Here is something from the popular press: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/buying-carbon-offsets-for-your-flight-doesnt-help/ https://www.nytimes.com/

Here is something from the popular press: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/buying-carbon-offsets-for-your-flight-doesnt-help/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/buying-carbon-off... Here is something academic on the aviation industry specifically (though I find their work a bit incomplete, because they don't address that the overall scheme is flawed, even where communication is accurate):https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261517721001497 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02615... Here is an assessment of carbon offsets by a certifier themselves. They hold that 30% of their offsets are "high quality". The assessment is in response to an investigation by the Guardian which found that 94% of offsets don't hold much weight: https://www.sylvera.com/blog/guardian-offsets-response https://www.sylvera.com/blog/guardian-offsets-response And finally, my favorite, but wordy. Because I need to see things "in action" to believe them. Here is an in-depth example of an offset project. Tldr: in that specific case, it's accounting magic. You build a model that predicts growing emissions in the future, so by just keeping emissions stable you can claim emission offsets: https://sci-hub.se/10.1057/s41265-016-0024-4 https://sci-hub.se/10.1057/s41265-016-0024-4 If you have any kind of reaction, or thoughts, let me know. This is part of my day-to-day work, so I am always curious to learn how to communicate things.