Offsets are a scam. Here's what to do instead.
That’s a strong title, so let me be precise about what I mean. Protecting forests, restoring peat and funding clean cookstoves can all be worthwhile. Some carbon removal projects are genuine. My problem is with the idea at the centre of the offset market: that a business can keep emitting and buy a certificate that makes those emissions disappear, so it can call itself “carbon neutral”.
That idea doesn’t survive contact with the evidence. And from this autumn, in the EU, it doesn’t survive contact with the law either.
The evidence
Offsets are only worth anything if the reduction is real, wouldn’t have happened anyway, lasts, and isn’t counted twice. Study after study has found that most credits fail at least one of those tests.
- In 2024, researchers writing in Nature Communications reviewed studies covering around a fifth of all credits ever issued, across the main project types. They found that less than 16% of the credits represented real emission reductions (Probst et al., 2024; TUM summary).
- Forest-protection projects (REDD+) have been particularly badly affected. A 2023 study in Science found that many projects claimed far more avoided deforestation than actually occurred, because their “what would have happened anyway” baselines were inflated (West et al., 2023).
- Permanence is a further problem. A forest can burn down. Fossil carbon released from your chimney stays in the atmosphere for centuries.
None of this means everyone selling credits is acting in bad faith. It means the system is built on estimates of things that didn’t happen, and those estimates are made by people who are paid when they’re generous.
The law has caught up
In the EU, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/825) applies from 27 September 2026. It bans claims, to consumers, that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the climate because of offsetting. It also bans generic claims such as “eco-friendly” or “climate friendly” unless you can show recognised excellent environmental performance. Northern Ireland firms selling into Ireland or the rest of the EU need to check their packaging, websites and adverts.
In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority’s Green Claims Code already says claims must be truthful, clear and not omit important information, including whether a claim relies on offsetting. Since April 2025, under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the CMA can fine businesses directly for breaking consumer law, up to 10% of global turnover.
Target-setters agree. The Science Based Targets initiative doesn’t let carbon credits count towards a company’s emission reduction targets. Credits can sit alongside them, as extra action, but not instead of them.
Why offsets do harm, not just nothing
If offsets were simply useless, they’d be a waste of money. The bigger problem is that they delay real action.
A board that believes it is already “carbon neutral” has no reason to fund the heat pump, the better insulation or the conversation with the supplier whose steel makes up half its footprint. The offset buys peace of mind, and peace of mind is the enemy of change. It also exposes the business: to greenwashing complaints, to customers who check, and to staff who notice the gap between the claim and the car park.
What to do instead
- Measure honestly. Know your Scope 1, 2 and, as far as you can, Scope 3 emissions. My Carbon Jigsaw gives a rough start from your bills.
- Cut what you can control. Energy efficiency, fuel switching, refrigerant management, fleet and travel. These save money as well as carbon. Most are found in the plant room, not the report.
- Work your supply chain. For most manufacturers, the biggest emissions are in what they buy. Asking suppliers for data, and choosing lower-carbon materials, does more than any certificate.
- Say what you’ve done, not what you’ve bought. “We’ve cut our emissions by 30% since 2022” is honest, checkable and impressive. “Carbon neutral” isn’t.
- If you fund projects, call it a contribution. Supporting a high-quality project is fine. Describe it as financing climate action beyond your own footprint, not as cancelling it out. Look for projects that remove carbon durably, or that are rated against recognised quality standards, and be ready to explain your choice.
The bottom line
You can’t buy your way to a lower footprint. You have to change what you do. The good news is that the changes usually pay for themselves, and they give you a story you can tell without a lawyer reading it first.
If you’d like help checking your claims or building a reduction plan that will stand up, get in touch.
This post is general information, not legal advice.