Can carbon offsets really cancel your emissions? Here’s the reality

Many Americans wonder how they can reduce their carbon emissions. The obvious answers to that question: drive less, fly less, install solar panels, maybe switch to an electric vehicle. These changes can make a real difference, but they are not always easy or accessible. Still, there are smaller steps that can matter, too: biking or walking instead of driving when you can, turning down the heat or supporting local climate-friendly initiatives. No one can do it all, but everyone can do something.

But while cutting emissions directly—through big or small steps—is the surest way to make a difference, there is another solution that some might suggest, one that does not require changing your lifestyle at all. Instead of cutting your own emissions, you can pay someone else to reduce theirs. That is the basic idea behind carbon offsets.

Carbon offsets are meant to balance out your emissions by funding a project somewhere else, something that either prevents carbon from being released or pulls carbon out of the atmosphere. Let’s say you take a flight that emits a ton of CO₂ and for a few extra dollars  you can buy an offset that promises to cancel out that impact by protecting a forest in Brazil, funding a direct air capture facility in Texas or supporting new carbon removal infrastructure in Canada. It is a clear concept: your emissions still happen, but thanks to the offset, something good happens elsewhere to make up for it.

The appeal is obvious. You do not have to reduce the amount you fly. You do not have to buy an electric car or install a rooftop solar. You keep doing what you are doing—while paying for a carbon-saving project somewhere else. It sounds like a balanced calculation for a complicated problem.

But here’s where things start to fall apart. Not all carbon offsets actually reduce emissions as much as they promise. And some projects that promise to reduce emissions – such as projects to produce palm oil – harm the environment in other ways. Whether you’re an individual looking to reduce your carbon footprint or a policymaker designing market-based carbon reduction programs, it’s important to realize that, when it comes to offsets, the devil is often in the details. 

When offsets don’t add up

Carbon offsets have grown into a multi-billion-dollar industry. Airlines offer them at checkout. Tech companies use them to advertise “net zero” emissions. There are entire marketplaces dedicated to helping you “neutralize” your carbon footprint with a few clicks.

But not all carbon offsets actually reduce emissions. In fact, many don’t. Some support projects that  would have happened anyway, with or without your money. Some are based on optimistic projections or unverifiable assumptions and some count carbon that’s never actually removed from the atmosphere.  Worse, some projects, despite being framed as “green,” may even be causing environmental harm and could even add tens of millions of tons of CO₂ to the atmosphere.

How does that happen?

One key issue is a concept called additionality. For an offset to work, it needs to support something that would not have happened otherwise. If a forest was already protected, you cannot claim carbon savings just for not cutting it down. Yet, some offset programs do just that—crediting landowners for maintaining forests they never planned to clear.

Next is permanence. If your plane trip releases 500 pounds of carbon dioxide, much of that carbon will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries to come.  In order to have the same effect, the offset you buy should reduce emissions for just as long. But if you pay for a forest to absorb carbon, what happens when that forest burns down ten years later? In Oregon, for example, a forest enrolled in a carbon offset program burned down after just a few years, releasing the stored carbon back into the atmosphere and erasing the promised climate benefits. In cases like these, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere, and your “offset” disappears.

Then there’s verification. Some offsets are poorly monitored. The projects may be in remote places, with little oversight, and this leaves the door wide open to greenwashing.

And in some cases, it opens the door to something worse—projects that do not just fail to reduce emissions but actively contribute to environmental destruction. One clear example? Palm oil plantations.

Offsets gone wrong: just look at palm oil

Palm oil is used in everything from snacks to cosmetics and most of it comes from Southeast Asia, where forests are cleared to make way for massive monoculture plantations—releasing huge amounts of carbon and destroying rich ecosystems.

But what does that have to do with carbon offsets?

In some offset plans, palm oil plantations have been framed as solutions to the climate crisis. Because they involve growing trees and trees absorb CO₂, some projects claim that establishing or maintaining these plantations contributes to carbon removal. On paper, this can be displayed as a win. Carbon is technically being absorbed, but here’s the catch: many of these plantations replace dense tropical forests, which were already absorbing far more carbon and supporting far more life than the new crops ever will. In that trade-off, we lose.

Over the years, pressure from environmental advocates and investors has led some major companies to make commitments to eliminate deforestation from their palm oil supply chains. These kinds of efforts show what real accountability can look like — and highlight how important it is to look closely at what offset projects actually involve. An offset that promotes destructive land use isn’t helping solve the climate crisis. It’s just hiding behind green language.

This is not just a hypothetical problem. In Malaysia, for example, the national palm oil certification scheme is exploring ways to link plantations to carbon markets, raising serious questions about whether these credits will reflect real climate benefits.

Palm oil is not the only example of this. But it is one of the clearest. It shows how a system that is supposed to be about reducing harm can end up financing more of it, all while letting consumers and companies feel like they are doing something good for the planet.

If you really want to offset, here’s the good news: not every offset project is a lost cause.

Some offsets are actually doing real good — when they’re done right. There are projects out there that focus on restoring ecosystems, supporting local communities and storing carbon in ways that are measurable and long-lasting.

So,  if you’re going to buy offsets, do it with your eyes open. Look for programs that meet strict standards like Gold Standard or Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). Make sure the project is additional (it wouldn’t have happened without your support), permanent (the carbon stays out of the atmosphere) and verifiable (there’s real data behind it). Offsets might play a role, but they’re never a substitute for cutting emissions at the source.

And if you’re serious about making a difference, there are other ways to put that impulse to work. You don’t have to act alone and  you can start where you are. Got kids in school? Talk to their school about going solar. Go to your residents’ meetings? Bring up small changes your building or neighborhood could make such as switching to electric heat pumps or replacing gas-powered leaf blowers. These aren’t massive changes, but they add up. And more importantly, they can inspire others to take action, too.

These kinds of investments don’t just reduce emissions, they build momentum and make it easier for others to follow your lead.

In the end, the most effective way to cut emissions is still the simplest: reduce them yourself. Carbon offsets might offer a convenient shortcut, but they are no substitute for real, direct action. Unlike offsets, your own choices are not speculative, they are tangible and make a guaranteed difference.