The general counter-argument to this position is that it assumes over-consumption to be ok. In other words, saying "X put Y tons of CO2 in the air, they must pay for carbon offsets" doesn't necessarily disincentivize the CO2 to be put out in the first place (meaning there's no downward pressure to reduce consumption of other ancillary resources, e.g. oil extraction, metal mines, etc)

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.