It seems businessmen and politicians have finally started listen ing to Al Gore. Unfortunately, they're taking his Earth-saving advice in a rather medieval manner.

In the past year, a growing list of businesses have turned to a concept known as "carbon-neutrality" — cutting as much carbon dioxide as they generate — in order to help to bolster their hip, "green" status.

Oops, I meant help the environment. Sorry.

Accordingly, a large number of unregulated carbon-cutting businesses have sprung up, in which consultants or companies estimate an individual or corporation's output of greenhouse gases. These carbon-cutting businesses then sell "offsets," which finance projects — such as planting trees or fertilizing the ocean with carbon-sucking algae — that void the corporation's carbon emissions, the New York Times recently reported.

Last year, Business Week tallied the carbon-cutting groups trade in offsets at $100 million. Environmentalists are still struggling to tally the impact of these funds-turned-green.

Apologies to all the celebrities and politicians, including Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who have hopped on the carbon-neutral bandwagon, but I've got my own inconvenient truth to share.

Creating a market for offsetting carbon emissions is perhaps the worst, most gimmick-ridden concept our society has spawned in quite some time.

"The worst of the carbon off-set programs resemble the Catholic Church's sale of indulgences back before the Reformation," Dennis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group, told the New York Times. "Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and they think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins."

"This whole game is badly in need of a Martin Luther," Hayes concluded.

Martin Luther, indeed.

Not only is significantly more oversight needed if these carbon off-set groups intend to continue their "get-out-jail-free-card" businesses — ensuring that they are, actually, cutting the amount of carbon they claim — but more individuals should speak to the fact that, as long as cutting carbon-emissions is a voluntary practice for businesses, no great impact will be made.

"We can't stop global warming with voluntary efforts, but [carbon off-set groups] offer a option to the solution in addition to reducing their own emissions and urging elected representatives to support good policy," said Daniel A. Lashof, the science director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Come on, is this the best we can do? Pat companies on the back for out-sourcing the cleanup of damage they're doing to the environment, instead of actually modifying their own behavior?

Legitimate organizations should act as consultants for businesses, in terms of how they can reduce environmental impact across their organization. This is not, however, a substitute for the wide-scale policy that is needed to make even the slightest dent in reducing global warming.

As an economy, nation and global consortium, we need individuals to stand up, call out businesses that practice carbon offsetting without institutional accountability and create policy that holds every individual and corporation responsible for their own impact.

Maybe then, we can all wake up from the trance of corporations who would like us to believe they're a part of the hip "green" trend and make some actual positive change.

Reach columnist Maureen Trantham at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.