By
Grace Smoot

One way to reduce human-derived atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions is via carbon offsets, or investments in projects that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although they are touted as a solution for climate change, offsets may be only a mitigation strategy rather than a cure-all. So, we had to ask: What are the pros and cons of carbon offsets?

The pros and cons of carbon offsets depend on the specific project. They can be a cost-efficient way to permanently reduce GHG emissions, while strengthening our natural carbon sinks. However, they do not reduce your own emissions, can lack additionality, permanence, and are difficult to monitor.

Keep reading to find out all about what the pros and cons of carbon offsets are, how you can offset your carbon footprint with them, how they can mitigate climate change, and what better alternatives to carbon offsets are. 

The Big Picture of Carbon Offsets

We already have governmental-level policies in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), but how do we reduce emissions from activities where sustainable alternatives are not yet widely available? The answer just might be carbon offsets.

When you hear the words “carbon offset”, think about the term “compensation”. Essentially, carbon offsets are reductions in GHG emissions that are used to compensate for emissions occurring elsewhere. 

“Carbon Offset: a way for a company or person to reduce the level of carbon dioxide for which they are responsible by paying money to a company that works to reduce the total amount produced in the world, for example by planting trees”

Oxford Dictionary

Carbon offsets are measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents and are bought and sold through international brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms. 

Carbon offsets can be split into 2 categories, technology-based and nature-based carbon offsets. 

• Technology-based carbon offsets are those that use specialized technology to extract carbon from the atmosphere so that it can then be repurposed or stored permanently in various reservoirs. These include direct carbon/air capture, carbon mineralization, energy efficiency, waste management, and some agricultural offsets.

• Nature-based carbon offsets are those that focus on the long-term storage of captured or removed carbon in plants, soils, and the ocean, which are capable of absorbing massive amounts of our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and some agricultural offsets.

Carbon offsets also play a crucial role in reducing our carbon footprint, the amount of CO₂ emissions associated with an individual or an entity. The carbon footprint is one of the ways we measure the effects of human-induced global climate change. It primarily focuses on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with consumption, but also includes other emissions such as methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons.

8 Pros of Carbon Offsets	8 Cons of Carbon Offsets
Carbon offsets can be permanent	Carbon offsets can lack permanence
Carbon offsets can reduce CO2 emissions quickly	Carbon offsets can lack additionality
Carbon offsets can reduce methane (CH4) emissions	Carbon offsets can be expensive
Carbon offsets can be cost-effective	Carbon offsets are not yet at a scale where they can compensate for our global carbon emissions
Carbon offsets can promote energy decentralization, bolster energy security, and help transition away from fossil fuels	Carbon offsets can be difficult to monitor and verify
Carbon offsets can reinforce our terrestrial carbon sinks	Carbon offsets can face carbon storage capacity limitations
Carbon offsets can reinforce our marine carbon sinks	Carbon offsets may not reduce carbon emissions immediately
Carbon offsets allow us to reduce carbon emissions in ways we wouldn’t be able to accomplish individually	Carbon offsets do not reduce your own carbon emissions, which can lead to greenwashing

What Are 8 Pros of Carbon Offsets

Depending on the type, carbon offsets can permanently and quickly reduce CO₂ and CH₄ emissions. They also can be cost-effective, promote energy independence, reinforce our terrestrial and marine carbon sinks, and help offset carbon emissions that can’t be reduced otherwise.

Pro #1: Carbon Offsets Can Be Permanent

Carbon offsets involving direct carbon/air capture (DCC/DAC), carbon mineralization, waste management, and agriculture can permanently remove carbon from the atmosphere with low rates of carbon re-emission.

Carbon Offset Pro #1

For example, Climeworks’ partner Carbfix turns captured CO₂ into stone by dissolving it in water and injecting it underground where it reacts with basalt rock to form solid minerals. This process locks away CO₂ for thousands of years with no long-term monitoring required.

In addition, because carbon mineralization is a permanent process, rates of carbon re-emission are very low. For example, greenSand Olivine rocks permanently store carbon and will only release that carbon back into the atmosphere if the temperature exceeds 1,600 degrees. In addition, even if the rocks are broken, the carbon will remain trapped inside. 

Lastly, waste management practices involving landfill gas capture, combustion, or conversion to energy and agricultural processes including CH₄ capture from livestock and the installation of anaerobic methane digesters for manure conversion and on-farm electricity generation also permanently remove emissions from the atmosphere.

When comparing the above methods to other methods of carbon removal, like planting trees, we find that they reduce CO₂ emissions more permanently. With nature-based solutions, there is always the risk of droughts, wildfires, tree diseases, and deforestation wiping out newly planted trees and negating permanence and any carbon reduction benefits. 

In short, DCC/DAC, carbon mineralization, waste management, and agricultural offsets can permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Storing the carbon underground in rock formations is also a permanent process. 

Pro #2: Carbon Offsets Can Reduce CO₂ Emissions Quickly

Carbon offsets involving direct carbon/air capture (DCC/DAC), carbon mineralization, energy efficiency, and some waste management and agricultural practices can reduce emissions immediately.

Carbon Offset Pro #2

Technology-based carbon offsets generally reduce CO₂ emissions quicker than natural processes:

• Once the DCC/DAC machines start sucking in atmospheric air, they begin reducing CO₂ emissions. 

• Carbon mineralization projects break down silicate rocks into tiny pieces, thereby skipping slow weathering processes. Carbfix can achieve 95% permanent carbon mineralization in under two years. 

• As soon as energy-efficient mechanisms are installed, switched on, or implemented, they begin reducing CO₂ emissions because they use less energy to perform the same tasks as traditional methods. 

• Waste management processes including landfill gas capture, combustion, or conversion to energy immediately reduce emissions.

• Lastly, CH₄ capture from agriculture livestock, the installation of anaerobic methane digesters for manure conversion, and on-farm electricity generation reduce emissions once the technology is activated.

In short, technology-based carbon offsets can reduce emissions quicker than some nature-based solutions. 

Pro #3: Carbon Offsets Can Reduce Methane (CH₄) Emissions

Carbon offsets involving waste management and agriculture can reduce methane (CH₄) emissions.

Carbon Offset Pro #3

Methane (CH₄) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the anaerobic bacterial decomposition of organic matter. CH₄ is 25 times more potent than CO₂ at trapping heat in our atmosphere, which exacerbates global warming.

Common waste management carbon offset projects involve landfill gas capture, combustion, or conversion to energy, which reduce methane (CH₄). CO₂ and CH₄ comprise 90-98% of landfill gasses, which are produced when bacteria break down organic waste (e.g., food, paper, wood, sewage sludge, and yard waste).

Waste management offsets involving CH₄ gas capture, combustion, or conversion-to-energy prevent CH₄ from entering our atmosphere. Because CH₄ is more potent than CO₂, removing it is a quick way to slow the rate of global warming, at least in the short term.

Agriculture is the predominant source of methane (CH₄) emissions, with livestock alone accounting for approximately 32% of human-caused CH₄ emissions. CH₄ capture from livestock and the installation of anaerobic methane digesters for manure conversion and on-farm electricity generation are some of the most common agricultural offset projects. 

In short, waste management and agricultural offsets can prevent CH₄ from entering our atmosphere. And because CH₄ is more potent than CO₂, removing it is a quick way to slow the rate of global warming, at least in the short term.

Pro #4: Carbon Offsets Can Be Cost-Effective

Carbon offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, agriculture, energy efficiency, waste management, REDD+, and blue carbon are some of the most cost-effective methods of carbon emission reduction.

Carbon Offset Pro #4

• Reforestation and afforestation offsets from leading providers (i.e., The Arbor Day Foundation, Reforest’Action, Ecologi, and One Tree Planted) cost less than $50 per ton of CO₂ offset. 

• Agricultural offsets from some leading providers (e.g., Vi Agroforestry, One Tree Planted, and Terrapass) cost less than $40 per ton of CO₂ offset. 

• Energy-efficiency offsets from leading providers (e.g., Carbonfund, Ecologi, myclimate) cost less than $40 per ton of CO₂ offset.

• Waste management offsets from leading providers (e.g., GreenTech, Carbonfund, and Terrapass) cost less than $40 per ton of CO₂ offset.

• REDD+ carbon offsets from leading providers (e.g., REDD.plus, Pachama, and Wildlife Works) cost less than $30 per ton of CO₂ offset.

• Blue carbon offsets from leading providers (e.g., The Ocean Foundation, One Tree Planted, and Reforest’Action) cost less than $20 per ton of CO₂ offset. 

In short, nature-based offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agriculture are relatively cost-effective when compared to other methods of carbon emission reduction.

Pro #5: Carbon Offsets Can Promote Energy Decentralization, Bolster Energy Security, And Help Transition Away From Fossil Fuels

Carbon offsets involving energy efficiency can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels, leading to increased energy security and energy independence.

Carbon Offset Pro #5

Overall, energy-efficient mechanisms use less energy than traditional mechanisms to perform the same task. This reduces overall energy demand, which in turn reduces reliance on imports of biomass fuels on fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas). 

Being able to produce your own energy without relying on other entities increases energy security, which is reliable, affordable access to fuels and energy sources. Increased energy security fosters energy independence, which can aid in the transition away from fossil fuels and towards lower carbon options.

Energy-efficient practices also promote energy decentralization, where power is generated at or near locations where it will be used. This decreases the need to transport energy and generates environmental benefits associated with a lower carbon footprint. 

For example, clean cookstoves are a decentralized, energy-efficiency solution whereby cookstoves are distributed throughout communities. Rather than depending on power from a central location, individual families can utilize their own power in their homes.

In short, energy-efficiency offsets bolster energy security and can lead to energy independence.

Pro #6: Carbon Offsets Can Reinforce Our Terrestrial Carbon Sinks

Carbon offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, and agriculture reinforce forests, which are one of our largest carbon sinks.

Carbon Offset Pro #6

Forests are capable of absorbing some of the roughly 33 billion tons (bt) of CO₂ that we emit every year from burning fossil fuels. This makes forests one of our biggest carbon sinks, or carbon reservoirs.

“Carbon Sink: an area of forest that is large enough to absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere and therefore to reduce the effect of global warming”

Cambridge Dictionary 

Our forests absorbed over 15.6 bt of CO₂ each year from 2001-2019, compared to the approximately 8.1 bt of CO₂ released via deforestation, fires, and other disturbances. Still, this means that globally, forests act as a carbon sink capable of absorbing a net 7.6 bt of CO₂ per year.

For example, China, Vietnam, Azerbaijan, and Turkey have together planted 1.3 million hectares of forests as afforestation, with China increasing its forest cover from 12% to almost 22% since the birth of its Great Green Wall afforestation campaign in 1978. 

In addition, REDD+ offsets protect rainforests, including the Amazon Rainforest. The Amazon Basin contains roughly 2.8 million square miles of rainforest, which is estimated to store roughly 123 billion tons of carbon above and below ground. 

In short, reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, and agricultural offsets bolster our forest communities, which are one of our biggest carbon sinks capable of absorbing billions of tons of CO₂ every year. 

Pro #7: Carbon Offsets Can Reinforce Our Marine Carbon Sinks

Carbon offsets involving blue carbon reinforce coastal and marine ecosystems, which are one of our largest carbon sinks.

Carbon Offset Pro #7

Blue carbon is one example of biological carbon sequestration, or the storage of carbon in vegetation (forests), soils, and oceans, which are commonly referred to as our carbon sinks. Blue carbon ecosystems can permanently store carbon at depths of up to 6 meters for up to 1,000 years.

Blue carbon ecosystems can also sequester carbon at higher rates per unit area than terrestrial ecosystems. Mangroves and salt marshes can absorb 3-5x more carbon per acre (ac) than tropical forests at a rate 10 times greater, and seagrass meadows store 11% of the ocean’s buried carbon despite only accounting for only 0.1% of the world’s seafloor. 

If undisturbed, blue carbon ecosystems can absorb enough carbon to keep pace with moderate sea level rise. In the top meter of soil alone, mangroves can store an average of 1,494 tons of CO₂ per hectare (ha), seagrass meadows 951, and tidal marshes 607. But the real carbon storage potential is underground, with 50–99% of the carbon stored in blue ecosystems located in the soil underground. 

Deforesting mangroves or draining wetlands significantly impacts climate change because it results in the loss of stored carbon in biomass plus the active re-emission of carbon stored deep in the soil. It is estimated that the degradation or conversion of these ecosystems releases between 0.15 and 1.02 billion tons (bt) of CO₂ annually.

In short, blue carbon offsets reinforce marine and coastal ecosystems, which are some of our biggest carbon sinks capable of absorbing billions of metric tons of CO₂ every year. 

Pro #8: Carbon Offsets Can Help Offset Carbon Emissions That Can’t Be Reduced Otherwise

Carbon offsets allow us to reduce carbon emissions in ways we wouldn’t be able to accomplish individually.

Carbon Offset Pro #8

We already have governmental-level policies in place to reduce carbon emissions, but carbon offsets allow us to reduce emissions from activities where sustainable alternatives are not yet widely available. 

Carbon offsets are designed for situations where emissions are impossible to reduce because you can use those funds to reduce emissions in other areas. For example, we can only do so much to reduce our individual carbon footprints. Using public transportation, washing with cold water, and switching from single-use to sustainable products lowers our carbon footprint, but it does not eliminate it completely. This is where carbon offsets come into play to compensate for the remainder of our carbon emissions.

In short, carbon offsets allow us to reduce carbon emissions in ways we wouldn’t be able to accomplish individually.

What Are 8 Cons of Carbon Offsets

Depending on the type, carbon offsets can lack permanence or additionality, be expensive or difficult to monitor and verify, and are not yet scaled to compensate for our global emissions. They also can face carbon storage capacity limitations, do not reduce emissions immediately, and do not reduce your own carbon emissions, which can lead to greenwashing.

Con #1: Carbon Offsets Can Lack Permanence

Carbon offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agriculture often lack permanence because they are reversible solutions.

Carbon Offset Con #1

In order to be effective, carbon offset projects also must be permanent, in the sense that there must be a full guarantee against reversals of carbon emission for the foreseeable future. 

However, some nature-based solutions such as reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agriculture often lack permanence because they are reversible. 

Rather than storing the carbon in permanent reservoirs (i.e., underground in rock formations), carbon is stored in biomass (trees, seagrass, salt marshes). Once vegetation is planted, it should never be removed in order to guarantee permanence. But trees die naturally, and environmental disasters such as floods, fires, changes in land use, and climate change itself can negate any permanence. 

For example, climate change is one of the leading factors that can negate blue carbon permanence. Coastal ecosystems are especially sensitive to sea level rise, storm intensity, and rising ocean temperatures, all of which have been occurring at an accelerated rate. Blue carbon ecosystems are currently being degraded at 4 times the rate of tropical forests. We are currently losing mangroves, seagrasses, and tidal marshes at a rate of 2%, 1.5%, and 1-2% per year, respectively.

In short, reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agricultural carbon offsets can lack permanence because they are reversible solutions.

Con #2: Carbon Offsets Can Lack Additionality

Carbon offsets involving REDD+ often lack additionality because what would have happened without REDD+ intervention cannot be measured exactly.

Carbon Offset Con #2

To be beneficial, carbon offsets must be additional. This means the carbon emissions reductions would not have occurred without any interventions. 

But the additionality of REDD+ projects cannot be measured exactly, because assessing what would have happened (but did not happen), cannot be measured exactly. If REDD+ offset programs are not additional, then offsetting rather than directly reducing your emissions can actually worsen the effects of climate change.

In short, additionality is not guaranteed with nature-based, REDD+ carbon offsets.

Con #3: Carbon Offsets Can Be Expensive

Carbon offsets involving direct carbon/air capture (DCC/DAC) and carbon mineralization offsets are some of the most expensive methods of carbon removal.

Carbon Offset Con #3

DCC/DAC offsets currency range anywhere from $250-$1200 per ton, the highest out of all carbon removal methods. Close behind are carbon mineralization offsets, which currently range anywhere from $82 – $1,200 per ton of CO₂. Both are dependent on the type of technology, the type of energy source, and the scale of the operation.

In comparison, some nature-based carbon offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, and blue carbon offsets can cost less than $50 per ton. 

DCC/DAC and carbon mineralization offsets are so expensive because there are still relatively few companies and projects in operation. As more companies and projects are developed, costs could drop over the next decade. 

In short, technology-based carbon offsets such as DCC/DAC and carbon mineralization are some of the more expensive methods of carbon removal. With further research, development, and funding, this could decrease in the coming years. 

Con #4: Carbon Offsets Are Not Yet At A Scale Where They Can Compensate For Our Global Carbon Emissions

Carbon offsets are not yet at a scale where they can compensate for our global carbon emissions.

Carbon Offset Con #4

Each type of carbon offset has its own limitations:

• There are relatively few companies engaged in DCC/DAC practices and the technology is still expensive to implement; therefore, the amount of carbon it can remove is limited. 

• There are relatively few companies engaged in carbon mineralization on a commercial level, and processes, standards, and technologies still need to be developed to ensure proper monitoring, verification, and reporting of carbon sequestration via mineralization.

• Reforestation, afforestation, mangrove-planting blue carbon, and agroforestry practices are limited by carbon storage capacity. If we take an average of 40 pounds of carbon absorbed, we would need to plant more than 200 billion trees every year to compensate for all of our emissions. 

• Although blue carbon ecosystems are capable of providing 1/3 of the total emissions reductions needed to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, they only receive 3% of total climate investments globally.

• Experts predict the world’s population will increase by 2 billion people in the next 30 years. More people means more mouths to feed; therefore, agriculture production and subsequent GHG emissions from agriculture and waste will continue to increase rapidly. We already emit approximately 570 million tons of CH₄ and generate over 2 billion tons of waste. 

Even when considering all types of carbon offsets together, they are currently not sufficient to compensate for all of our carbon emissions. We emit more than 37 billion tons of carbon annually, but carbon offset credits for only ~1 billion tons of CO₂ have been listed for sale on the voluntary market. The number of sellers also exceeds the number of buyers by about 600-700 million tons. 

In short, carbon offsets are not yet scaled to keep pace with our global carbon emissions due to various barriers. 

Con #5: Carbon Offsets Can Be Difficult To Monitor and Verify

Energy efficiency, blue carbon, and agricultural carbon offsets can be difficult to standardize, verify, and monitor.

Carbon Removal Offset Con #5

Energy-efficient practices promote energy decentralization, where power is generated at or near locations where it will be used. Although this decreases the need to transport energy and generates environmental benefits, it can also make project standardization and monitoring difficult because there are different standards for different types of energy-efficiency practices. Appliances, lighting, buildings, cooking, and fuels are held to different standards, making it difficult to standardize energy efficiency as one singular entity. 

Leading standards all have different methodologies for assessing blue carbon: 

• Verra released the first blue carbon methodology modeled after the REDD+ mechanism in 2020. 
• The Gold Standard is developing their own methodology not based on REDD+.
• The American Carbon Registry has two methodologies, Restoration of Pocosin Wetlands and Restoration of California Deltaic Coastal Wetlands. 
• Salesforce and the World Economic Forum launched the High-Quality Blue Carbon Principles and Guidance carbon credit methodology in 2022.

Agricultural emissions themselves are difficult to measure and manage because there are hundreds of millions of farmers around the world, most of which are farming small plots of land. In order to exact change on a global scale, we would have to incorporate agricultural offset practices such as biochar, agroforestry, and methane capture on a massive scale and for hundreds of years into the future. This would be difficult to do both socially and economically.

In short, energy efficiency, blue carbon, and agricultural offsets can be difficult to standardize, verify, and monitor because there are multiple methodologies and governing organizations.

Con #6: Carbon Offsets Can Face Carbon Storage Capacity Limitations

Carbon storage capacity limitations prevent reforestation, afforestation, blue carbon, and agroforestry efforts from being scalable enough to compensate for all of our carbon emissions.

Nature-Based Carbon Offset Con #6

Reforestation, afforestation, mangrove-planting blue carbon, and agroforestry efforts are all limited by trees’ carbon storage capacity. 

How much carbon a tree can store, or its carbon storage capacity, is dependent on the type of tree and a host of environmental factors, but typical trees can absorb anywhere from 10-40kg (22-88 pounds) of CO₂ per year.

If we use an average of 40 pounds of carbon absorbed, we would need to plant more than 200 billion trees every year to compensate for all of our emissions. A number that is far away from the about 1.9 billion trees currently planted every year. 

For example, our overall reforestation potential is limited by the number of forests that are in need of reforestation. Globally, our forests absorbed over 15.6 billion tons (bt) of CO₂ each year from 2001-2019, and the world has lost 1/3 of its forests since the last ice age. This means that 15.6 represents 2/3 of our global forest potential (when it only comes to reforestation). 

In total, the global reforestation potential would be at 7.8bt of CO₂ per year. Even if fully utilized, this is only a fraction of the 33bt of CO₂ emissions that we’d need to offset per year.

In addition, biochar agricultural practices face carbon storage capacity limitations in regard to soil. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that global soil carbon sequestration could mitigate up to about 5.3 gigatons of CO₂ per year by 2030. However, for as much as our soils can store CO₂, too much can have adverse effects. 

Studies have shown that too much CO₂ in the soil can have negative effects on root water absorption, chlorophyll, starch content, and total biomass. So although the upper limit of soil carbon sequestration is relatively unknown, soil CO₂ saturation can become an issue before the upper limit is even reached. This means biochar can only store a finite amount of CO₂ in our soils. 

In short, tree and soil carbon storage capacity limitations prevent some nature-based offsets from compensating for all of our carbon emissions.

Con #7: Carbon Offsets May Not Reduce Carbon Emissions Immediately

Reforestation, afforestation, blue carbon, and agricultural offsets may not reduce carbon emissions immediately because of the time needed to plant trees and for them to reach maturity.

Nature-Based Carbon Offset Con #7

Carbon emission reductions are delayed when you plant new forests because you have to wait for the trees to reach maturity before they can begin to reduce carbon emissions at a steady rate. All trees mature at different rates, but a typical hardwood tree takes around 20 years to reach maturity. 

Although they can absorb carbon as soon as they are planted, it can take decades until a tree is able to absorb an average of 10-40kg (22-88 pounds) of CO₂ per year. This means we must also wait decades after planting the tree to begin to reap most of the environmental benefits provided by reforestation, afforestation, mangrove planting, and agroforestry projects. 

Creating new forests is also more time-intensive than protecting existing forests because finding suitable land and physically planting the trees to create a new forest takes time. Also, there is always the risk of, e.g., droughts, wildfires, tree diseases, and deforestation wiping out newly planted trees, negating any carbon reduction benefits. 

In contrast, REDD+ and blue carbon offset projects that protect existing mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes reduce emissions immediately because you are protecting existing vegetation rather than creating new vegetation.

In short, reforestation, afforestation, blue carbon, and agricultural tree planting projects do not reduce carbon emissions immediately because trees must first reach maturity before they can begin reducing emissions.

Con #8: Carbon Offsets Do Not Reduce Your Own Carbon Emissions

Carbon offsets do not reduce your own carbon emissions, which can lead to greenwashing.

Carbon Offset Con #8

One of the main limitations of carbon offsetting, in general, is that purchasing a carbon offset does not directly reduce your carbon footprint. It only makes others reduce their carbon footprint to compensate for your carbon footprint. 

If emissions are only offset and not reduced from the source, this could lead to greenwashing, when the consumer is deceived into thinking they are offsetting their emissions but in reality, they are not. Companies accused of greenwashing either invest in non-verified credits, do not prioritize in-house emissions reductions, or double-count carbon credits. Or sometimes, all of the above.

In short, because carbon offsets do not reduce your own emissions, they could lead to greenwashing.

How Could You Offset Your Own Carbon Footprint With Carbon Offsets

The market for carbon offsets was small in the year 2000, but by 2010 it had already grown to represent nearly $10 billion worldwide. The voluntary carbon offset market (VCM) is where everyday consumers can purchase carbon offsets to offset their carbon emissions. 

The total carbon offset market is now valued at over $262 billion and represents more than 20% of global GHG emissions. The Ecosystem Marketplace predicts the VCM can grow to $50B by the year 2050. 

Carbon Offset Company	Quick Facts
Climeworks	Carbon offset purchases support the practice of direct CO2 removal, where specialized machines remove CO2 directly from the air and store it in rock formations underground.
Neustark	Neustark removes CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in recycled concrete, and they cut new CO2 emissions by reducing the use of traditional cement.
The Arbor Day Foundation	Carbon offset purchases support afforestation (and reforestation) projects in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (US), Nicaragua, and Peru.
REDD.plus	Carbon offset purchases support UNFCCC-verified REDD+ projects around the globe. REDD.plus is a central registry and exchange for REDD+ Result Units, a type of carbon credit.
SeaTrees	Carbon offset purchases support coral reef/kelp forest/watershed restoration and mangrove tree planting.
DelAgua	Purchases support the Rwandan clean cookstoves energy-efficiency carbon offset project.
CoreZero	Purchases support waste management projects including food rescue, upcycling, waste-to-energy, and composting.
Husk	Husk converts rice husks into biochar, fertilizers, and biopesticides via smokeless pyrolysis, preventing the re-emission of carbon into the atmosphere.
greenSand	greenSand uses Olivine rocks, which trap CO2 when they come into contact with water. For every ton of CO2 purchased, greenSand spreads 1 ton of Olivine, which can in turn absorb and permanently store 1 ton of CO2.
Ecologi	Carbon offset purchases support third-party certified reforestation carbon offset projects including those in Madagascar, Mozambique, Bolivia, and Morocco.
One Tree Planted	Carbon offset purchases support reforestation/afforestation projects including those in the US, Romania, Iceland, and Africa.
Wildlife Works	Carbon offset purchases support third-party certified carbon offset projects including The Kasigau Corridor, Mai Ndombe, and Southern Cardamom REDD+ projects in Kenya, Cambodia, and Colombia respectively.
The Ocean Foundation	Carbon offset purchases support the SeaGrass Grow, seagrass planting project.
South Pole	Purchases support energy-efficiency carbon offset projects including clean cookstoves in China, Mali, and Rwanda.
GreenTech	They take plastic (e.g., plastic bottles) and sort, grind, wash, and process it into sustainable recycled flakes to make products (e.g., PET flakes, PET straps, and r-PET granules).
Vi Agroforestry	Vi Agroforestry specializes in poverty reduction and environmental improvement through agroforestry and improved farming practices.
Carbofex	Carbofex’s pyrolysis technology takes waste biomass from urban or agricultural sources and turns it into biochar, which can then be used to enhance agricultural soils or produce renewable energy.
Carbonfund	Purchases support reforestation, energy efficiency, and waste management projects.
Terrapass	Carbon offset purchases support reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, waste management, and agricultural projects.

How Can Carbon Offsets Help Mitigate Climate Change

Climate change is a severe and long-term consequence of fossil fuel combustion. Carbon offsets that are additional and permanent can help mitigate climate change because they reduce emissions from activities where sustainable alternatives are not yet widely available. If left untreated, atmospheric carbon can remain there for tens of thousands of years and exacerbate the negative effects of climate change.

How is Climate Change Defined

Climate change is arguably the most severe, long-term global impact of fossil fuel combustion. Every year, approximately 33 billion tons (bt) of CO₂ are emitted from burning fossil fuels. The carbon found in fossil fuels reacts with oxygen in the air to produce CO₂. 

“Climate change: changes in the earth’s weather, including changes in temperature, wind patterns and rainfall, especially the increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere that is caused by the increase of particular gasses, especially carbon dioxide.”

Oxford Dictionary

Atmospheric CO₂ fuels climate change, which results in global warming. When CO₂ and other air pollutants absorb sunlight and solar radiation in the atmosphere, they trap the heat and act as an insulator for the planet. Since the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s temperature has risen a little more than 1 degree Celsius (C), or 2 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Between 1880-1980 the global temperature rose by 0.07C every 10 years. This rate has more than doubled since 1981, with a current global annual temperature rise of 0.18C, or 0.32F, for every 10 years. 

As outlined in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, we must cut current GHG emissions by 50% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. 

How Do Carbon Offsets Generally Help Mitigate Climate Change

Levels of carbon in our atmosphere that cause climate change have increased as a result of human emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750. The global average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today registers at over 400 parts per million. Carbon offsets can help prevent these levels from increasing even more.

When you hear the words “carbon offset”, think about the term “compensation”. Essentially, carbon offsets are reductions in GHG emissions that are used to compensate for emissions occurring elsewhere. 

Carbon offsets that meet key criteria and verified project standards, are additional and permanent, and are part of projects that are carried out until the end of their lifespan have the best chance of reducing carbon emissions and therefore reducing climate change. 

When we offset CO₂ we also slow the rate of global temperature rise, which in turn minimizes the effects of climate change. 

How Do Carbon Offsets Specifically Help Mitigate Climate Change

Direct carbon/air capture and carbon mineralization offsets specifically help mitigate climate change because these methods permanently lock away CO₂ for thousands of years with little to no carbon re-emission.

Reforestation, afforestation, and REDD+ offsets specifically help mitigate climate change because they plant more trees, and trees remove CO₂ from the air as they grow. By increasing the number of trees on our planet, we increase the amount of carbon they are capable of storing. The more carbon our forests can sequester, the less carbon there is in our atmosphere. 

Blue carbon offsets specifically help mitigate climate change because they protect coastal and marine ecosystems, which are capable of absorbing more CO₂ per acre than rainforests and at a rate 10x greater. 

Energy-efficiency offsets involving clean cookstoves, water filtration programs, and co-generation facilities specifically help mitigate climate change by reducing CO₂ emissions from direct fossil fuel combustion and indirect electricity generation. By using energy-efficient appliances and methodologies, we reduce the amount of CO₂ entering our atmosphere. 

Waste management offsets involving landfill gas capture/combustion, landfill gas to renewable energy, biodigesters, biogas, and composting specifically help mitigate climate change because they capture emissions from waste, turn it into renewable energy, and reduce the overall amount of waste. 

Agricultural offsets including biochar, agroforestry, avoided grassland conversion, and CH₄ capture can specifically help mitigate climate change because they reduce CO₂ and CH₄ emissions in one of the biggest industries worldwide.

What Are Better Alternatives to Carbon Offsets

If used correctly, carbon offsets can provide environmental, economic, and social benefits beyond reducing carbon emissions. They have the potential to instigate meaningful environmental change and begin to reverse some of the effects of climate change. 

However, we can’t let this method be a guilt-free way to reduce carbon emissions. Carbon offsets must be used in conjunction with direct carbon reduction measures to reduce carbon emissions for the long term. 

These reduction measures don’t have to involve drastic changes either. Actions that may seem small can have a big impact because those small changes add up! You can reduce your carbon footprint in three main areas of your life: household, travel, and lifestyle. 

Reduce your household carbon footprint:

• Wash with cold water: Washing clothes in cold water could reduce carbon emissions by up to 11 million tons. Approximately 90% of the energy is used to heat the water, so switching to cold saves also saves energy.

• Replace incandescent bulbs with fluorescent bulbs: Fluorescent bulbs use 75% less energy than incandescent ones, saving energy and thus reducing electricity demand and GHG emissions.

Reduce your travel carbon footprint:

• Fly less: Aviation accounts for around 1.9% of global carbon emissions and 2.5% of CO₂. Air crafts run on jet gasoline, which is converted to CO₂ when burned.

• Walk or bike when possible: The most efficient ways of traveling are walking, bicycling, or taking the train. Using a bike instead of a car can reduce carbon emissions by 75%. These forms of transportation also provide lower levels of air pollution.

Reduce your lifestyle carbon footprint:

• Switch to renewable energy sources: The six most common types of renewable energy are solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, and biomass energy. They are a substitute for fossil fuels that can reduce the effects of global warming by limiting global carbon emissions and other pollutants.

• Recycle: Recycling uses less energy and deposits less waste in landfills. Less manufacturing and transportation energy costs means fewer carbon emissions generated. Less waste in landfills means less CH₄ is generated.

• Switch from single-use to sustainable products: Reusing products avoids resource extraction, reduces energy use, reduces waste generation, and can prevent littering.

• Eat less meat and dairy: Meat and dairy account for 14.5% of global GHG emissions, with beef and lamb being the most carbon-intensive. Globally, we consume much more meat than is considered sustainable, and switching to a vegan or vegetarian diet could reduce emissions. 

• Take shorter showers: Approximately 1.2 trillion gallons of water are used each year in the United States just for showering purposes, and showering takes up about 17% of residential water usage. The amount of water consumed and the energy cost of that consumption are directly related. The less water we use the less energy we use. And the less energy we use, the less of a negative impact we have on the environment.

Because carbon offsets are an indirect way and not a direct way of reducing emissions, they alone will not be enough to reduce global carbon emissions significantly. Direct measures of emission reductions, such as reducing individual energy use and consumption, are better alternatives to carbon offsets. 

Final Thoughts

In general, carbon offsets are not yet scaled to compensate for our global emissions and can be difficult to monitor and verify, depending on the specific type of offset. But their specific pros and cons highly depend on the type of offset.

Direct carbon/air capture, carbon mineralization, energy efficiency, waste management, and some agricultural offsets can be permanent, immediate, have low rates of carbon re-emission, and bolster energy security. However, they can also lack additionality and have varying levels of costs.

Reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and some agricultural offsets reinforce our terrestrial and marine carbon sinks, are relatively cost-effective, and help maintain biodiversity. However, they may also lack permanence and face carbon storage capacity limitations.

The top carbon offsets are those offered by companies whose projects are verified by recognized standards. But although carbon offsets can instigate meaningful change, they should not be seen as the only solution to climate change. In the long term, they fail to reduce CO₂ enough to mitigate climate change for future generations. 

When used in conjunction with direct CO₂ reduction measures, carbon offsets can be much more effective. We should reduce our own carbon footprint as much as possible first, and only then choose carbon offsets.

Stay impactful,

Sources

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Paris Climate Agreement
• Britannica: Carbon Offset
• David Suzuki Foundation: Are carbon offsets the answer to climate-altering flights?
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Direct Carbon Capture Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Carbon Mineralization Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Tree Planting Carbon Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Afforestation Carbon Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: What Are REDD+ Carbon Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Blue Carbon Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Energy Efficiency Carbon Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Waste Management Carbon Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Agriculture Carbon Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: Why Is a Carbon Footprint Bad for the Environment? All You Need to Know
• Britannica: Carbon Footprint
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Carbon Offsets and How Do They Work? The Big Picture
• Carbfix: Homepage
• greenSand: Olivine Research & Evidence
• Native Energy: Noblehurst Family Farm Project
• GreenPeace: The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn’t really work
• Northwestern University: Enhanced weathering – When climate research takes unexpected turns
• Carbfix: Protecting Our Climate by Turning CO₂ Into Stone
• Britannica: Methane
• US Environmental Protection Agency: Importance of Methane
• New York State Department of Health: Important Things to Know About Landfill Gas
• CalRecycle: New Statewide Mandatory Organic Waste Collection
• United Nations Environment Programme: Methane emissions are driving climate change. Here’s how to reduce them
• The Arbor Day Foundation: Homepage
• Reforest’Action: Homepage
• Ecologi: Homepage
• One Tree Planted: Homepage
• REDD.plus: Homepage
• Pachama: Homepage
• Wildlife Works: Homepage
• Carbonfund: Homepage
• myclimate: Homepage
• GreenTech: Homepage
• Carbonfund: Homepage
• Terrapass: Homepage
• The Ocean Foundation: Homepage
• Vi Agroforestry: Homepage
• Impactful Ninja: What is the Carbon Footprint of Fossil Fuels?
• International Energy Administration: Energy Security
• US Environmental Protection Agency: Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
• United States Environmental Protection Agency: Distributed Generation of Electricity and its Environmental Impacts
• World Nuclear Association: Carbon Emissions from Electricity
• Client Earth: What is a Carbon Sink?
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration: NASA Satellites Help Quantify Forests’ Impacts on Global Carbon Budget
• Our World in Data: Afforestation
• Bloomberg: China’s 40-Year, Billion-Tree Project Is a Lesson for the World
• China Dialogue: Can China’s afforestation knowledge green the world?
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association: Deforestation, warming flip part of Amazon forest from carbon sink to source
• CLEAR Center: What is Carbon Sequestration and How Does it Work?
• CarbonBetter: What is Blue Carbon?
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Blue Carbon
• Conservation Finance Network: Mainstreaming Blue Carbon to Finance Coastal Resilience
• Our World in Data: Which form of transport has the smallest carbon footprint?
• Cold Water Saves: Washing Laundry In Cold Water Protects A Lot More Than Just Our Clothing
• GlobalGiving: 50 Tips To Cut Down Your Carbon Footprint
• Carbon Offset Guide: Permanence
• The Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy: Nature-Based Solutions
• United States Environmental Protection Agency: Climate Impacts on Coastal Areas
• The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Blue Carbon
• Carbon Offset Guide: Additionality
• World Resources Institute: Direct Air Capture – 6 Things to Know
• Climeworks: Subscriptions
• greenSand: Certificate – CO₂ Compensation
• American University: Fact Sheet – Enhanced Mineralization
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology: How many new trees would we need to offset our carbon emissions?
• Verra: Verra Seeks Applicants to Join Two New Biosequestration Working Groups
• United Nations: Population
• International Energy Agency: Methane tracker 2020
• The World Counts: World Waste Facts
• Statista: Annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions worldwide from 1940 to 2022
• Yale Environment 360: Is the ‘Legacy’ Carbon Credit Market a Climate Plus or Just Hype?
• Environmental and Energy Study Institute: Fact Sheet | Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances, Lighting and Equipment (2017)
• Greenbiz: Blue carbon will be the next frontier of carbon crediting
• American Carbon Registry: Restoration of Pocosin Wetlands
• American Carbon Registry: Restoration of California Deltaic Coastal Wetlands
• The Meridian Institute: High-Quality Blue Carbon Principles and Guidance
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology Climate Portal: Soil-Based Carbon Sequestration
• EcoTree: How much CO₂ does a tree absorb?
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology: How many new trees would we need to offset our carbon emissions?
• 8BillionTrees: How Many Trees are Planted Each Year?
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Homepage
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Agriculture
• National Library of Medicine: Impact assessment of high soil CO₂ on plant growth and soil environment: a greenhouse study
• The Environmentors: How Fast Does A Tree Grow?
• GreenPeace: The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn’t really work
• Edie: Carbon offsetting – How are businesses avoiding greenwashing on the road to net-zero?
• Carbon Offset Guide: Voluntary Offset Programs
• Visual Capitalist: A Complete Visual Guide to Carbon Markets
• The World Bank: Carbon pricing dashboard
• Ecosystem Marketplace: Voluntary Carbon Markets Top $1 Billion in 2021 with Newly Reported Trades
• Impactful Ninja: Best Carbon Offsets
• Climeworks: Homepage
• Neustark: Homepage
• The Arbor Day Foundation: Homepage
• REDD.plus: Homepage
• SeaTrees: Homepage
• DelAgua: Homepage
• CoreZero: Homepage
• Husk: Homepage
• greenSand: Homepage
• Ecologi: Homepage
• One Tree Planted: Homepage
• Wildlife Works: Homepage
• The Ocean Foundation: Homepage
• South Pole: Homepage 
• GreenTech: Homepage
• Vi Agroforestry: Homepage
• Carbofex: Homepage
• Carbonfund: Homepage
• Terrapass: Homepage
• World Nuclear Association: Carbon Emissions from Electricity
• Natural Resources Defense Council: Global Warming 101
• myclimate: What does “net zero emissions” mean?
• Natural Resources Defense Council: Carbon Offsets 101
• Terrapass: Carbon Offset Projects
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Paris Climate Agreement
• The Ocean Foundation: Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
• Energy Information Administration: Renewable Energy Explained 
• Energy Star: Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) and Mercury
• Our World in Data: Where in the world do people have the highest CO₂ emissions from flying?
• Zero Waste Europe: Reusable vs Single Use Packaging
• Carbonbrief: Interactive – What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?
• Stop Waste: Recycling and Climate Protection
• Impactful Ninja: Is Taking Long Showers Bad for the Environment?
• United States Environmental Protection Agency: Showerheads
• Impactful Ninja: 4 Main Reasons Why Reducing Your Carbon Footprint is Important