In a recent announcement, CO280 and Aker Carbon Capture are partnering with Microsoft to supply considerable amounts of cost-effective and high-quality Carbon Dioxide Removals (CDRs) to the market. This brand-new collaboration aims to expand the entire carbon removal value chain by capturing and permanently storing biogenic CO2 at pulp and paper mills.
Aker Carbon Capture, previously a division of Aker Solutions, carries all the 20 years of Aker Solutions’ CCUS experience, experts, technology and project references.
Microsoft-Aker Carbon Capture- CO280 Partnership: Leveraging Expertise for Efficient Carbon Removal
The three companies have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to investigate possibilities for boosting the “physical and digital value chain of carbon removal” in the US and Canada.
The trio will powerfully leverage their cutting-edge technologies, robust knowledge, and ample resources to accelerate the transition to global net zero.
Furthermore, they plan to ramp up the market by creating scalable models to implement large-scale carbon removal projects.
Notably, the main aim of the partnership is to utilize the advantages of each to uplift the carbon ecosystem. The joint effort would inevitably boost high-quality carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market.
The tri-party has signed a MoU agreement that defines the significant elements related to the development and execution of carbon projects.
Supporting this landmark move, Egil Fagerland, CEO of Aker Carbon Capture, said,
“It’s time to move past the first-of-a-kind and the demonstration projects for carbon removal. The deployment rate needs to be accelerated by the hundreds to deliver the ‘net’ in net zero. We have demonstrated the strength of working together in the past, and we are excited to expand our collaboration with Microsoft and CO280 to further deliver impact.”
Unlocking the Key Areas of the Partnership as per the MoU
Aker Carbon Capture has rolled out the tri-party MoU that has highlighted the following areas they would be working on:
1. Exploring Biogenic Projects
Developing biogenic carbon capture projects, including projects currently in CO280’s development pipeline, as well as additional projects. Biogenic carbon projects include the C02 which is absorbed, stored, and emitted by organic matter like soil and trees. Hence, the pulp and paper industry is given priority.
2. Leveraging Joint Efforts of CO280 and ACC
CO280 will apply its expertise to develop a standard and efficient screening process for evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of carbon capture in pulp and paper mills. Subsequently, they will deploy Aker Carbon Capture’s hallmark “Just Catch” series.
Just Catch modular solutions facilitate rapid and large-scale deployment of capture technology. According to media reports, ACC currently delivers seven carbon capture units: five Just Catch 100 units to Ørsted, one Just Catch 100 unit to Twence and a Big Catch delivery to Heidelberg Materials at Brevik.
3. Utilizing Microsoft’s Premium Technology and Digital Solutions
Darryl Willis, Corporate Vice President of Energy and Resources Industry at Microsoft, noted,
“By leveraging the power of technology to create a digital value chain for carbon tracking and reporting, we can equip the market for high-integrity carbon removal credits and further enable the industrial sector to decarbonize.”
The collaboration aims to standardize lifecycle assessment (LCA) and measurement, verification, and reporting (MRV) systems for capture projects in pulp and paper.
It ambitiously seeks to leverage Microsoft’s digital capabilities, cloud computing platforms, services, and solutions. The MoU also defines creating a digital tool to compare CO280’s planned projects against Microsoft’s Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Removal.
4. Driving the Change through Leadership
Microsoft, the tech giant, along with ACC and CO280, the pioneers of carbon capture, have immense potential to kickstart this massive project.
The initiative promotes policies and displays bold leadership to boost the carbon capture market in the pulp and paper industry. This would automatically help create and utilize high-integrity carbon removal credits.
- MUST READ: Microsoft to Purchase 95,000 Biochar Carbon Removal Credits from The Next 150 • Carbon Credits
Harnessing North America’s Paper and Pulp Industry for CDR Projects
The pulp and paper industry in North America holds significant potential for carbon removal. It opens a window to remove up to 130 MT of CO2 annually. Furthermore, the paper and pulp industry has a unique emissions profile, where the average mill emits CO2 that is 80-90% biogenic in nature.
Biogenic CO2 emissions, originating from organic materials like wood, fiber, etc. offer a distinct advantage in carbon removal efforts.
By capturing and permanently storing these emissions, the industry can achieve negative emissions. This means that more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere than is being emitted during the production process.
This opportunity for negative emissions presents a pivotal pathway in combating climate change. Through advanced CCS technologies, the pulp and paper sector can play a crucial role in mitigating GHG emissions and contributing to global efforts to achieve net-zero carbon emissions.
Pulp and paper emissions intensity in the Net Zero Scenario, 2018-2030
NZE= Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario.
source: International Energy Agency (IEA)
Partnership Commitments: A Call to Action for Net-Zero Transition
Microsoft’s Ambition
In 2020, Microsoft announced ambitious carbon goals: to become carbon negativity by 2030 and eliminate its carbon footprint by 2050. The journey began with minimizing carbon emissions, transitioning to carbon-free energy, and actively removing remaining emissions. Since then, the company has been dedicated to establishing a robust market for carbon dioxide removals. Being powered by a digital value chain, it can accurately track carbon and generate credits efficiently.
source: Microsoft
CO280’s CDR Initiatives
CO280, the Vancouver-based company is a top developer of CDR projects within the pulp and paper sector. Through strategic partnerships within this industry, CO280 leads the development, financing, ownership, and operation of large-scale CDR initiatives.
Currently, the company boasts a robust pipeline of projects, with more than 10 million tons per year of permanent CDR under development. These projects signify a step forward to carbon neutrality and bring a meaningful change within the pulp and paper industry.
Jonathan Rhone, Chief Executive Officer of CO280, said,
“This commitment on the part of three best-in-class companies is exactly the kind of bold move the industry needs to unlock the enormous removal opportunity in the pulp and paper industry and scale up the CDR market. Together, we are developing the largest scale, lowest cost, permanent carbon removal projects in the world.”
ACC’s Unique CC technology
On the other side, Aker Carbon Capture (ACC), the Norway-based company offers its blueprint carbon capture (CC) technology to reduce and remove CO2 emissions from industrial plants. Their solution uses a mixture of water and organic amine solvents to absorb CO2. It is useful for various sectors such as gas, coal, cement, refineries, bio- and waste-to-energy, and hydrogen. Notably, this technology would be immensely beneficial in decarbonizing the paper and pulp industry.
To keep a strong foothold in the decarbonization race, Microsoft believes in collaborating with like-minded companies. All considered, this partnership with Aker Carbon Capture and CO280 holds great significance in realizing their vision of a net-zero future.
The post Microsoft Teams Up with Aker Carbon Capture and CO280 to Boost CDRs appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 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”
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits