Planet
Carbon offsets vs dietary change
Offsetting promises to neutralise emissions you are still producing. Investigations into forestry and avoided-deforestation credits have repeatedly found that a large share delivered far less than claimed. Reducing the emission in the first place has no verification problem.
Side by side
| Criterion | Carbon offsets | Dietary change |
|---|---|---|
| Verification | Depends on counterfactual baselines that are difficult to verify and easy to inflate. | Direct and immediate; nothing to certify. |
| Permanence | Forestry credits reverse in a fire, a drought or a change of landowner. | Permanent for as long as the change is maintained. |
| Cost | Ongoing payment. | Usually reduces household spending. |
| Co-benefits | Varies enormously by project quality. | Land, water, biodiversity and animal welfare alongside emissions. |
Questions people ask
- Are carbon offsets worthless?
- Not all of them, but multiple independent investigations have found large shares of credits in major registries overstated their impact. Reduction should come first; offsets at most cover an unavoidable remainder.
- What should I do instead of offsetting my flight?
- Fly less where you can, and cut a persistent recurring emission such as high-beef consumption. A permanent change beats a contested credit.