I finally clicked the link, and read an article that pretty much aligned with what I've been thinking.
There's been a lot of artists and others focused on carbon credits and such, and I had to wonder how many of those really make a difference. I don't think the goal should be to break even, but on a overall basis to keep creating a smaller footprint. There are a lot of silly choices being made out there, with people replacing perfectly good and environmentally friendly items with "better" environmentally-friendly items, which may in the long run not be any more environmentally friendly due to the fact that the resources required to manufacture the item outweigh the environmental savings that result. (Sorry for the uber-long sentence.)
I hope that makes sense. I wish I could name an example, but none are coming to mind. I just see things on the local news and in the paper, and sometimes I have to shake my head at the stupidity on display.