This approach offers several advantages: 

1. It is simple to administer, allowing ASU to act immediately and achieve climate neutrality (or, at least, “neutrality”) before fully analyzing and implementing more substantive and far-reaching institutional changes. 

2. It establishes ASU as a leader, both symbolically and economically. This would make us the first mid-size public university to achieve carbon neutrality, thus giving us a credible claim to our marketing about sustainability. Such an accomplishment would very likely attract the attention of national media, prospective students, and potential donors. Additionally, making such a substantial investment in renewable energy would also help shift market conditions in favor of renewables. 

3. It establishes clear economic signals about when to adopt other measures. If we can implement energy efficiency, energy generation, behavior change, institutional change, or other measures at a lower cost than the $4.21 that we pay to offset each ton of CO2e, then those changes would be cost-effective. 

4. It will become cheaper over time, as the cost of renewables decreases and the cost of offsets decreases, freeing up money for other initiatives. 

Despite these advantages, we advocate against an exclusive reliance on this path of simple “neutrality,” for several reasons.

1. As the quotation marks imply, this approach would continue to undercount our total carbon emissions, giving the false impression that we are achieving neutrality when in fact we are still making significant contributions to global climate change. Given the extensive and intensive harm that will come from climate change, we cannot afford to fool ourselves and others in this way

2. Offsets are too problematic to comfortably rely on for such a large portion of our efforts. Pragmatically, carbon offsets frequently overcount their supposed carbon sequestration benefits. For example, when carbon offsets are achieved through reforestation or timber restrictions, research shows that as much as 84-95% of the apparent carbon sequestration may be spurious (Gan and McCarl 2007; Wear and Murray 2004). Carbon offsets are also frequently challenged on a more fundamental level, because they allow people to continue polluting as usual with a clean conscience, and because they commodify nature in a way that can lead to new cycles of highly damaging speculation, perverse incentives, land grabbing and “carbon colonialism” (Astuti and McGregor 2017; Borras, et al. 2012; Fairhead, et al. 2012; Lyons and Westoby 2014; Osborne 2013; Sullivan 2013, 2018). That said, as we will see below there are opportunities to reconceptualize offsets so they contribute to thriving local economies and improvements in environmental justice.  

3. This is not a very economically savvy approach. Although the costs of simple “neutrality” are likely to decrease over time, no part of this pays for itself. Relying exclusively on purchased renewable energy and purchased offsets means there is no on-campus investment, and therefore no return on investment. By contrast, energy efficiency upgrades, changes to campus purchasing requirements, adjustments to the university schedule, changes to building standards, and on-campus renewable generation would pay themselves off at some point.

4.  Some administrators will argue that large-scale offset purchases are not permissible. However, we suspect this is only a minor nuisance. There are probably ways of treating offsets as investments in research and educational programming rather than purchases. Furthermore, if we are committed to change we need to treat these types of impediments as issues to be addressed, not definitive indicators of impossibility.  

5. Finally, this approach fails to leverage Appalachian State’s power, resources, and standing in the community to enhance the High Country, work towards justice, and contribute to larger-scale shifts in economic and political structures in a way that would ensure continued ethical and ecological decision-making.