Dion is paying to emit carbon dioxide, not reduce it. Somehow that's just not clear to you. Put another way: he's not reducing the emissions of what he believes to be at the centre of a crisis he imagines to be happening; he is paying to emit more of the stuff he thinks is causing it.
He's doing exactly what he preaches as far as paying a price for emitting carbon. That is the policy he is proposing. It really is that simple. You can try to argue whether the offset does or does not do anything, but that is pure supposition on your part. The money, in case you're curious, was used to renovate a seniors' home in Montreal to increase its energy efficiency. I didn't make any claim that whatever money he spent would actually reduce emissions. The carbon tax (that is, the proceeds from it) do not need to be used to reduce emissions for the tax to have its desired effect of decreasing consumption relative to the business as usual case.
Now, to extend your argument to its logical extreme, Dion could not avoid being hypocritical unless he became a hermit living off the land, thereby not inducing any emissions directly or indirectly. That makes it rather difficult to actually effect change, much less be prime minister. So you can call him a hypocrite (though I don't see the hypocrisy wrt the carbon tax), but it's relative.
So he is buying an indulgence. He's trying to buy his way out of sin.
Ok, if you're going to criticise me for using the word 'denier', perhaps you can try to avoid the overt religious references.
afransen, in so many posts you imagine to know what I am thinking. Allow me to assure you that you don't. I think Dion is a hypocrite, and so is anyone who believes in buying the right to do what he believes is wrong. The fact that you accept that action as a means to weasel out of actually reducing emissions when it is believed that these emissions are at of heart of a supposed crisis suggests that you are not so committed to the cause you promote.
I think this is a rather ideological point of view. You're suggesting that, to avoid hypocrisy, any individual that thinks CO2 emissions should be reduced must immediately cease burning any and all fossil fuels. That isn't very pragmatic. In this case, anyone who claims to believes in environmental protection is essentially a hypocrite by continuing to live. So, in other words, in order to live without hypocrisy, one must live without regard for the health of the ecosystem. I don't agree with this reasoning as it is essentially useless. Interesting to muse about but not immediately relevant to politics, certainly.
The use of the word "denier" is nothing more than an attempt to draw a connection to Holocaust denial, and that's rather sad on your part.
"you imagine to know what I am thinking. Allow me to assure you that you don't."
One who denies is a denier. If you want to take it to have some unrelated connotation, I suppose that is your right. However, I did not intend any such meaning--I think the Holocaust is trotted out far too often as it is and is incredibly boring. When was the last time we had an election without someone invoking Hitler, Nazism or the Holocaust? The days of Borden Buggies, I suppose.
--------------
Dichotomy, to correct your perception of Dion's proposal, Dion does not intend to use the carbon tax to pay for 'windmills'. The proceeds would be primarily used to reduce income taxes and increase transfers to individuals who would be disproportionately affected by the increase in energy prices.
The interesting thing about the carbon tax is that it doesn't really matter whether you think AGW is valid or not: there are very good fiscal reasons to embrace the shift in taxation. For those fiscal advantages, it also doesn't matter whether the rest of the world reduces emissions or not.