I hold a third opinion.

Offsets are a promise to get rid of carbon for a price. There is a strong incentive to cheat and make the promise, collect the money, then do less than you promised to do. No matter what accountability mechanisms you create, eventually someone will fail to be completely honest, and will deliver cheap offsets as a result. The result is good prices. Eventually the failures of the market to actually deliver on their promise will become a scandal, but those scandals take a long time to materialize so we won't hear about it for a long time.

Which means it might or might not work, and we probably won't hear much about it if it doesn't.

Making this less hypothetical, go read https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconv... for some investigative reporting on how often carbon offsets aren't actually doing what is promised.

The result? In the two large scale programs that have evaluations, the results were that 85% of efforts undertaken under the Clean Development Mechanism were likely ineffective, and 75% of those under Joint Implementation likewise were.

And yet, despite documentation of how ineffective those programs are, do you hear a lot of public scandals about ineffective carbon offsets?

Between perverse incentives and the history of failure, I do not expect future programs to do better. Nor do I expect to hear much about the failures that I think are going on.

Cool Effect conducts itself in a way to avoid those issues, and was almost certainly chosen with those potential issues in mind.

Additionally, the 3x funding suggests they are aware that an offset project has some inherent inefficiency.

if the incentives are not aligned, it's a dying proposition. incentives are very powerful

You missed the obvious larger problem with offsets: green washing. By giving people the ability to absolve themselves of guilt, they may change their behavior in response. Taking that extra flight, buying that new vehicle, owning the larger house. If (a) is true, then the existence of the offset is actually harmful.

But not if they're paying for that all with offsets, right? Or do you hold to my proposition a?

Huh? The point of offsets is to reduce carbon. I don’t care about the effect on you personally. If their existence causes more carbon through a combination of: a) ineffective programs and b) secondary physiological effects, then no one should support them (and ideally, they would just be disallowed by regulators — as it would be both in consumers and environmental interests — and replaced with mechanisms and incentives that actually work).

For clarity: I think they probably do work and there’s value there, but I think there are good reasons to be skeptical and evaluate carefully.