Carbon Offsets Pt 3: What Counts, What Doesn’t — Inside the Offset Market

Follow the Money

Here’s what most people don’t realize: the carbon offset world isn’t just a climate solution — it’s a business. A huge one.

You’ve got project developers, brokers, verification bodies, marketplaces, consultancies, and a whole layer of finance guys who don’t care where the emissions came from — they just want to sell you the credit.

And here’s the kicker: the cheaper the offset, the more appealing it is to buyers.
So what kinds of projects get pushed? The easy ones. The vague ones. The ones that sound good on paper but don’t hold up under scrutiny.

We're talking forest preservation projects that claim to avoid deforestation that may or may not have even happened.
Or "clean cookstove" programs where impact is hard to verify, but the story is emotionally compelling enough to sell.

Now zoom out.
Who’s buying?
Major emitters. Fast fashion brands. Airlines. Oil and gas companies. Crypto firms. The same players who are still polluting at scale — just now with a certificate that says they’ve “neutralized” it.

And where are the projects located?
Often in the Global South — in forests, communities, or landscapes that are thousands of miles away from the emissions they’re supposedly cleaning up.
That’s not a coincidence. That’s carbon colonialism.

It’s the same imbalance as always: the wealthier countries pollute, and then turn around and pay poorer regions to handle the consequences. But this time, it’s dressed up in sustainability language.
And that’s what makes it so slippery.

If offsets were really about climate justice, wouldn't the economic structure look different?
Wouldn’t we see more investment in actually decarbonizing the supply chain, not just buying credits to maintain it?

Because right now, it’s not repair — it’s outsourcing.

Not All Projects Are Equal

The word “offset” makes it sound clean, simple, balanced.
But not all offsets are built the same. In fact, the gap between a low-quality and a high-quality offset is massive — and most people have no idea what they’re buying into.

Let’s break it down.

You’ve got:

• Avoidance projects: forest protection (REDD+), clean cookstoves, renewable energy

• Removal projects: reforestation, soil carbon, ocean-based removal, direct air capture (DACS), BECCS

Avoidance means you're preventing future emissions.
Removal means you're actively pulling carbon out of the atmosphere.

Avoidance is cheaper, faster, and way more common.
Removal is expensive, slow, and still scaling.

So what gets bought most? You already know.
Avoidance. Because it’s easier to claim credit for something you didn’t do than prove something you actually did.

Take REDD+ forest projects — meant to protect rainforests from being cut down.
Sounds good. But how do you prove that forest was ever truly under threat?
How do you verify how much carbon was saved?
How do you ensure that same logging doesn’t just move 10 miles over?

That’s the problem with additionality — you’re betting on a future scenario that’s impossible to confirm.
And leakage — the emissions don’t disappear; they just shift location.
Then there’s permanence — will that forest be standing in 5 years? 50?

Meanwhile, direct air capture (DACS) or enhanced weathering or ocean carbon removal could be game-changers. But they’re expensive as hell and not scalable for most brands right now. So they barely get touched.

It’s like choosing between a $5 fake diploma or a $50,000 degree — and hoping no one checks the credentials.

That’s why you get big brands claiming “carbon neutral” status through a patchwork of cheap, questionable offsets.
Because no one’s forcing them to pick the high-quality ones.

So the next time you see a brand talking about their offset portfolio, ask:
Is this real carbon removal… or just really good PR?

The Industry’s License to Pollute

Here’s where things get messy.

The original idea behind carbon offsetting made sense — use it as a temporary bridge while you work to cut emissions at the source. A short-term tool. A last resort, not a first move.

But that’s not how it’s being used now.

Now it’s a line item.
A budgeted cost.
A convenient way to “neutralize” your emissions without changing how you actually operate.

A fast fashion brand can pump out 500 million garments a year, buy offsets for their headquarters’ energy use, and call it a day.
An airline can launch a “climate-friendly” flight initiative just by offsetting fuel emissions through a reforestation project in Brazil.
A luxury conglomerate can slap “net zero” on a press release because they bought enough credits — not because their operations have changed in any meaningful way.

It’s not transformation.
It’s accounting.

And the danger is this: when offsets are cheap, easy, and vague, they create a moral buffer — a psychological cushion that makes polluting feel okay.
That’s the real harm.
Not just the emissions themselves, but the illusion that they’re being taken care of.

It’s why some researchers call offsets a “license to pollute.”
And it’s not a metaphor. It’s literally how it works on the balance sheet.

There are even companies whose emissions have gone up year after year — while still claiming carbon neutrality through offsets.

So when you see those claims, pause.
Ask the uncomfortable question:
Is this company doing less harm… or just paying for the right to keep doing the same thing?

Because at some point, we have to stop treating the symptom and start treating the disease.

What Ethical Offset Use Could Look Like

Let’s be clear: offsets aren’t inherently evil.
There is a version of this that could work.
But it looks a lot different than how most companies are doing it right now.

First off, offsets should never be the first answer.
They should come after a company has done the real work — slashed emissions, fixed energy systems, redesigned supply chains, interrogated product volume, all of it.

Offsets should be the final 5%, not the first 95%.

So what does ethical use actually look like?

• Full transparency.
  Not just “we offset,” but what type, how much, from where, and why. If a company doesn’t name their offset projects or share the methodology, assume the worst.

• Real reductions, not just promises.
  Are they actively lowering Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions? Or are they just compensating on paper?

• High-quality removals only.
  No vague “forest preservation” claims. No legacy cookstove projects from a decade ago. We're talking actual, measurable carbon removal with third-party verification.

• Clear communication.
  Language matters. If a company’s offsetting their headquarters’ electricity, fine. Say that. Don’t turn it into a “we’re carbon neutral” blanket statement that ignores manufacturing, shipping, and supply chain emissions.

And this one’s important:

• No offset-only net zero targets.
  If a brand’s climate goal relies more on offsetting than operational change, it’s not a climate strategy. It’s a marketing plan.

There’s a difference between a brand trying to improve and a brand trying to look like it’s improving.
Ethical offset use sits on one side of that line. Most of the industry’s still firmly on the other.

We can’t afford to pretend they’re the same thing.

Zoom Out — The Bigger Picture

If there’s one thing that’s become clear through all this — it’s that carbon offsetting isn’t the villain.
It’s just the most misused tool in the drawer.

The real problem?
The way it’s framed.
Offsets are supposed to be a side dish. But fashion keeps serving them like the main course.

And let’s be honest: if a brand talks more about offsetting than about how they’re cutting emissions at the root… then they’ve already told you what their priorities are.

This isn’t about perfection.
It’s about intention.
It’s about whether sustainability is being used as a filter through which real decisions get made — or just as a veneer painted over business as usual.

Offsetting should be part of a system, not a substitute for one.

We’re at a point in the climate conversation where trust is fragile, consumer awareness is growing, and regulation is catching up.
So brands have a choice: keep playing the offset shell game, or build something real — slowly, honestly, and in full view.

Because carbon math might make your deck look clean.
But climate accountability? That takes more than a spreadsheet.