To ensure a sustainable planet for future generations we must take action now to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and our carbon footprint. One way to do this is via carbon offsets, which allow us to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from activities where sustainable alternatives are not yet widely available. So, we had to ask: How effective and efficient are carbon offsets?

The effectiveness and efficiency of carbon offsets depend on the specific projects. They may immediately reduce emissions or reinforce carbon sinks. But they may also lack additionality and permanence. In general, carbon offsets do not reduce your own emissions and are not scalable enough yet.

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

The Big Picture of the Effectiveness and Efficiency 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 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.

Here’s How Effective and Efficient Carbon Offsets Are

In terms of effectiveness, carbon offsets can reduce CH₄ emissions, reinforce our terrestrial and marine carbon sinks, and promote energy independence. However, they can also have varying levels of permanence, lack additionality, and may not reduce carbon emissions immediately, depending on the type of offset. Lastly, they do not reduce your own carbon emissions, which could lead to greenwashing.

In terms of efficiency, carbon offsets can preserve existing forests and marine ecosystems, continue to avoid CO₂ emissions after project lifespans, and have low rates of carbon re-emission. However, they can also have varying levels of costs, may face carbon storage capacity limitations, and can be difficult to monitor and verify, depending on the type of offset. In general, carbon offsets are not yet scaled to compensate for our global emissions.

How Effective Are Carbon Offset Programs at Reducing CO₂ Emissions

Effectiveness involves completing a task with a desired outcome, typically a successful one. 

“Effective: producing the result that is wanted or intended; producing a successful result”

Oxford Dictionary

Carbon offsets can reduce CH₄ emissions, reinforce our terrestrial and marine carbon sinks, and promote energy independence. However, they can also have varying levels of permanence, lack additionality, and may not reduce carbon emissions immediately, depending on the type of offset. Lastly, they do not reduce your own carbon emissions, which could lead to greenwashing.

Carbon Offsets Can Reduce CH₄ Emissions

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

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 carbon 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.

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. 

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 carbon offsets bolster our forest communities, which are one of our biggest carbon sinks capable of absorbing billions of tons of CO₂ every year. 

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. 

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 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. 

Carbon Offsets Can 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.

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 carbon offsets bolster energy security and can lead to energy independence.

Carbon Offsets Have Varying Levels Of Permanence

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

Technology-based carbon offsets involving direct carbon/air capture (DCC/DAC), carbon mineralization, waste management, and agriculture can permanently remove carbon from the atmosphere.

DCC/DAC offsets are a specific type of carbon offset that permanently removes carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon mineralization offsets are a specific type of carbon offset that stores carbon permanently in geological reservoirs. 

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, 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.

On the other hand, nature-based carbon offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agriculture often lack permanence because they are reversible solutions. 

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, the permanence of carbon offsets depends on whether it is a technology-based or nature-based solution.

Carbon Offsets Can Lack Additionality

Carbon offsets involving energy efficiency and waste management often lack additionality because many projects receiving revenue now would have been built regardless.

To be beneficial, energy efficiency and waste management offsets must be additional. This means the carbon emissions reductions would not have occurred without intervention.

However, energy efficiency and waste management offsets are often not additional because many projects receiving revenue now would have been built regardless. 

One of the main pros of energy efficiency is lower energy costs, which can drive market expansion. For example, since 2020, global markets have contributed approximately $1 trillion towards energy efficiency-related practices involving buildings, transportation, infrastructure, and electric vehicles. The large demand for energy-efficient practices, in general, means that the infrastructure could have been built independently of energy-efficiency carbon offsets. 

The global waste management market is expected to grow to $2.5 billion by 2030 due to the increasing rate at which and the amount of waste we generate annually. As the market grows, there has been a push for waste management projects involving food rescue, landfill gas capture, and recycling. The large demand for waste management in general means that the infrastructure could have been built independently of waste management carbon offsets.

In short, additionality is not guaranteed with energy-efficiency carbon offsets because the large demand means infrastructure could have been built independently of offsets.

Carbon Offsets May Not Reduce Carbon Emissions Immediately

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

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 task 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.

However, nature-based offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, blue carbon, and agriculture may not reduce carbon emissions immediately because of the time needed to plant trees and for them to reach maturity. 

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+ projects 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, technology-based carbon offsets offer more immediate carbon emission reductions than nature-based carbon offsets.

Carbon Offsets Do Not Reduce Your Own Carbon Emissions, Which Can Lead To Greenwashing

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

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 Efficient Are Carbon Offset Programs at Mitigating Climate Change

Efficiency involves performing a task while using the least amount of resources and producing the least amount of waste possible.

“Efficient: working in a way that does not waste a resource (= something valuable such as fuel, water, or money)”

Cambridge Dictionary

Carbon offsets can preserve existing forests and marine ecosystems, continue to avoid CO₂ emissions after project lifespans, and have low rates of carbon re-emission. However, they can also have varying levels of costs, may face carbon storage capacity limitations, and can be difficult to monitor and verify, depending on the type of offset. In general, carbon offsets are not yet scaled to compensate for our global emissions.

Carbon Offsets Can Preserve Existing Forests And Marine Ecosystems

Carbon offsets involving REDD+ and blue carbon can efficiently protect existing forests and marine ecosystems.

REDD+ offsets chiefly protect existing forests from deforestation, rather than creating new forests first and then protecting those forests. Protecting existing forests rather than creating new ones is more time effective because finding suitable land and physically planting the trees to create a new forest takes time. 

Carbon emissions can also be reduced immediately when you protect existing forests, whereas creating new forests requires waiting for the trees to first reach maturity before they can begin to reduce carbon emissions.

In addition, blue carbon offsets can protect existing mangroves, seagrass beds, and salt marsh ecosystems. Blue carbon ecosystems 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 short, REDD+ and blue carbon offsets protect existing forests and marine ecosystems, which are time and cost-effective methods of carbon emission reduction. 

Carbon Offsets Can Continue To Avoid CO₂ Emissions After Their Project Lifespan

Carbon offsets involving reforestation, afforestation, and blue carbon offsets can continue to reduce carbon long after projects have been completed.

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. However, trees continue absorbing carbon long after they mature. This means that tree planting projects (e.g., reforestation, afforestation, blue carbon) can continue to reduce carbon emissions long after the trees have been planted.

The ability of these offsets to continue to reduce carbon after the project has been completed is dependent on the continued protection of the forest. Reforestation, afforestation, and blue carbon offsets do not necessarily protect trees after they have been planted, whereas REDD+ carbon offsets are more concerned with protecting already existing forests. So, any future carbon reductions could be negated if the trees are deforested before they die naturally. 

However, at some point, carbon storage in trees is balanced by the release of carbon back into the atmosphere via wood and leaf decay, insect and animal consumption, and overall tree respiration. As they mature, forests go from being carbon-negative, to carbon-neutral, and even carbon-positive, if they are destroyed.

In short, reforestation, afforestation, and blue carbon offsets can continue to reduce carbon long after the project has been completed, so long as they are not deforested prematurely.

Carbon Offsets Can Have Low Rates Of Carbon Re-Emission

Carbon offsets involving carbon/air capture (DCC/DAC) and carbon mineralization are permanent solutions with low rates of CO₂ re-emission.

DCC plants are most effective in locations where there is excess renewable energy available along with ample natural storage options for the captured carbon. Although DCC 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. For every 100 tons of CO₂ captured from the air, 90 tons are permanently removed, and only up to 10 tons are re-emitted

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. 

In short, DCC/DAC and carbon mineralization processes permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it for long periods of time with low rates of carbon re-emission.

Carbon Offsets Have Varying Levels Of Cost

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

• 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. 

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

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

• 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. 

On the other hand, technology-based offsets involving carbon/air capture (DCC/DAC) and carbon mineralization are some of the most expensive methods of carbon removal. 

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 short, the cost of carbon offsets depends on the specific type of offset, with costs ranging anywhere from less than $20 per ton of CO₂ for nature-based to $1,200 per ton of CO₂ for technology-based carbon offsets.

Carbon Offsets May Face Carbon Storage Capacity Limitations

Reforestation, afforestation, and some blue carbon and agricultural offsets 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 nature-based offsets from compensating for all of our carbon emissions.

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.

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.

Similarly, agricultural emissions themselves are difficult to measure and manage because there are hundreds of millions of farmers around the world, most of whom 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.

Carbon Offsets Are Not Yet Scaled To Compensate For Our Global Emissions

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

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, some blue carbon, and some agricultural offsets 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. 

And 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. 

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. 

What Are The 8 Pros and 8 Cons 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.

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.

What Are the 8 Pros of Carbon Offsets

Carbon offsets have various pros that make them effective at reducing carbon emissions.

What Are the 8 Cons of Carbon Offsets

Understanding the drawbacks of carbon offsets is important in order to effectively mitigate climate change

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

Carbon offsets face varying levels of effectiveness and efficiency depending on the type of offset project.

Direct carbon/air capture (DCC/DAC) and carbon mineralization offsets permanently remove CO₂ quickly with low rates of carbon re-emission; however, they are also expensive and do not continue reducing CO₂ emissions after project lifespans.

Reforestation, afforestation, REDD+, blue carbon, and agricultural carbon offsets reinforce our terrestrial and marine carbon sinks and are relatively cost-effective; however, they may not reduce emissions immediately. Overall, nature-based offsets may lack permanence and can face carbon storage capacity limitations. 

Energy efficiency, waste management, and agricultural carbon offsets are cost-effective, bolster energy security, and reduce CH₄ emissions; however, they may lack additionality and can be difficult to monitor and verify.

Carbon offsets can instigate meaningful change, but they should not be seen as the only solution to climate change. When used in conjunction with direct CO₂ reduction measures, carbon offsetting can be much more effective. We should reduce our own carbon footprint as much as possible first, and only then choose the most effective carbon offsets.

Stay impactful,

Sources

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: The Paris Agreement
• Britannica: Carbon Offset
• David Suzuki Foundation: Are carbon offsets the answer to climate-altering flights?
• South Pole: Carbon Offsets Explained
• 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?
• Britannica: Carbon Footprint
• Impactful Ninja: What Are Nature-Based Carbon Offsets and How Do They Work? The Big Picture
• 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
• Native Energy: Noblehurst Family Farm Project
• 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
• World Resources Institute: Forests Absorb Twice As Much Carbon As They Emit Each Year
• 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
• 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
• Impactful Ninja: Why is a Carbon Footprint Bad for the Environment
• Carbon Offset Guide: Permanence
• Carbfix: Homepage
• United States Environmental Protection Agency: Climate Impacts on Coastal Areas
• The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Blue Carbon
• Carbon Offset Guide: Additionality
• Vox: RECs, which put the “green” in green electricity, explained
• International Energy Administration: Executive Summary – Energy Efficiency 2022
• Allied Market Research: Waste Management Market by Type (Municipal Waste, Industrial Waste and Hazardous Waste) and Service (Collection and Disposable): Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2021-2030
• Northwestern University: Enhanced weathering – When climate research takes unexpected turns
• Carbfix: Protecting Our Climate by Turning CO₂ Into Stone
• The Environmentors: How Fast Does A Tree Grow?
• EcoTree: How much CO₂ does a tree absorb?
• 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?
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Why don’t we just plant a lot of trees?
• Climeworks: Orca
• greenSand: Olivine Research & Evidence
• The Ocean Foundation: Homepage
• One Tree Planted: Homepage
• Reforest’Action: Homepage
•  REDD.plus: Homepage
• Pachama: Homepage
• Wildlife Works: Homepage
• Carbonfund: Homepage
• Ecologi: Homepage
• Myclimate: Homepage
• GreenTech: Homepage
• Terrapass: Homepage
• Vi Agroforestry: Homepage
• The Arbor Day Foundation: Homepage
• World Resources Institute: Direct Air Capture – 6 Things to Know
• Climeworks: Subscriptions
• greenSand: Certificate – CO₂ Compensation
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology: How many new trees would we need to offset our carbon emissions?
• 8BillionTrees: How Many Trees are Planted Each Year?
• Our World in Data: Deforestation and Forest Loss
• 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
• GreenBiz: Blue carbon will be the next frontier of carbon crediting
• Environmental and Energy Study Institute: Fact Sheet | Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances, Lighting and Equipment (2017)
• 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
• American University: Fact Sheet – Enhanced Mineralization
• 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?
• Carbon Offset Guide: Voluntary Offset Programs
• Ecosystem Marketplace: Voluntary Carbon Markets Top $1 Billion in 2021 with Newly Reported Trades
• Impactful Ninja: Best Carbon Offsets
• Climeworks: Homepage
• Neustark: Homepage
• SeaTrees: Homepage
• Native Energy: Homepage
• Novocarbo: Homepage
• greenSand: Homepage
• Husk: Homepage
• Impactful Ninja: Carbon Offsets: All 8 Pros and 8 Cons Explained
• 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