completely wrong in its characterizations.

Where to start...

I know a guy who installs biomass heating systems for medium to large buildings- schools, office buildings, etc. These systems burn a mix of grass and wood pellets. The energy balance on pelletized fuel is great; you skip right past the energy-intensive conversion steps that ethanol currently requires. And you can grow native grasses on marginal lands with minimal inputs.

But of course such systems have some extra upfront capital costs (e.g. you need a large area for fuel storage). My acquaintance sells carbon credits for his projects through Native Energy; they can make the difference between a system being cost-effective or not. So in this case at least, carbon offsets have a strong additionality component.

I personally buy offsets as a complement to other steps that I take (CFLs, B20 heating fuel, major reinsulation work, etc.). For me to go much further, it's going to get expensive. If I installed a PV system on my house, I think the cost of avoided emissions is something in the range of $300/ton CO2 avoided. If the carbon offsets I bought truly had additionality (contrary to the cartoon, and consistent with my example above, offsets actually can cause, well, offsets), that money could have a much bigger impact, say, financing wind turbines in China, where all you have to do is bridge the cost gap between wind and coal. And that's huge- any clean energy capacity that gets built in India or China is pretty clearly in place of increased coal capacity, either now or in the near future.

And frankly, I don't have a huge problem with people buying offsets in lieu of reducing their carbon footprint, or even with offset projects that are not truly additional. That's because I take a long view on this, and the fact is, offsets are a (voluntary) mechanism to start to internalize the external costs of energy use. And they provide a real funding mechanism and market signal for current and future projects that are truly additional.

Finally, let's remember that CO2 emissions are really fungible. The cartoon's @$#-hole credits are a good foil- they guy who you are an @$#-hole to does not benefit if you pay another a-hole to be nice. But if I fund a reduction in emissions (that's truly additional), it is the same as if I directly reduced my energy usage.

So please, join me in financing wind, etc., esp. in developing countries. They need (and have a right to have) the energy, and we have an interest in minimizing the extent to which these economies (esp India and China, who have huge coal reserves) rely on fossil fuels. Building a windmill in China will help reduce the rate of increase of CO2 emissions, and frankly, that's where we are right now as a society- reducing the rate of growth.

For the most reasonable article on biofuels that I've seen in awhile.

I think the politics of agricultural subsidies are really important here. The US and Europe spend a lot of money to keep farmers afloat. And the African farmers, etc., get screwed by artificially low prices. And governments on neither side of the Atlantic show any willingness to change the status quo.

So wouldn't it be helpful if these farmers had something more to do, so subsidies would be less necessary? So African farmers could get a decent price, and maybe, you know, develop sustainable economies?

I concur with Andrew that the environmental risks of biofuel cultivation are real. But they are so not a deal-killer in my view.

I'd also like to promote pelletized grass as a good fuel for stationary applications- if you're not moving, you don't really need liquid fuels; pelletized grass has a much, much better energy balance than ethanol, etc. Middlebury College, for instance, is installing some pellet-based heating systems.