Case in point: bottled water costs a fortune compared to the equivalent amount of tap water (despite being basically the same or worse quality in many cases) and yet people are more than happy to pay the premium. The CA surtax on plastic bottles is but a blip on the radar for most consumers there.
It's similar to the discussion about how one side says having recycling programs makes over-consumption forgivable, but in practice, everything breaks down because manufacturers meld different recyclable materials together in such a way that makes the package unrecycleable, or use plastic types that cannot be sold by recyclers due to low demand, or consumers contaminate their trash, etc, and we just end up trucking mountains and mountains of unusable bales of materials to landfills somewhere instead.
The "let people do whatever as long as someone else picks up the externalized costs" is exactly how we got to the situation where the US was exporting plastic waste to China only to realize we now have a microplastics clusterfuck in our hands. So you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about the assumption that carbon offsets work 100% efficiently by merely looking at the amount of money transferring hands.