What Are the Criticisms of Carbon Offsets? Common Concerns Explained

Carbon offsets have become a popular tool in the fight against climate change, allowing individuals and corporations to "cancel out" their greenhouse gas emissions by funding environmental projects. But as offsetting grows in popularity, so does the carbon offset controversy. Critics argue that offsets may be doing more harm than good, serving as a smokescreen for polluters rather than delivering real climate benefits. In this article, we’ll examine the most common carbon offset criticisms, address the problems with carbon offsets, and unpack whether carbon offsetting is a scam, a solution, or something in between.

What Are Carbon Offsets?

Before diving into the carbon offsetting issues, let’s define what a carbon offset is. A carbon offset represents a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—typically measured in metric tons of CO₂—that is used to compensate for emissions made elsewhere. These offsets are often generated through projects like reforestation, renewable energy installations, or methane capture.

The concept seems straightforward: emit carbon here, reduce it there. But this simplicity is exactly what fuels the controversy.

1. Are Carbon Offsets a Scam? The Effectiveness Question

One of the most common carbon offset criticisms is that many offset projects simply don’t work. In some cases, offsets are sold based on emissions reductions that never actually occur, or would have happened anyway even without the investment.

For example, a forest conservation project may claim to avoid deforestation, but if the forest was never under real threat to begin with, there’s no additional benefit. This problem of non-additionality leads critics to ask: Are carbon offsets a scam?

Multiple studies have found that a significant percentage of offset projects overstate their impact or fail to deliver promised results.

At Fig, we believe that our mission is providing a net good to society and is helping to fight climate change. We have made a huge point of ensuring that the carbon credits that we use are the best in market. Our carbon offset is created through reforestation efforts in Ghana.

2. The Timing Problem: Delayed Benefits, Immediate Emissions

Another problem with carbon offsets is the timing mismatch. Carbon emissions from a flight or factory are released into the atmosphere immediately. In contrast, many offset projects—such as tree planting—take years or decades to sequester equivalent amounts of carbon.

This creates a temporal imbalance that undermines the basic goal of offsets. Critics argue that using offsets to justify current emissions is misleading, especially when the benefits might not materialise until far into the future—if at all.

3. Greenwashing Carbon: A Marketing Tool for Polluters?

Perhaps the most damning carbon offset criticism is that the practice enables greenwashing—giving corporations and consumers a false sense of climate responsibility.

Companies can purchase offsets and advertise themselves as “carbon neutral” without actually reducing their own emissions. This allows them to continue harmful practices while projecting an image of sustainability. The result is a PR win for businesses but a net loss for the planet.

The term greenwashing carbon has become synonymous with these deceptive practices. Rather than driving meaningful climate action, offsets may simply help polluters feel better about polluting.

Ultimately, it's best that carbon offset be used hand in hand with reducing carbon emissions as well. With improved tools (such as the Fig carbon footprint calculator) and data we can better understand the carbon cost of certain actions and provide a measured approach to fighting climate change - reducing where we can and offsetting the carbon costs that we cannot immediately reduce. This is true for both consumers and businesses alike.

4. Double Counting and Lack of Regulation

The carbon offsetting controversy is further fuelled by concerns over accountability. Because the carbon offset market is poorly regulated, there are frequent cases of double counting, where two parties claim credit for the same emission reduction.

In voluntary markets especially, oversight is limited. Projects may be certified by third parties, but the standards vary widely. This lack of consistency creates confusion and reduces trust in offset programs.

Fig responds to these issues in two ways:

1. All our credits are registered on EcoRegistry. This means that every credit that we sell will always be 1-1 backed by carbon offset created at source by our partner in Ghana.

2. Our carbon credits are the only fully insured on the market. If for any reason the carbon offset fails, it is replaced at no cost to the purchaser.

5. Ethical and Social Concerns

Some carbon offsetting issues extend beyond climate impact and into ethics. Offset projects—especially those in developing countries—have been accused of harming local communities. In some cases, land has been taken from Indigenous people or rural farmers in the name of carbon sequestration.

These actions raise concerns about climate justice and question the morality of using wealth to buy environmental “credits” from the Global South, often without their full consent or benefit.

Conclusion: Rethinking the Role of Offsets

So, are carbon offsets a scam? Not always—but the system is riddled with problems. From greenwashing and double counting to false claims and delayed results, the carbon offsetting issues are too significant to ignore. This is why Fig's mission is not only to provide consumers with more information about the carbon cost of their purchases, but also to improve the underlying carbon offset market with high quality and insured carbon credits.

As consumers and businesses become more climate-conscious, it's crucial to scrutinise offset claims, support credible projects, and focus on reducing emissions at the source. Because when it comes to climate change, good intentions are not enough—accountability is everything.