End Plastics
Everything You Need to Know About Plastic Offsets
August 22, 2025
We are drowning in plastic. Every year, the world produces over 460 million metric tons of plastic, and numbers are expected to double or triple by 2050, much of it discarded after a single use.
Despite growing public awareness of the devastating impacts— oceans clogged with plastic debris, landfills overflowing, microplastics invading our bodies, harming wildlife, and causing illness— the problem only worsens. Plastic pollution continues to escalate exponentially, driven by our overwhelming reliance on fossil-fuel-based plastics. With less than 10% effectively recycled, much plastic still leaks into the environment, causing irreversible damage to ecosystems and human health.
The data leaves no doubt: the tidal wave of plastics is a mounting crisis that demands urgent global action before it irreversibly chokes our planet.
Many promote reusable bags and recycling as solutions. Yet in reality, producing recycled plastic costs more than making virgin plastics, demand is relatively low, most plastics aren’t recyclable, and there isn’t enough infrastructure to recycle them anyway.
But there’s a new way that industry can cheat the system— it’s called plastic offsets— and it is worryingly gaining ground. As with carbon offsets, plastic offsets provide a convenient way for companies and individuals to claim environmental progress— by paying for plastic cleanup efforts without actually reducing plastic use. Sustainability goals are now widely expected of businesses, though less so in the U.S. for obvious reasons, and they remain a major priority globally. As a result, many are exploring this strategy to claim net-zero plastic targets, despite continuing practices that contribute to the problem.
However, just like carbon offsets, plastic offsets have sparked much debate. Critics argue that they are misleading, ineffective, and aren’t getting to the source of the issue. As plastic offsets gain traction, it’s time to take a closer look: Can they lead to real reductions or are they just a distraction that allows companies to delay meaningful action?
Purchasing Plastic Offsets
The plastic credit market is just four years old, with no universally accepted definitions, standards, or regulations. The World Bank defines a plastic credit as “a transferable unit representing a specific quantity of plastic that is avoided from use, collected and managed, or recycled.” These credits fund various plastic removal projects, such as land and ocean cleanups, landfill diversion, and both mechanical and chemical recycling.
Before offsetting begins, companies must first assess their plastic footprint, accounting for plastic across the entire supply chain from production to disposal. Once the footprint is measured, companies purchase plastic credits directly from a project developer or, more commonly, through third-party crediting standards.
Third-party crediting standards are often presented as more trustworthy because they have defined methodologies, independent verification, and public registries. But even these systems vary widely in quality, and transparency is far from guaranteed.
The Very Minimal Benefits
Plastic credits present a relatively simple and scalable opportunity for companies to offset their waste, especially for those struggling to reduce plastic use at the source. They offer an opportunity for early-stage sustainability efforts, while longer-term solutions are developed which address the root causes of plastic pollution.
The plastic offsetting framework also works to create economic opportunity for marginalized groups. Plastic reduction projects aim to provide a sustainable income to low-income communities and improve working conditions by enforcing safety protocols and stronger labor standards into local waste management systems.
Many plastic crediting standards publicize their plastic accounting methodologies. This information can then be used by other plastic pollution initiatives to improve their reporting. If widely adopted, these methods could improve data on plastic waste and fill gaps in the supply chain, yet still, inconsistencies across programs continue to limit the comparability and credibility of the system.
The Very Serious and Multiple Criticisms
Much like carbon credits, plastic offsets are steeped in controversy— and for good reason. Critics argue that plastic credits mask the problem rather than solving it, and many dismiss the process altogether.
A central concern is that plastic credits don’t address the root issue of the plastic crisis, and instead act as a temporary bandaid. By allowing companies to offset waste without changing how products are designed, produced, or managed, credits risk enabling a business-as-usual approach while creating an illusion of sustainability.
Another common criticism, mirroring that of carbon offsets, is additionality. Plastic reduction projects must be additional, meaning they would not have occurred without the financial incentive provided by the offset. Yet experts doubt whether these projects are actually “additional” and research shows that many projects began years before the plastic credits were even introduced.
A further concern is the risk of double counting. This occurs when a plastic credit is claimed by more than one entity, including project developers, governments, or the company purchasing credits. This can happen by accident, but is also done deliberately by companies for financial gain. Double counting invalidates the credibility of the plastic offset market, leading to inflated impact claims that greenwash consumers.
To make matters worse, there is also debate as to whether the plastic reduction projects themselves are even legitimate. An investigation into the two leaders in the plastic credit market, Verra and Plastic Credit Exchange (PCX), reveal various unsettling findings. These companies’ plastic reduction projects involve the burning of plastics in cement kilns, which releases toxic emissions and undermines the environmental benefits of plastic collection. In fact, 86% of PCX’s credits and 22% of Verra’s are linked to incineration.
It is also important to note that while companies like Verra have implemented the Plastic Waste Reduction Standard in an effort to address these issues, global standards for plastic offsets still remain a major hurdle. In practice, each organization follows its own protocols, leading to inconsistent governance across the market. Without a clear and consistent framework, processes like credit verification, tracking, and enforcement remain unreliable.
The Road Ahead for Plastic Offsets Is a Dead End
Plastic offsets, in their current form, fall short of solving the plastic pollution crisis and will go nowhere to reducing our plastic crisis. Despite being attractive to companies as a way to decrease their plastic footprint, they offer only a blatantly superficial alternative to tackling the root issue: reducing plastic production.
The plastic credit system has failed to deliver meaningful results. Despite its growing popularity, it suffers from weak oversight, loose standards, and harmful disposal practices that limit real impact.
EARTHDAY.ORG believes that reducing plastic production remains the most powerful step towards change. And while offsets may one day offer meaningful support, they are not a substitute for action at the source. That’s why we invite you to sign the Global Plastics Treaty, helping us demand stricter plastic legislation and global cooperation to hold corporations accountable.
This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at [email protected] or [email protected]. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.
