So, you’re comfortably middle-class, drive the kids to school in an SUV (good protection for them in case of an accident, right?), have reverse-cycle heating and a kitchen with all the latest gadets.

   Life is good and yet, you’re worried about your carbon emissions, destruction of rainforests and subtle changes to the climate in your area. But what can you do?

     Then you hear about a proposal at UN climate change talks in Bali that could lead to rich nations buying carbon credits aimed at saving the rainforests. These forests soak up vast amounts of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by SUVs  and power stations.

     The scheme sounds very attractive. You can continue driving your SUV knowing your government is offsetting your emissions by paying to save the rainforests. Sounds like guilt-free living.

    Not quite.

    Flicking on the toaster may seem peripheral to the outcome of climate talks in Bali — but whether the electricity comes from high carbon-emitting coal or clean alternatives like wind partly depends on how far Europe and other rich countries want to meet emissions targets by carbon offsetting. That would allow you to buy permits to continue to pollute by funding emissions cuts in poor nations. The question is whether that’s the long-term answer.

    Some green groups are opposed to offset schemes that aren’t matched by real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at home by rich nations. They say there’s no such thing as buying your way out of polluting lifestyles in a world where greenhouse emissions keep rising. Forests can only absorb so much CO2 and, anyway, oil, gas and coal prices are rising, meaning the more rich nations continue to burn, the more the costs at home will burn a hole in consumers’ pockets. Making that SUV just too expensive to run.

   What do you think?