As far as I'm aware, most people feel carbon offsetting largely hasn't worked. Does that mean offsetting meat consumption is a dead-end?
I argue no. If we look at the 2 main reasons why carbon offsetting has failed to reach it's potential, we can see that meat offsetting does not have these problems. As a result, meat offsetting may be an effective strategy to reduce animal suffering.
Here I am discussing a very narrow question, which is whether the failure of carbon offsets tells us that meat offsets will not work. There are wider debates to be had around meat offsetting, such as whether it is morally permissible. I’m not commenting on that here, and I’ve seen good arguments on both sides.
This should also not be taken as an endorsement of FarmKind’s “Forget Veganuary” campaign they ran earlier this year. Evaluating that campaign involves a lot more than just offsetting, and I have nuanced thoughts about it that I won’t go into here. However, as FarmKind’s theory of change is offsets, this post can be taken as a defence of the idea behind that.
Summarised here. Problems included:
This scam risk does not apply to meat offsetting, at least in the case of FarmKind. they send offsetting donations go to 3rd party evaluated organisations that I am very confident do reduce demand for meat or reduce animal suffering or both. See them here. Similarly, FarmKind themselves are not conducting the evaluations. They are relying on independent evaluators (e.g. Animal Charity Evaluators) who have a good track record of estimating impact as accurately as feasible.
So long as you donate to effective animal charities to offset meat consumption, there is no scam.
First, the evidence for moral licensing is weaker than it sounds. A 2025 review of 115 experiments found it only showed up when people were being watched. When nobody was watching, the evidence pointed to no effect at all. Moral licensing is by no means a “psychological fact” that many people seem to believe.
Second, many offsetting programmes don’t increase the cost to consumers, which I think is crucial for them to work. It's intuitive to me that for offsetting to change behaviour, consumer must actually have to pay their own money for offsetting. For example, some carbon offsetting programmes from airline companies did not charge consumers the extra money to offset their emissions, or didn’t charge the full cost. Instead, the airline bore some/all of that cost. It’s obvious why that wouldn’t get consumers to reduce emissions, because in a very real way you haven’t imposed a cost on them.
On the other hand, meat offsets are a direct cost to the meat eater. They are increasing the cost of meat to that consumer. And people eat less meat when it gets more expensive. Whilst I haven’t seen a direct study on meat offsets, I’d argue there is stronger indirect evidence that it would work. This means that meat offsets could have a double benefit: reducing consumption of meat at the individual level and at the systemic level through donations.
Carbon offsetting doesn't work even if it is a legit offset. Carbon offsetting is a scientifically flawed concept. We extract carbon in the form of fossil fuels that took millions of years to get deep in the earth, and offset it with carbon captured on the surface of the earth which will still take millions more years to return to form of the carbon we 'offsetted'. (see source for this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1804). I think that meat offsets are similarly flawed. At the end of the day you still harmed someone.