But I agree with the sentiment. I think CO2 offsets could be more effective if done through a fund that funds specific de-carbonisation projects for our industries. For example, they could fund a transition from coal power plants to renewable power plants for power companies, so long as the power companies agree to not increase their carbon emissions and decommission their coal power plants in the process.
Or even a fund that simply subsidizes carbon filters for sources of pollution. Or a lobbying fund that's actually for the good of humanity, not for greed.
There are many creative solutions that could offset a ton of CO2 emissions cheaper. But not the carbon-offset grift we have now. Instead, actual programs with actual reports, auditing, and accountability. If such a fund claims they've recaptured one tonne of CO2, I would expect that there is at least 273kg-heavy pile of carbon or, more realistically, some kilograms of some carbonated substance somewhere.
If you have some centralized source like that, you should invest on replacing it with something that doesn't emit CO2. It's always a better deal.
Carbon capture is for sources where you just can't plug something like this.