Here’s an interesting idea: instead of American corporations working to cut pollution levels in this country, what if they paid developing nations to offset the pollution for them? A new report says that it would be cheaper to do just that.

The Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests has stated that as far as cost is concerned, instead of curbing pollution here, U.S. companies would be better off just paying other countries to not clear cut forests. The Los Angeles Times tells us the report comes to the conclusion that “U.S. companies could save tens of billions of dollars by investing in efforts to combat deforestation in developing nations instead of cleaning up their own domestic carbon dioxide emissions.”

These “forest offsets” would be used to pay countries to not turn forests into grazing areas for cattle or soy crops. Some environmental groups are already all over this idea, but in this scheme, it would be companies paying in order to keep polluting in the United States. But the cost savings are pretty immense.

The LA Times reports:

The panel’s researchers estimate that if American companies invest about $60 billion between 2012 and 2020 to preserve rain forests in such countries as Brazil and Indonesia, they could achieve the same amount of global emissions cuts while avoiding the expense of about $110 billion on remedies in the United States. That net savings of $50 billion might be enough to make climate legislation palatable to companies that have fiercely opposed tough global warming rules.

I’m not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it’s certainly passing the buck. On the other, if this is the only way corporations will be willing to pay to curb pollution, should we agree that this is a good idea? On the third hand, shouldn’t we be concerned with pollution coming from both deforestation and industry? Does it have to be an either/or? There are quite a few people, as it turns out, that aren’t amped about this idea.

Many European environmental groups, however, along with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Rainforest Action Network, oppose offsets as “a way for corporations like American Electric Power to buy their way out of any pollution cuts, and avoid replacing coal with solar and wind power,” said Rolf Skar, Greenpeace’s senior forestry campaigner.

So, controversial. But if it’s a way to get the discussion started, I suppose the report is useful in combating climate change.

photo credit: otodo’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons