Here’s how they advertise it:
A corporation in the US is polluting more than regulations allow. Instead of reducing emissions, they decide it is cheaper to invest in carbon reduction schemes abroad. Thus, their investments in reducing the world’s carbon cancels out their excess pollution.
Let’s take Chevron, for example. Chevron wants to pollute more in Richmond, California, so Chevron “offsets” these emissions by “ending” gas flaring in Chevron Nigeria. According to Chevron, their carbon credits balance out in the end.
Here’s the reality:
But gas flaring was already illegal in Nigeria. With weak to little international environmental oversight, there are no accountable actors to decide the value of a carbon credit.
Balancing out the carbon credit market does not reduce pollution. Instead, it allows wealthy corporations to pay to pollute at discount prices. There is a better way to reduce emissions, and that involves holding polluters accountable with clear regulations on local levels.

The World Bank declared a “mandate” to help reduce emissions at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Instead of lowering emissions, the World Bank lowered regulations for corporate polluters, and made money doing so. Click here to read more.