JPMorgan Chase has signed two major carbon removal agreements this month. The first one involves a purchase of 60,000 metric tons of durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over ten years from climate startup Graphyte. The deal uses biomass-based technology that converts agricultural and timber waste into stable carbon blocks stored underground.
In parallel, JPMorgan has also secured 85,000 tons of forest-based carbon removal credits through improved forest management projects. These credits, marketed by Anew Climate, come from U.S. forest projects managed by Aurora Sustainable Lands.
They aim to extend harvest cycles, boost forest health, and enhance long-term carbon storage. The approach helps maintain higher carbon stocks in working forests while supporting biodiversity and sustainable timber production.
Taylor Wright, Head of Operational Sustainability at JPMorgan Chase, noted:
“We were excited to add credits from the Little Bear Forestry Project to our carbon removal portfolio. The dynamic baselining provides meaningful evidence that these credits meet a high threshold for quality, supporting our interests as both a buyer and as a steward of market integrity.”
Carbon Removal Still Small, But Growing Fast
The agreements are part of a broader push by the bank to expand its carbon removal portfolio. While the total volume is small compared to global emissions, the deals highlight a shift in corporate climate strategies.
Companies are now focusing more on durable carbon removal, not just emission reductions. JPMorgan’s mix of engineered and nature-based solutions also reflects a growing trend toward portfolio diversification in carbon removal sourcing.
Carbon removal remains a small but critical part of climate action. The United States emits about 5 billion tons of CO₂ per year, showing how limited current removal volumes still are.
However, long-term demand is expected to grow sharply. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that by 2100, the world might need to remove 100 to 1,000 gigatons of CO₂. By mid-century, annual removal should reach about 10 gigatons per year.
Today’s market is far from that scale. Most carbon removal deals are measured in thousands or hundreds of thousands of tons. But these early contracts are seen as critical. They help build supply, reduce costs, and attract investment into new technologies.
JPMorgan’s latest deals fit this pattern. Together, the 60,000-ton biomass contract and 85,000-ton forest-based agreement provide long-term demand signals across different removal pathways. This helps scale both emerging engineered solutions and more established nature-based approaches.
Turning Waste Into Permanent Carbon Storage
Graphyte’s process, known as “carbon casting,” uses natural carbon capture through plants. Biomass absorbs CO₂ through photosynthesis. The material is then dried, compressed, and sealed to prevent decomposition. This allows the carbon to remain stored for long periods.
The company uses waste materials such as crop residues and timber byproducts. This reduces the need for new land use and lowers overall costs. The process also uses relatively low energy compared to other removal methods.
Projects linked to the JPMorgan deal include facilities in Arkansas and Arizona. These projects also provide added benefits. For example, using forest thinning residues can help reduce wildfire risk and support land restoration.
This reflects a broader trend in carbon markets. Buyers are increasingly looking for projects that deliver both carbon removal and environmental co-benefits. The bank’s forest-based deal reinforces this trend by supporting improved forest management practices that enhance carbon storage while maintaining productive landscapes.
JPMorgan’s $1 Trillion Net Zero Strategy and Climate Finance Push
JPMorgan’s carbon removal investments are part of a wider climate strategy. The bank has committed to facilitating $1 trillion in climate and sustainable development financing by 2030. It has already deployed about $309 billion between 2021 and 2024 toward this goal.
In addition to financing, the bank is building a diversified carbon removal portfolio. Since 2023, it has signed deals to cut hundreds of thousands of tons of CO₂. This includes a plan for up to 800,000 tons of carbon removal through long-term contracts.
The company aims to match its unabated operational emissions with durable carbon removal by 2030.
JPMorgan is also investing in a range of technologies. These include direct air capture, bio-oil sequestration, biomass storage, and forest-based removal. Its latest forest deal shows a continued commitment to high-quality, nature-based removals that meet stricter standards for durability and verification.
This diversified approach helps reduce risk while supporting different pathways to scale. Compared to many financial institutions, JPMorgan remains an early mover. Most large buyers in carbon removal are still technology companies, particularly Microsoft.
Microsoft Pullback Shakes Market Confidence
However, Microsoft, the largest buyer of carbon removal credits, has reportedly paused new purchases.
The tech giant has played a dominant role in the market. It accounts for up to 90% of global carbon removal purchases and has contracted more than 45 million tons of CO₂ removal to date. In 2025 alone, the company signed agreements for 45 million tons, doubling its 2024 volume and far exceeding any other buyer.
However, reports suggest the company may be adjusting the pace of new deals. This shift does not mean the end of carbon removal demand, but it signals a transition.
The market can no longer rely on a single dominant buyer. In this context, JPMorgan’s continued activity—across both engineered and nature-based deals—shows how new buyers are stepping in to support market stability.
Market Trends: From Cheap Offsets to High-Durability Carbon Credits
The carbon market is evolving quickly. Traditional carbon credits often focus on avoiding emissions, such as protecting forests. However, there is growing demand for removal-based credits that physically take CO₂ out of the atmosphere.
Corporate net-zero goals drive this shift. Many companies now face limits on how much they can reduce emissions directly. Carbon removal is becoming necessary to address remaining emissions.
At the same time, supply remains limited. High-quality removal credits are scarce. This keeps carbon prices high, especially for engineered solutions.
Early buyers like JPMorgan are helping shape the market. Long-term contracts provide price signals and encourage project development. They also help define standards for quality and verification.
Another key trend is the focus on durability. Buyers prefer solutions that store carbon for decades or centuries, rather than short-term offsets.
Early-Stage Market, High-Stakes Growth
Despite growing momentum, carbon removal is still in its early stages. Current volumes are small compared to global needs. Policy support is also limited in many regions.
However, corporate demand is rising. Deals like JPMorgan’s show how private sector investment is driving the market forward.
The combination of long-term contracts, new technologies, and climate finance is expected to accelerate growth. Over time, this could help bring down costs and expand supply.
For now, the focus remains on building scale. Each new agreement adds to a growing pipeline of projects. These projects will play a key role in meeting long-term climate targets.
JPMorgan’s latest purchases may be modest in size. But together, they reflect a larger shift. Carbon removal is moving from early experimentation to a more structured and investable market, supported by a broader mix of buyers and solutions.
The post JPMorgan’s Carbon Bet Marks a Turning Point for the Removal Market appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”