Google is stepping up its climate strategy with a deeper commitment to sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). In a new long-term agreement with American Express Global Business Travel and Shell Aviation, the tech giant will source SAF environmental attribute data through the Avelia registry.
This move highlights a bigger trend. Corporations are no longer just offsetting emissions—they are actively shaping clean fuel markets. For Google, SAF is becoming a critical tool to cut emissions from business travel, one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize.
Vrushali Gaud, Global Director of Climate Operations, Google, said:
“Sustainable aviation fuel represents a critical unlock for decarbonizing the hard-to-abate aviation sector and we recognize the importance of long-term agreements to increase demand and expand its availability. We view this as a key opportunity to support the broader ecosystem through this book and claim effort, while making progress towards reducing our own aviation emissions.”
How “Book and Claim” Is Changing the Future of Aviation Fuel
SAF offers a clear advantage. It can reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80% compared to traditional jet fuel. That makes it one of the most promising solutions for aviation, a sector with limited low-carbon alternatives.
Google’s participation in the Avelia platform shows how corporate demand can drive supply. Avelia uses a “book and claim” system, allowing companies to claim emissions reductions even if SAF is not physically used on their specific flight. Instead, SAF is added elsewhere in the fuel network, and the environmental benefits are tracked digitally using blockchain.
This system solves a major problem—limited fuel availability. SAF supply is still concentrated in a few locations, while demand is global. By separating physical fuel use from emissions accounting, Avelia expands access and encourages broader adoption.
The platform has already made measurable progress:
- Over 64 million gallons of SAF have been supplied globally
- More than 590,000 tonnes of CO₂ emissions avoided
- Participation from 66 companies and airlines
These numbers signal growing momentum. More importantly, they show how digital infrastructure can accelerate climate solutions in traditional industries.
Beyond Flights: Google’s Broader Transport Strategy to Achieve Carbon-Neutral by 2030
Google’s SAF investment is only one part of a larger plan to cut transport emissions. The company is actively reducing the carbon footprint of both employee commuting and logistics.
Low-Carbon Commutes with EVs
It promotes low-carbon commuting by offering shuttle services, encouraging carpooling, and supporting public transit, cycling, and walking. At its campuses, Google is also investing heavily in electric mobility. By 2024, it had installed over 6,000 EV charging ports across the U.S. and Canada. In India, electric vehicles already make up nearly a quarter of its internal commuter fleet.
Greening Global Shipping with SAF
At the same time, Google is investing directly in SAF production. In 2024, it joined the United Airlines Ventures Sustainable Flight Fund, a $200+ million initiative supporting next-generation fuel technologies. The fund backs companies like Viridos and Svante, which are working on advanced fuel and carbon capture solutions.
Google is also a member of the Sustainable Aviation Buyers Alliance, further strengthening its role in shaping demand for cleaner aviation fuels.
The Reality Check: SAF Growth Faces Real Barriers
Despite strong corporate interest, SAF still faces significant challenges. Global production is rising fast, but not fast enough.
Production increased 24 times since 2021 and is expected to reach around 713 million gallons by the end of 2025. However, this still represents less than 1% of total jet fuel demand.
Even more concerning, growth may slow in 2026. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), production is expected to rise only modestly, reaching about 2.4 million metric tons. At the same time, costs remain high—SAF can be two to five times more expensive than conventional fuel.
This price gap creates a major burden for airlines. In 2025 alone, SAF-related costs could reach $3.6 billion globally. Without stronger policy support, scaling production will remain difficult.
Policy and Market Shifts: A Fragmented Landscape
Policy support plays a crucial role in SAF growth, but global approaches remain uneven.
In the U.S., incentives are weakening. The Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit (45Z) will drop significantly in 2026, reducing financial support for SAF producers. This could slow investment and limit supply growth.
In contrast, Europe is pushing ahead. The ReFuelEU Aviation mandate requires a 2% SAF blend, while countries in Asia, including Singapore and Thailand, are introducing their own mandates starting in 2026.
This divergence creates uncertainty. Companies and producers must navigate different regulations across regions, making long-term planning more complex.
The Feedstock Challenge: The Biggest Bottleneck
Analysts say technology is not the main constraint for SAF—feedstock is.
SAF relies on low-carbon raw materials such as waste oils, agricultural residues, and synthetic fuels. These resources are limited and already in demand from other sectors like renewable diesel and bioenergy.
As competition intensifies, sustainability standards are also becoming stricter. Producers must prove that their feedstocks are traceable and truly low-carbon. This means rapid expansion is unlikely in the short term. Instead, companies are expected to focus on gradual capacity growth and flexible production strategies.
Considering all the above factors, 2026 will not deliver a breakthrough but it will test the foundation of the SAF market. Three factors will define progress:
- Policy credibility: Governments must provide stable, long-term incentives
- Feedstock strategy: Companies need reliable and sustainable supply chains
- Procurement innovation: Airlines and corporations must adopt smarter purchasing models
Momentum is building, but it remains selective. Only companies that align these elements will succeed as the market evolves.
Looking Ahead: Strong Demand Signals for 2030 and Beyond
Despite the challenges, SkyNRG’s SAF Market Outlook gives optimistic long-term projections. It highlights that the demand could reach 15.5 million metric tons by 2030 under current trends.
By 2050, SAF could supply up to 16% of global aviation fuel demand. It is equivalent to roughly 72 million tonnes (24 billion gallons)—even without the introduction of new policy measures.
These numbers highlight one key point: demand is not the problem. The challenge lies in scaling supply efficiently and affordably. Nonetheless, sustainable aviation fuel holds real promise. It offers one of the few viable paths to reduce emissions in aviation without redesigning aircraft.
Google’s latest move shows how large corporations can accelerate this transition. But the road ahead remains complex. High costs, limited supply, and policy uncertainty continue to slow progress.
The bottom line is clear: SAF is not scaling overnight. But with the right mix of corporate demand, policy support, and innovation, it could become a cornerstone of clean aviation in the decades ahead.
- ALSO READ: Greening the Aviation: Lufthansa and Airbus Team Up to Cut Business Travel Emissions Using SAF
The post Google Expands SAF Strategy with Amex GBT and Shell Aviation to Cut Aviation Emissions 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.
