Alice, Charles and Mike cooperate in this charity. The participation of all is indispensable for the outcome. So they each have a counterfactual impact on 1 animal.
If each of them were to assume to have offset one previous animal product consumption of theirs through this project, that would be triple counting. For this reason counterfactual values of donations shouldn’t be used in offsetting calculations.
I’m not sure about this. Suppose that C & M are both committed to offsetting their past consumption, and also that both will count the present co-operative effort, should it go ahead, as a ‘+1 offset’. Then the counterfactual impact of Alice cooperating with them is saving 1 animal + causing two future animals not to be saved, i.e. an overall negative effect.
So I think the counterfactual approach works fine, and is compatible with your observation that offsetting may be more difficult than would at first appear. (But it really depends upon the details—in particular, whether it’s really true that your attempted offset will cause multiple others to do less good in future.)
I’m not sure about this. Suppose that C & M are both committed to offsetting their past consumption, and also that both will count the present co-operative effort, should it go ahead, as a ‘+1 offset’. Then the counterfactual impact of Alice cooperating with them is saving 1 animal + causing two future animals not to be saved, i.e. an overall negative effect.
So I think the counterfactual approach works fine, and is compatible with your observation that offsetting may be more difficult than would at first appear. (But it really depends upon the details—in particular, whether it’s really true that your attempted offset will cause multiple others to do less good in future.)