When we consider the validity of an offsetting program, I think it's important to remember where offsetting came from. Carbon offsets were introduced because some aspects of human life necessitate emissions (like manufacturing or energy production), and carbon offset credits are meant to give organizations a way to "make up" for the emissions they couldn't otherwise avoid. We allow a certain amount of moral equivalence between refraining from emissions and offsetting emissions because there is no viable alternative.
The disconnect, in the diet offsetting case, is that most EAs don't live a life that necessitates meat consumption, so I don't think we should the same sense of moral equivalence between refraining from meat and purchasing diet offsets.
I think you make a lot of really good points.
When we consider the validity of an offsetting program, I think it's important to remember where offsetting came from. Carbon offsets were introduced because some aspects of human life necessitate emissions (like manufacturing or energy production), and carbon offset credits are meant to give organizations a way to "make up" for the emissions they couldn't otherwise avoid. We allow a certain amount of moral equivalence between refraining from emissions and offsetting emissions because there is no viable alternative.
The disconnect, in the diet offsetting case, is that most EAs don't live a life that necessitates meat consumption, so I don't think we should the same sense of moral equivalence between refraining from meat and purchasing diet offsets.