In this study we elicit participants’ preferences for a variety of attributes when choosing between different carbon offsets. Using a discrete choice experiment, we make students compare and decide between different types of carbon offsets based on various attributes. Results show that respondents obtain an increased marginal utility for carbon offsets of projects (i) sourced from ”biodiversity conservation and regeneration”, “manufacturing companies that replace traditional sources of energy for renewable sources of energy (i.e., solar and wind)”, “forestry conservation and regeneration”, and “sustainable agriculture practices”, (ii) verified by “a non-profit organization” and “a government entity”, (iii) originated in “a regulated market”, and (iv) “near their home location (assuming they are based in the US)”, followed by the option “in a developing country”. We find that concrete differences in the willingness to pay for the attributes provide substantiating argument for a behavioral component that explains why the price of the Nature-Based Global Emissions Offset futures contract is higher than the Global Emissions Offset futures contract, when the underlying asset or deliverable is the same for both: 1,000 environmental offsets, each representing 1 Mt CO2e. Given that voluntary carbon markets are a complementary tool to policy development on environmental markets, these results might be useful to consider when establishing the rules for compliance carbon markets.