Bezos Earth Fund, founded by billionaire Jeff Bezos, founder and former CEO of Amazon, launched a major initiative called the AI for Climate and Nature Grand Challenge in April 2024. The program pledges up to $100 million to support teams using artificial intelligence (AI) to solve environmental problems. Recently, it revealed its first grantees or recipients of the fund.
The funding initiative focuses on real-world solutions. It aims to reduce carbon emissions and protect wildlife using smart technology. The goal is to link AI experts with environmental groups. This helps them use AI to solve tough climate and nature problems.
Many of these organizations have strong ideas but lack the tech expertise or funding to apply AI. This is where the Bezos Earth Fund comes in, offering grants and encouraging teamwork across fields.
The challenge focuses on four main areas:
- Sustainable proteins. Finding AI tools that speed up the discovery and production of plant-based or alternative proteins.
- Biodiversity conservation. Using AI to track endangered species, protect ecosystems, and stop threats like illegal logging.
- Power grid optimization: Developing smarter, cleaner ways to store and distribute renewable energy.
- Wildcard innovations. Supporting creative AI ideas that don’t fit into a standard category but have strong environmental potential.
Let’s get to know who these grantees are and what they do.
Grantees Tackling Carbon Removal and Climate Solutions
In May 2025, the Bezos Earth Fund announced its first 24 grantees, each receiving $50,000 to build out their ideas. Some of the most impactful focus on climate mitigation and carbon removal, including:
-
Carbon Sim: CO₂ Removal Accelerator (Yale University)
This project uses AI-powered simulations to test and improve strategies for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). It aims to help scientists quickly evaluate which methods—like soil enhancement or ocean capture—are the most effective at storing carbon.
-
EV Charging Optimization (Cornell University)
Cornell’s team is creating a tool that uses real-time AI to manage charging for electric vehicles (EVs). It adjusts when and how cars are charged so they act as energy storage for the power grid. This can support the shift to renewable energy and help reduce emissions.
-
Livestock GPT
Another Cornell project, Livestock GPT is a generative AI tool that helps dairy farmers cut methane emissions. It includes a chatbot that gives feed and farm advice—especially for use in emerging economies—helping reduce climate-warming gases from livestock.
These climate-focused grantees aim to tackle emissions directly while making climate solutions more scalable and accessible.
Why This Matters for Climate and Nature
AI has the potential to supercharge global environmental efforts—but only if it’s applied wisely and equitably. The AI for Climate and Nature Grand Challenge is helping turn that potential into reality by:
- Giving environmental groups access to cutting-edge AI tools
- Funding early-stage ideas with clear pathways to impact
- Encouraging partnerships between tech and nature experts
- Supporting scalable, verifiable, and science-backed solutions
- Helping meet global climate targets faster and more affordably
The need for innovation in climate and nature solutions has never been greater. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global greenhouse gas emissions must be cut by nearly 50% by 2030 to keep warming below 1.5°C and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
At the same time, the World Economic Forum estimates that over $44 trillion of economic value—more than half of global GDP—is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services, underscoring the stakes for biodiversity loss.
The Power of AI in Climate Action
AI is increasingly recognized as a game-changer for environmental action. A 2023 report by Boston Consulting Group found that AI could help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by up to 10%—the equivalent of 2.6 to 5.3 gigatons of CO₂e—by 2030, if deployed at scale across sectors like energy, transport, and agriculture.
Yet, a 2022 survey by Microsoft and Goldsmiths University revealed that only about 43% of environmental organizations felt “AI-ready”. They cited barriers such as lack of funding, technical expertise, and access to data.
Bridging the Gap: The Role of the Grand Challenge
The Bezos Earth Fund’s AI for Climate and Nature Grand Challenge directly addresses these barriers by providing critical funding and technical support to early-stage projects. By awarding $50,000 seed grants to 24 diverse teams in its first round, the initiative is lowering the entry threshold for nonprofits, universities, and startups to experiment with AI-driven solutions.
This approach is vital, as early-stage funding for climate tech remains scarce—just 6% of global venture capital in 2023 went to climate-related startups, according to PwC. And in 2024, VC deals for climate tech innovations further drop from 2023, per Pitchbook data.
The Grand Challenge also fosters collaboration between AI experts and environmental practitioners, a proven recipe for success. For example, projects like Carbon Sim (Yale) and Livestock GPT (Cornell) are bringing together machine learning specialists, ecologists, and farmers to co-design tools that are both scientifically robust and practical for real-world use. Such partnerships help ensure that solutions are not only technologically advanced but also grounded in local knowledge and needs.
AI in Action: Use Cases Beyond Carbon
Other grantees use AI to help the environment. They reduce food waste, create better plant-based proteins, and protect forests. Here are some of them and their innovations that attracted Bezos Fund’s investment:
-
University of Leeds – Food Waste to Protein. This project uses AI to turn food waste into sustainable protein. The software finds the best microbes and fermentation methods.
-
Wageningen University – OLiMPuS Platform. This open-source AI platform helps scientists find new plant and fermented proteins that feel and taste like milk and meat.
-
BGCI-US – Forest Monitoring and Illegal Logging Detection. Using drones and AI, this project tracks over 500 endangered timber species and detects illegal logging in real time.
-
AI-powered Forest Monitoring in the Amazon. Another grantee is working in the Amazon rainforest, combining satellite data with AI to detect changes in forest cover.
-
AI for Coral Reef Health (University of Miami). This project uses underwater cameras and AI models to assess the health of coral reefs. It can detect bleaching and pollution damage early.
AI isn’t just about crunching data. It’s also a strong tool for early detection, quick decision-making, and scaling nature-positive solutions.
Scaling Up: What Happens Next?
The $50,000 planning grants are just Phase I. Later in 2025, up to 15 teams will move to Phase II, receiving $2 million each over two years to scale and implement their solutions. This will allow them to move beyond prototypes and test their tools in real-world settings.
The Bezos Earth Fund says it’s also building partnerships with AI labs, tech companies, and universities to support the technical side of the challenge. At the same time, it wants to train environmental groups on how to use and trust AI, ensuring that solutions are not only powerful but practical.
The projects supported by the Bezos Earth Fund are still in early stages, but they point toward a future where smart software can support a healthy planet. Whether it’s managing forests, cleaning up farms, or inventing new kinds of food, AI is now part of the climate and conservation toolbox.
The post Bezos Earth Fund’s AI for Climate and Nature Reveals First Grantees 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