Can we really Carbon Offset our way to Climate Safety, or is it just Greenwashing?

KAKALI DAS

We all live in the same world, and no matter how careful we try to be, almost everything we do causes greenhouse gas emissions. We travel, buy food, use electricity, order products online, and depend on systems that run on fossil fuels. Because of this, it is almost impossible to live a completely carbon-free life today. This reality has led to an attractive idea. What if we could simply balance out the carbon we cause by paying someone else to reduce emissions for us. According to fossil fuel companies and many large corporations, this is exactly what carbon offsetting allows us to do. But the real question remains. Can we truly offset our way to climate safety.

Can we really Carbon Offset our way to Climate Safety, or is it just Greenwashing?

Carbon offsetting is often presented as a simple solution. The idea is that if you produce a certain amount of carbon emissions, you can pay for projects elsewhere that reduce or remove the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere. On paper, this makes it seem like emissions cancel each other out. If you emit one tonne of carbon dioxide by flying, you pay someone else to remove one tonne by planting trees or restoring ecosystems. This sounds reasonable and even responsible. However, the reality is far more complex and troubling.

To understand whether offsetting really works, we first need to understand what offsetting actually means. In simple terms, offsetting allows someone who causes environmental harm to balance that harm by paying someone else to do something positive for the environment. Unlike abstract ideas such as good and bad behaviour, carbon emissions are measurable. They are counted in tonnes of greenhouse gases that heat the planet and drive climate change. Offsets are supposed to deal with these measurable emissions.

There are two main types of carbon offsets. One type involves removing carbon from the atmosphere. This includes activities such as planting trees, restoring wetlands, or using technology to capture carbon and store it underground. These are known as carbon removal offsets. The second type involves avoiding emissions that would otherwise have happened. For example, paying to protect a forest that might have been cut down, or funding clean energy instead of coal. These are known as avoidance offsets.

At first glance, both types appear useful. But the real challenge lies in proving whether the claimed carbon reduction actually happens. Carbon offsets are traded like commodities in carbon markets. Companies buy offsets to claim that they have reduced their emissions on paper. Most buyers are corporations looking to lower their carbon footprint or delay real action by promising to act later. What truly matters in this system is whether an offset is worth what it claims. This depends heavily on verification.

In most voluntary carbon markets, projects must follow certain standards to be certified. These standards are supposed to ensure that emissions are genuinely reduced or removed. Third-party auditors are meant to verify the claims. Once an offset is purchased, it should be removed from the system so it cannot be counted twice. Some of the best-known standards include the Verified Carbon Standard, the Gold Standard, and the Climate Action Reserve in North America. However, these standards vary widely in how strict they are, and many allow serious flaws to pass through.

One of the most important questions when judging an offset is whether the carbon reduction would have happened anyway. If you pay someone to avoid emissions that they were never planning to produce, then the offset achieves nothing. This idea is known as additionality. For an offset to be meaningful, it must result in emissions reductions that would not have happened without your payment. Unfortunately, proving this is extremely difficult because there is no alternate reality to compare against. We cannot see what would have happened if the offset had not been purchased.

Removal offsets are often easier to justify because actively removing carbon usually requires money, effort, and planning. It is less likely that someone would remove carbon without being paid to do so. Avoidance offsets, however, are much harder to measure. In cases such as avoided deforestation, project developers must estimate how much forest would have been lost without intervention. This creates room for manipulation.

In many cases, the baseline levels of expected emissions are exaggerated. If a project claims that massive deforestation was about to happen, it can then claim large emissions savings by preventing it. Investigations have shown that in many forest offset projects, deforestation baselines were overstated by five to ten times. This allowed project owners to sell far more carbon credits than were justified. Instead of protecting the climate, this system allows profits to be made by exploiting weak oversight.

Worse still, carbon markets can create harmful incentives. If project owners benefit financially from claiming large emissions reductions, they may intentionally raise their pollution levels first to create a higher baseline. This allows them to claim greater reductions later and earn more money. In such cases, offsetting does not reduce emissions at all. It actively encourages more pollution.

Another major problem with offsetting is permanence. For an offset to truly balance emissions, the carbon must be kept out of the atmosphere for a very long time, ideally thousands of years. If a forest is protected today but cut down tomorrow, the carbon stored in the trees is released back into the atmosphere. In that case, the offset was temporary and ineffective. Planting trees is often promoted as a climate solution, but forests can burn, be logged, or die from disease, especially as climate change increases wildfires and extreme weather.

Closely related to permanence is the issue of leakage. Leakage occurs when emissions are not truly reduced but simply moved elsewhere. For example, if logging is stopped in one forest, companies may move their operations to another nearby area. On a global scale, this also happens when countries claim to reduce emissions by outsourcing manufacturing to other nations. Emissions appear lower on paper but continue elsewhere.

Weak legal systems make these problems worse. Many offset projects are located in the Global South, where land governance may be fragile and corruption more common. This increases the reopen risks of false baselines, illegal logging, land conflicts, and carbon reversals. Communities may also suffer as local people are excluded from land they depend on, all in the name of carbon credits sold to wealthy corporations.

Beyond the technical flaws, there is a deeper problem with how offsets are used. Carbon offsets allow companies to claim carbon neutrality without making meaningful changes to their core business models. Airlines, oil companies, and major corporations use offsets to appear environmentally responsible while continuing to pollute. Aviation is one of the biggest buyers of offsets because it is hard to decarbonise. Instead of reducing flights or investing heavily in cleaner alternatives, airlines ask customers to offset their travel and claim climate responsibility.

This creates a misleading green image. Products and services are labelled carbon neutral even though most emissions remain untouched. Often, companies only offset their direct emissions while ignoring much larger indirect emissions from supply chains, raw materials, and waste. These indirect emissions, known as scope three emissions, usually make up the majority of a company’s climate impact. Offsetting a small fraction allows companies to distract from the larger problem.

This is why fossil fuel companies can announce net zero targets while continuing to expand oil and gas production. Offsets become a convenient escape route. They allow polluters to delay real action while appearing aligned with climate goals. In reality, this slows down the transition we urgently need.

Recognising these problems, researchers from the University of Oxford developed a set of principles for responsible offsetting. These principles emphasise that cutting emissions must always come first. Offsets should only be used for emissions that cannot be eliminated. When offsets are used, they should focus on removing carbon rather than avoiding emissions, and the carbon must be stored permanently. Offsetting should support long-term climate goals, not undermine them.

MAHABAHU CLIMATE FORUM

However, these principles are voluntary. There is no strong global system to enforce them. As long as offsets remain largely unregulated and profit-driven, low-quality credits will dominate the market.

The United Nations has tried to address carbon trading through the Paris Agreement. Article 6 allows countries to trade emissions reductions to meet national climate targets. In theory, this could improve efficiency and lower costs. In practice, negotiations over Article 6 have been slow and controversial. It is unclear how this system will interact with voluntary carbon markets, which remain largely outside UN control and dominated by corporate buyers.

Carbon markets exist within a global economic system that prioritises profit. Turning climate action into a tradable commodity risks missing the point. While offsets may be better than doing nothing, they are far from a solution. Evidence shows that many offsets do not reduce emissions at all. Studies have found that a large majority of forest-based offsets fail to deliver real climate benefits. In some cases, only a handful of projects account for most of the claimed reductions.

There will never be enough high-quality offsets to balance current global emissions. Even low-quality offsets are insufficient. This means that relying on offsetting is not only flawed but dangerous. It creates the illusion of progress while emissions continue to rise.

The real solution to the climate crisis is clear. We must cut emissions rapidly and deeply. This means reducing fossil fuel use, transforming energy systems, changing how we produce and consume goods, and holding polluters accountable. High-quality carbon offsets may play a small role in dealing with emissions that cannot be eliminated, but they must never replace real action.

Offsetting should be a last resort, not a licence to pollute. When used carelessly, it becomes a distraction and a tool for greenwashing. Climate safety cannot be bought. It must be built through genuine commitment, systemic change, and the courage to confront the root causes of climate change.

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.