Carbon sequestration is a process that takes captured or removed carbon dioxide (CO₂) for the purpose of long-term storage in our carbon sinks (e.g., forests, oceans, underground). The pros and cons vary based on the specific type of sequestration. So, we had to ask: What are the pros and cons of carbon sequestration offsets?

Carbon sequestration offsets can have varying levels of permanence and cost-effectiveness, depending on the specific project. They reinforce our carbon sinks and can have low levels of carbon re-emission; however, they also may not yet be scaled to compensate for our global emissions.

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

The Big Picture of Carbon Sequestration Offsets

Carbon offsets are reductions in carbon emissions that are used to compensate for carbon emissions occurring elsewhere. They are measured in tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalents and are bought and sold through international brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms on what is known as the global carbon offset market. 

“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 reforestation”

Oxford Dictionary

Carbon sequestration is the long-term storage of captured or removed carbon in plants, soils, geologic formations, and the ocean.

“Carbon Sequestration: the process of storing carbon dioxide that has been collected and removed from the atmosphere, in solid or liquid form”

Oxford Dictionary

Carbon sequestration can occur via two main methods:

• Artificial carbon sequestration: The result of carbon capture. The captured carbon is compressed into a liquid and transported via pipeline, ship, or tanker before being pumped deep underground, often at depths of 1 kilometer (0.6 miles), and sequestered in depleted oil reserves, coalbeds, or saline aquifers. 

• Biological carbon sequestration: Carbon storage in vegetation (forests), soils, and oceans, which are commonly referred to as our carbon sinks. 

“Carbon Sink: a forest, ocean, or other natural environment viewed in terms of its ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

Oxford Dictionary 

Carbon sequestration is also commonly referred to as carbon capture and storage/sequestration because carbon capture is the first step in the sequestration process. 

Some of the most common carbon sequestration offset projects include:

• Direct Carbon/Air Capture
• Reforestation
• Afforestation
• Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)
• Blue Carbon
• Carbon Mineralization
• Agriculture

What Are 6 Pros of Carbon Sequestration Offsets

Carbon sequestration offsets can be permanent, immediate, cost-effective, have low rates of carbon re-emission, and reinforce our carbon sinks, depending on the specific type of offset. They also allow us to reduce carbon emissions in ways we wouldn’t be able to accomplish individually.

Pro #1: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Can Be Permanent

Carbon sequestration offsets such as direct carbon/air capture (DCC/DAC), carbon mineralization, and biochar agricultural offsets can permanently remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Carbon Sequestration Offset Pro #1

DCC/DAC and carbon mineralization offsets are specific types of offsets that remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it permanently in various reservoirs. 

For example, Climeworks’ technology pulls CO₂ from the air whilst their 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. The process locks away CO₂ for thousands of years with no long-term monitoring required.

Additionally, experts estimate that biochar tilled into soils and not disturbed can store CO₂ for centuries to millennia, making it a long-term carbon sequestration solution. Also, biochar that has been incorporated into soils is 10-100 times more stable than the biomass it was derived from, leading to less carbon leakage and a slower overall rate of CO₂ degradation. As long as the lands are not developed, the sequestered carbon can remain stored underground.

When comparing it to other methods of carbon removal, we find that DCC/DAC, carbon mineralization, and some agricultural offsets reduce CO₂ emissions more permanently. 

In short, carbon sequestration offsets such as DCC/DAC and carbon mineralization offsets permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Storing the carbon underground in rock formations is also a permanent process. 

Pro #2: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Can Reduce CO₂ Emissions Quickly

Carbon sequestration offsets such as DCC/DAC, carbon mineralization, REDD+, and some blue carbon and agricultural offsets reduce emissions quicker than other nature-based solutions.

Carbon Sequestration Offset Pro #2

• CO₂ emissions reductions from DCC/DAC offsets occur as soon as the machines become operational. Once the carbon capture machines start sucking in atmospheric air, CO₂ removal begins. 

• Carbfix achieves 95% permanent carbon mineralization in under two years. Carbon mineralization mechanisms skip the slow weathering process by breaking down silicate rocks into tiny pieces, increasing surface area and overall CO₂ absorption.

• REDD+ projects reduce emissions immediately because you are protecting existing vegetation rather than creating new vegetation. 

• For blue carbon, protecting existing seagrass beds and tidal marsh areas reduces CO₂ immediately.

• Agricultural projects involving biochar and CH₄ capture immediately remove GHGs directly from the atmosphere. Biochar removes CO₂ immediately via uptake by plants, and CH₄ capture removes CH₄ emissions immediately upon operation of the machines. 

In short, carbon sequestration offsets involving DCC/DAC, carbon mineralization, REDD+, and some blue carbon and agricultural offsets reduce emissions quicker than other nature-based solutions. 

Pro #3: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Can Be Cost-Effective

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

Carbon Sequestration Offset Pro #3

In general, combating deforestation is an expensive process. But coupling reforestation, afforestation, and blue carbon projects with carbon offsets could help finance this process Especially since these offsets are typically more cost-effective than other categories of offsets. 

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

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

Pro #4: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Can Reinforce Our Carbon Sinks

Carbon sequestration offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agroforestry reinforce our terrestrial and marine carbon sinks.

Carbon Sequestration Offset Pro #4

Nature-based solutions such as reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and some agricultural offsets store carbon in vegetation (forests), soils, and oceans, which are commonly referred to as our carbon sinks. 

“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 

Carbon sequestration offsets such as reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, and agroforestry agricultural carbon offsets take advantage of trees’ ability to absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it in their leaves, trunks, roots, and surrounding soil. 

Our forests absorbed over 15.6 billion tons (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.

Blue carbon offsets take advantage of mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes’ abilities to absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it in their vegetation and surrounding soil.

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. But the real carbon storage potential is underground, with 50–99% of the carbon stored in blue ecosystems located in the soil underground. 

In short, carbon sequestration offsets such as reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agroforestry offsets reinforce our terrestrial and marine carbon sinks, which can absorb billions of tons of CO₂ annually. 

Pro #5: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Can Have Low Rates of Carbon Re-Emission

Carbon sequestration offsets involving DCC/DAC, carbon mineralization, and biochar have a low rate of carbon re-emission, making them effective at removing carbon.

Carbon Sequestration Offset Pro #5

Although DCC/DAC facilities require energy to operate, they can re-emit only small amounts of CO₂ if powered by low-carbon energy sources (i.e., solar or wind power). For example, a study published by the RWTH Aachen University on Climeworks’ Orca DCC plant found that this plant re-emits less than 10% of the CO₂ they capture when the plant is operated by low-carbon electricity. 

Also, greenSand Olivine rocks permanently store carbon and will only release that carbon back into the atmosphere if the temperature exceeds 1,600 degrees. Even if the rocks are broken, the carbon will remain trapped inside and will not be re-emitted.

Lastly, experts estimate that biochar tilled into soils and not disturbed can store CO₂ for centuries to millennia. As long as the lands are not developed, the sequestered carbon can remain stored underground. And biochar that has been incorporated into soils is 10-100 times more stable than the biomass it was derived from, leading to less carbon leakage and a slower overall rate of CO₂ degradation

In short, carbon sequestration offsets involving DCC/DAC, carbon mineralization, and biochar can have low rates of carbon re-emission.

Pro #6: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Can Help Offset Carbon Emissions That Can’t Be Reduced Otherwise

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

Carbon Sequestration Offset Pro #6

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 them completely. This is where carbon sequestration offsets come into play to compensate for the remainder of our carbon emissions.

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

What Are 6 Cons of Carbon Sequestration Offsets

Carbon sequestration offsets can lack permanence, can be relatively expensive, may not be scaled to compensate for our global emissions, can negatively alter ecosystems, and can be difficult to monitor and verify, depending on the specific type of offset. They also do not reduce your own carbon emissions, which can lead to greenwashing.

Con #1: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Can Lack Permanence 

Carbon sequestration offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agroforestry can lack permanence because they are reversible, nature-based solutions.

Carbon Sequestration Offset Con #1

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

Nature-based solutions, such as reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agroforestry can lack permanence because the storage of carbon is reversible. 

For reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, and afforestation offsets, the carbon is stored in biomass (trees) rather than in permanent reservoirs (i.e., underground in rock formations). Once a tree 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. 

Blue carbon ecosystems have a leg up on terrestrial ecosystems in terms of permanence because blue carbon sinks are less susceptible to wildfires, mangroves are more durable than terrestrial forests, and coastal trees have less of a concern for leakage because they are not typically used for lumber.

However, blue carbon ecosystems are currently being degraded at 4 times the rate of tropical forests. Climate change and ocean acidification are some of the leading factors that can negate blue carbon permanence because 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. 

In short, carbon sequestration offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agroforestry can lack permanence because they are reversible, nature-based solutions.

Con #2: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Can Be Relatively Expensive

Carbon sequestration offsets such as DCC/DAC and carbon mineralization offsets are some of the most expensive methods of carbon removal.

Carbon Sequestration Offset Con #2

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, 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, carbon sequestration 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 #3: Carbon Sequestration Offsets May Not Yet Be Scaled to Compensate for Our Global Emissions

Carbon sequestration offsets involving DCC/DAC, carbon mineralization, blue carbon, and agriculture are not yet at a scale where they can compensate for our global carbon emissions.

Carbon Sequestration Offset Con #3

Currently, carbon offsets in general are not sufficient to compensate for all of our carbon emissions. We emit more than 36 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. This means that only about 0.8-1% of our annual CO₂ emissions are offset and only about 1.6-1.75% could be offset if all of these projects got realized.

Currently, DCC/DAC, carbon mineralization, blue carbon, and agricultural offsets are also not scaled enough to keep pace with our global carbon emissions. 

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. But the recent push for more DCC/DAC technology means that its capacity is increasing. Climeworks began construction in 2022 for its newest plant, Mammoth, which will have an annual carbon capture capacity of 36,000 tons, nine times that of its current plant Orca.

There are also 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. Experts estimate that carbon mineralization could be scaled up to capture 2-4 billion tons of CO₂ per year by 2050. 

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. As more blue carbon methodologies are established, experts expect monetization of coastal wetland conservation and restoration activities to increase. 

Experts also 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 will continue to increase. We already emit approximately 570 million tons of CH₄, a significant amount of which comes from agriculture. 

In short, carbon sequestration offsets involving DCC/DAC, carbon mineralization, blue carbon, and agriculture are not yet scaled to keep pace with our global carbon emissions due to various barriers. 

Con #4: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Can Negatively Alter Ecosystems

Carbon sequestration offsets such as afforestation and carbon mineralization can negatively alter ecosystems if not planned properly.

Carbon Sequestration Offset Con #4

Afforestation increases global tree coverage; however, we have to be careful of where we plant trees because not all ecosystems are conducive to afforestation, and because afforestation can have a high land use change opportunity cost.

For example, afforestation on grasslands can actually reduce the amount of water in streams and rivers, the frequency of fires, and biodiversity. And if not planned properly, afforestation projects can introduce invasive species. For example, Asian long-horn beetle infestations wiped out large swaths of trees in China’s Great Green Wall program of 1978, which sought to reforest 35 million hectares of land.

Carbon mineralization can come with risks including the contamination of surface and groundwater and the induction of seismic activity. But proper monitoring and siting procedures can help mitigate these risks.

For example, Carbfix injects CO₂-dissolved water, which is denser than pure water and sinks below it, to avoid interacting with the groundwater table. At the surface, there are also negligible effects from injected CO₂. In addition, Carbfix conducts independent seismic risk assessments and monitors injection sites before and during well-drilling activities.

In short, carbon sequestration offsets such as afforestation and carbon mineralization offsets can negatively alter ecosystems if projects are not planned properly.

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

Blue carbon and agricultural carbon offsets can be difficult to standardize, verify, and monitor.

Carbon Sequestration Offset Con #5

The storage of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems is well documented and managed via the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism; however, there is no overarching mechanism to regulate the carbon stored in coastal, marine, or wetland soils and biomass.

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.

Similarly, 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.

For example, Verra, the American Carbon Registry, and the Gold Standard all have different methodologies for biochar and biochar projects. There are also different governing organizations for biochar, including The European Biochar Certificate (EBC), The US Biochar Initiative, and The International Biochar Initiative.

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

Con #6: Carbon Sequestration Offsets Do Not Reduce Your Own Carbon Emissions

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

Carbon Sequestration Offset Con#6

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 sequestration offsets do not reduce your own emissions, they could lead to greenwashing.

How Could You Offset Your Own Carbon Footprint With Carbon Sequestration 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 Ecosystem Marketplace predicts the VCM can grow to $50B by the year 2050. And because carbon sequestration offsets can be effective and efficient at reducing carbon emissions, they are predicted to make up an increasingly larger share of this market.

How Can Carbon Sequestration Offsets Help Mitigate Climate Change

Climate change is a severe and long-term consequence of fossil fuel combustion. Carbon sequestration offsets can help mitigate climate change because they eliminate fossil-fuel-derived carbon from our atmosphere which, if left untreated, 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, it traps the heat and acts 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 due to 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 a 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 Sequestration Offsets Specifically Help Mitigate Climate Change

Carbon sequestration in general can specifically help mitigate climate change because it eliminates atmospheric carbon, which when emitted, can remain in our atmosphere for a long period of time. 

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. 

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 re-emission.

Agricultural carbon offsets such as 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 Sequestration Offsets

If used correctly, carbon sequestration 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 sequestration offsets must be used in conjunction with direct carbon reduction measures to reduce carbon emissions in 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 sequestration offsets are an indirect and not a direct way of reducing emissions, they alone will not be enough to reduce global carbon emissions significantly. Direct measures of emission reduction, such as reducing individual energy use and consumption, are better alternatives to carbon sequestration offsets. 

Final Thoughts

Carbon sequestration offsets can be permanent, immediate, cost-effective, have low rates of carbon re-emission, and reinforce our carbon sinks depending on the specific type of offset. However, they can also lack permanence, can be relatively expensive, may not be scaled to compensate for our global emissions, and can negatively alter ecosystems, depending on the specific type of offset. 

Although they allow us to reduce carbon emissions in ways we wouldn’t be able to accomplish individually, they also do not reduce our own carbon emissions, which can lead to greenwashing.

For all of the good carbon offsets can instigate, they should not be seen as the only solution to climate change. They are effective at reducing CO₂ in the short term, but in the long term, they fail to reduce CO₂ enough. Carbon offsetting can be much more effective when used in conjunction with direct CO₂ reduction measures. We should reduce our own carbon footprint as much as possible first, and only then choose the most effective carbon sequestration offsets.

Stay impactful,

Sources

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Offsets and RECs -What’s the Difference?
• Britannica: Carbon Offset
• David Suzuki Foundation: Are carbon offsets the answer to climate-altering flights?
• Britannica: Carbon Sequestration
• The London School of Economics and Political Science: What is carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS)?
• University of California, Davis: What is Carbon Sequestration and How Does it Work?
• ClientEarth: What is a carbon sink?
• The Economist: Carbon capture and storage
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Direct Carbon Capture 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 Carbon Mineralization Offsets and How Do They Work
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Carbon Sequestration Offsets and How Do They Work? The Big Picture
• Carbfix: Homepage
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology Climate Portal: Soil-Based Carbon Sequestration
• Ceezer: How biochar emerged as an unexpected champion in the fight against the climate crisis
• Nature: Biochar is carbon negative
• Carbon Offset Guide: Methane Capture
• Carbfix: Protecting Our Climate by Turning CO₂ Into Stone
• Northwestern University: Enhanced weathering – When climate research takes unexpected turns
• Ecosystem Marketplace: Shades of REDD+: A Marshall Plan for Tropical Forests?
• The Arbor Day Foundation: Homepage
• Reforest’Action: Homepage
• Ecologi: Homepage
• One Tree Planted: Homepage
• REDD.plus: Homepage
• Pachama: Homepage
• Wildlife Works: Homepage
• The Ocean Foundation: Homepage
• Vi Agroforestry: Homepage
• One Tree Planted: Homepage
• Terrapass: Homepage
• Climeworks: Subscriptions
• greenSand: Certificate – CO₂ Compensation
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Why don’t we just plant a lot of trees?
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration: NASA Satellites Help Quantify Forests’ Impacts on Global Carbon Budget
• World Resources Institute: Forests Absorb Twice As Much Carbon As They Emit Each Year
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Blue Carbon
• The Blue Carbon Initiative: About Blue Carbon
• greenSand: Olivine Research & Evidence
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Paris Climate Agreement
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: A Global Analysis of the Cost-Efficiency of Forest Carbon Sequestration
• Bird Life International: Afforestation can be bad for biodiversity
• Scroll.in: Planting trees is a good idea, but not everywhere – especially not in grasslands
• China Dialogue: Lessons from the rush to reforest
• US Geological Survey: Making minerals – how growing rocks can help reduce carbon emissions
• Carbfix: FAQ
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: REDD+
• 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
• Verra: Verra Publishes VCS Biochar Methodology
• American Carbon Registry: Methodology for Biochar Projects
• Gold Standard: Soil Organic Carbon Framework Methodology
• The European Biochar Certificate (EBC): Homepage
• The US Biochar Initiative: Homepage
• The International Biochar Initiative: Homepage
• 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 
• GreenBiz: Blue carbon will be the next frontier of carbon crediting
• The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Blue Carbon
• United States Environmental Protection Agency: Climate Impacts on Coastal Areas
• World Resources Institute: Direct Air Capture – 6 Things to Know
• Yale Environment 360: Is the ‘Legacy’ Carbon Credit Market a Climate Plus or Just Hype?
• Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
• Climeworks: Orca
• Climeworks: Mammoth
• American University: Fact Sheet – Enhanced Mineralization
• Verra: Verra Seeks Applicants to Join Two New Biosequestration Working Groups
• McKinsey: Blue carbon – The potential of coastal and oceanic climate action
• International Energy Agency: Methane Tracker 2020
• United Nations: Population
• Edie: Carbon offsetting – How are businesses avoiding greenwashing on the road to net-zero?
• Carbon Offset Guide: Voluntary Offset Programs
• Ecosystem Marketplace: Voluntary Carbon Markets Top $1 Billion in 2021 with Newly Reported Trades
• Impactful Ninja: Best Carbon Sequestration Offsets
• Climeworks: Homepage
• REDD.plus: Homepage
• SeaTrees: Homepage
• Husk: Homepage
• Novocarbo: Homepage
• Neustark: Homepage
• greenSand: Homepage
• Vi Agroforestry: Homepage
• Terrapass: Homepage
• World Nuclear Association: Carbon Emissions from Electricity
• Natural Resources Defense Council: Global Warming 101
• myclimate: What does “net zero emissions” mean?
• United Nations Convention Framework on Climate Change: The Paris Agreement
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Climate Change – Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
• Terrapass: Carbon Offset Projects
• Carbon Offset Guide: Additionality
• American University: Fact Sheet – Carbon Removal
• 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