4. The Complexity of Carbon Credits & Carbon Offsetting

 

💰 The Voluntary Carbon Market & Pricing Variability

 

The Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) allows companies, organizations, governments, and individuals to purchase carbon credits to offset their greenhouse gas emissions outside of regulatory requirements. These credits represent the removal or reduction of one metric ton of CO₂ or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases.

​

However, the VCM is highly variable and complex, presenting challenges for buyers and policymakers to navigate. Several factors contribute to this:

​

• Wide range of prices: Carbon credits range from $5 to $100 per metric ton, depending on project type, quality, and verification standards.

• Lack of regulation: With no universal oversight or mandatory standards, organizations are free to choose offsets based on cost rather than effectiveness, leaving many critical restoration efforts underfunded (For example, without clear guidelines, buyers often assume all carbon credits are equal and simply opt for the cheapest option—even if it lacks long-term impact or proper verification).

• Uncertain impact & permanence: Many low-cost offsets, such as tree-planting projects, lack long-term effectiveness and fail to account for deforestation risks.

• Market-driven fluctuations: The price of carbon credits depends on supply and demand, rather than the true cost of climate damage or the need for high-quality restoration work.

 

➡️ The Carbon Onset plan provides an alternative, ensuring carbon investments align with environmental justice principles rather than market fluctuations.

​

📉 The Market’s Failure to Account for True Environmental Costs

 

In market economics, carbon emissions are considered an externality—meaning that polluters do not pay the true cost of their impact on society. Instead, the environmental and social consequences (such as air pollution, health issues, and climate disasters) are absorbed by the public and future generations rather than those responsible for the emissions.

 

🔍 What this means:

• Offsets often compensate rather than prevent emissions, failing to address the root causes of environmental harm.

• Many businesses rely on offsets instead of reducing their emissions, using them as a way to maintain unsustainable practices.

• Without policies that internalize these costs, polluters have little financial incentive to change their behavior—shifting the burden onto vulnerable communities and ecosystems.

 

➡️ Onsets are a tool to change our behavior. They can work independently of offsets or in harmony with those that are properly regulated and accountable.

​

📉 The Reality of Carbon Offsets: Varied Success & Misuse

 

Not all offsets are created equal—some play a meaningful role in carbon reduction, while others are misused or fail to deliver real benefits.

 

✔️ The potential of high-quality offsets:

​

• When designed with long-term planning and community involvement, offsets can support reforestation, conservation, and carbon sequestration efforts that create lasting benefits.

 

❌ The risks & challenges:

​

• Greenwashing concerns: Some institutions mislead consumers by branding themselves as sustainable while making minimal or ineffective climate investments.

• Offsets cannot replace emission reductions: They should complement, not justify, high-carbon activities.

• Behavioral & systemic change is required: The climate crisis cannot be solved through offsets alone—structural shifts in consumption, policies, and accountability are needed.

 

➡️ Offsets, when done effectively and ethically, play a role in a holistic climate strategy. They should never be an excuse for inaction.

​

📜 Certification and Verification: Who Ensures the Impact?

 

Certification and verification are meant to ensure credibility, but not all systems are equally reliable:

 

✔️ The role of certification:

​

• High-quality certifications ensure that carbon credits deliver real, measurable climate benefits and help buyers make trustworthy investments.

 

❌ Challenges with certification models:

​

• Exposed for overstating the effectiveness of their projects, leading to false claims of carbon neutrality.

• Certification is expensive, making it inaccessible to small-scale, community-led initiatives that still provide high-impact restoration solutions.

 

➡️ Not all impactful projects fit traditional certification models. Small-scale local and community-led initiatives may lack access to expensive certifications but still provide high-impact, regenerative solutions that directly benefit ecosystems and local people.

​

📜 How Pachaysana Verifies and Certifies Carbon Onsetting

 

Unlike traditional carbon offset markets, where third-party certifications are often required to validate impact, the Carbon Onset model prioritizes transparency, community participation, and direct verification.

​

📋 A Different Approach to Verification

 

Instead of relying on expensive, often inaccessible certification bodies, we use a community-driven verification system that ensures:

​​

• Direct tracking and reporting – Every eco-action (specific, community-led restoration and conservation activities such as seed collection, reforestation, or soil regeneration) is monitored and documented with photos, progress reports, and testimonies from those directly involved. 

  • This way, those who purchase onsets can see the real-life impact of their investment, with tangible proof of progress.

• On-the-ground impact assessment – Local partners and community leaders play a key role in verifying that funds are used effectively and fairly for ecosystem restoration and climate resilience. 

  • This way, the people most affected by climate change ensure that they are the primary financial beneficiaries of your investment.

• International students, faculty, and visitors verify the work firsthand – Unlike traditional offsets, our programs involve long-term engagement, where study abroad students, interns, volunteers, and faculty members actively participate in restoration efforts for weeks at a time. 

  • This way, investors can have their own people witness and verify the work being done on the ground, reinforcing trust and accountability.

• Full transparency through direct access – Visitors have full access to the projects, ensuring that communities cannot greenwash their actions. 

  • This way, any investor can visit the project at any time, guaranteeing that the work is authentic, sustainable, and continuously monitored.

• Regenerative practices over market labels – Rather than fitting into an outsider-imposed certification framework, our work is built around deep-rooted environmental and social responsibility.

  • This way, investments go beyond box-checking and contribute to long-term ecological and community well-being.

​​​

🌱 An Analogy: Organic Food in a College Cafeteria

 

Just as institutions can verify organic food sourcing through direct relationships and transparency rather than relying solely on third-party certifications, our approach to carbon onsetting ensures accountability through community engagement, long-term participation, and open access to projects—demonstrating real impact without the need for external market-driven labels.

​

• If a college cafeteria wants to prove they serve organic food, they typically buy from a certified organic supplier—ensuring credibility but often at a higher cost.

• However, what if the cafeteria buys from a small local farm that follows organic practices but cannot afford certification fees? Or what if the school grows its own produce through a campus farm initiative?

• In these cases, the cafeteria might verify its organic sourcing through direct relationships, transparent documentation, and farm visits—demonstrating true organic commitment without an external label.

​

Similarly, our verification system works directly with local communities, conservationists, and restorers, ensuring funding leads to real ecological restoration and climate justice outcomes—even if it doesn’t fit into conventional certification models.

​​​

🔍 Key Takeaways:

​

• The voluntary carbon market lacks consistency. 

• Low-cost offsets can be unreliable and carbon offsets don’t always reduce emissions. 

• Certifications provide credibility, but they aren’t perfect. 

• We use direct, community-driven verification with international students and visitors playing a role

• Carbon onsetting is a more just alternative, investing in community-led restoration, regenerative practices, and environmental justice.