Conference Agenda

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is critical for achieving net-zero targets, particularly for addressing residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors such as agriculture and aviation. This study examines willingness to buy voluntary carbon offsets (VCOs) across different emission sources and compensation methods. Using a factorial online survey experiment with 2,400 participants in Germany, we varied both the emission source - air travel vs. meat consumption - and the offset method - afforestation, peatland restoration, seagrass restoration, or solar parks. Furthermore, we varied the price. Participants were more willing to purchase offsets for air travel emissions than for meat consumption, likely due to a lower perceived climate impact of meat and weaker psychological pressure to mitigate it. Afforestation emerged as the most preferred offset method, reflecting familiarity and a strong emotional connection to forests. However, peatland restoration led to a unique outcome: when offered as an offset, participants were equally likely to compensate for meat and flight emissions. This suggests a sectoral mental accounting effect, where respondents linked peatland restoration with agricultural emissions, reinforcing the perceived need for compensation of environmental damage in the same sector. Our findings underscore key challenges for climate policy. The reluctance to offset meat-related emissions highlights gaps in public awareness regarding agricultural emissions, which are difficult to reduce technologically and will constitute a major share of residual emissions requiring compensation. Additionally, the strong preference for ecosystem-based solutions over renewable energy investments suggests potential biases in public support for mitigation strategies. Addressing these perceptions through targeted communication and education could enhance acceptance of a broader portfolio of climate solutions, ensuring that offsets complement rather than substitute direct emission reductions.