Connect with us

Published

on

Google Inks Waste-to-Carbon Deal to Remove 200K Tons of CO₂ With AI and Biochar

Google has signed a major deal to buy carbon removal credits from an affiliate of AMP Robotics. The agreement targets the removal of 200,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) by 2030. It is one of Google’s largest carbon removal purchases to date.

The project uses artificial intelligence (AI) to sort municipal solid waste. Organic waste is separated before it reaches landfills. Instead of decomposing and releasing methane, the waste is turned into biochar. Biochar is a stable material that can store carbon for hundreds of years.

The deal shows how large companies are moving beyond simple offsets. They are now funding durable carbon removal solutions that can scale over time.

AI + Biochar: Turning Trash into Carbon Storage

The project’s approach tackles two problems at once. It reduces methane emissions in the short term. It also removes carbon dioxide for the long term. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. In the United States, landfilled waste is the third-largest source of human-caused methane emissions, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Reilly O’Hara, Program Manager, Carbon Removal at Google, remarked:

“Beyond the carbon removal itself, we are excited to explore the dual-action impact of AMP’s approach on methane – a superpollutant 80x more potent than CO2. By diverting organic matter before it decomposes and utilizing biochar in landfill soil covers to neutralize existing gases, this partnership could serve as a blueprint for eliminating emissions at the source, leveraging existing industry, and creating a scalable model for the circular economy.”

The AMP system uses AI to identify and sort materials from mixed waste streams. The company says its platform has already identified more than 200 billion items and processed 2.9 million tons of recyclables globally.

In this project, the system will process up to 540,000 tons of waste per year in Virginia. At least 50% of this waste will be diverted from landfills. Each ton of waste diverted can reduce or remove more than 0.7 tons of CO₂e. That adds up to over 378,000 tons of CO₂ avoided or removed each year. This is equal to taking about 88,000 cars off the road annually.

The project is backed by a 20-year contract with a regional waste authority serving 1.2 million people. Over time, AMP aims to convert 5 million tons of organic waste into biochar over 20 years.

image here….

Biochar also has added uses. It can be used in landfills to reduce odors and control pollution. It may also be used in construction and cement. This creates new value streams while storing carbon.

Carbon Removal Market Gains Momentum

The deal reflects a wider shift in the carbon market. Companies are now focusing on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) instead of traditional offsets. Carbon removal captures CO₂ from the atmosphere and stores it for long periods.

The market is still small but growing fast. A coalition backed by major companies, including Google, has committed to spending $1 billion on carbon removal credits by 2030.

Recent deals show rising demand:

  • Google agreed to buy 100,000 tons of carbon removal credits from an agricultural biochar project in India.
  • It also signed a deal for 50,000 tons of removal credits using underground waste storage technology.

Prices for high-quality removal credits remain high. Some deals have reached around $362 per ton, reflecting early-stage technology and limited supply.

carbon removal credits and price

At the same time, developers are working to scale production and lower costs. Biochar is seen as one of the more practical options today because it uses existing waste streams and proven processes.

Methane Matters: Quick Wins for the Climate

One reason this deal matters is its focus on methane. Methane causes much faster warming than CO₂ in the short term. Reducing methane can deliver quick climate benefits.

Waste is a major methane source. When organic waste breaks down in landfills, it releases methane gas. By diverting this waste early, AMP’s system prevents methane from forming at all.

This makes waste-based carbon removal different from many other methods. It combines emissions avoidance and carbon removal in one process.

This dual benefit is attracting attention from companies and policymakers. Many climate strategies now include methane reduction as a priority. Technologies that can do both removal and avoidance may scale faster than single-purpose solutions.

Beyond market impact, the deal highlights how Google is managing its rising emissions.

How This Fits Google’s Climate Strategy

The deal is part of Google’s wider plan to reduce its climate impact. The company has set a goal to reach net-zero emissions across its operations and value chain by 2030. It also aims to run on 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030, meaning every hour of electricity use is matched with clean energy.

Google carbon-free energy goal 2030
Source: Google

However, Google’s emissions have risen in recent years. In its 2024 environmental report, the company noted around 11.5 million tonnes of ambition-based CO₂e emissions. This marks an 11% rise from 2023 and is about 51% higher than in 2019. The increase shows ongoing growth in energy use, mainly from AI-powered data centers and expanded infrastructure.

Google carbon emissions 2024
Source: Google

Because of this, Google is using carbon removal to address emissions it cannot fully eliminate. The company has said it will rely on high-quality carbon removal credits instead of traditional offsets. These credits must remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it for long periods.

The tech giant is also a founding member of Frontier, a coalition of companies committed to spending $1 billion on carbon removal by 2030. The group helps fund early-stage technologies and scale supply.

This strategy reflects a broader shift among tech companies. As energy use grows, especially from AI and cloud computing, firms are investing more in carbon removal to meet climate targets. 

Carbon Removal Demand Surges, But Supply Falls Short

The Google–AMP deal shows how fast the carbon removal market is growing. But the market is still far from the scale needed to meet climate goals. Today, global emissions remain high at about 38 gigatonnes of CO₂ in 2024, according to the International Energy Agency.

To balance these emissions, demand for carbon removal is rising quickly. Estimates show the market could reach 40 to 200 million tonnes of CO₂ removal per year by 2030, and as much as 80 to 900 million tonnes by 2040. This could create a $10 billion to $40 billion market by 2030, growing to as much as $135 billion by 2040.

BCG carbon removal credit demand projection 2030-2040
Source: BCG analysis

At the same time, supply is still limited. Current announced projects may only deliver around 33 million tonnes by 2030, far below expected demand. This gap is one reason large buyers like Google are signing long-term deals early. These agreements help scale new technologies and secure future supply.

Long-term, carbon removal will play a major role in climate strategy. Some projections show that removal capacity must reach around 1.7 gigatonnes per year by 2050 to meet global climate targets. Carbon capture alone could deliver about 12% of total emissions reductions between 2030 and 2050, especially in heavy industries like cement and steel.

CDR by sector 2050
Source: DNV Report

Investment is also rising fast. In the past five years, the number of carbon removal startups has grown fivefold, and venture funding has increased sevenfold. This shows strong interest from both private investors and large companies.

Closing the Carbon Gap

Still, challenges remain. Costs are high, and standards are still evolving. Some forecasts suggest the market could reach up to $100 billion per year by the early 2030s, but only if policy support and financing improve.

In this context, the Google–AMP deal reflects a clear shift. Companies are moving early to secure high-quality carbon removal. They are also helping build the market from the ground up. Waste-based solutions like biochar may scale faster because they use existing systems and deliver both methane reduction and carbon storage.

Overall, carbon removal is moving from a niche idea to a core part of climate strategy. But the gap between current supply and future demand remains large. Closing that gap will require strong investment, clear rules, and continued innovation across the sector.

The post Google Inks Waste-to-Carbon Deal to Remove 200K Tons of CO₂ With AI and Biochar appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares

Published

on

Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain

Published

on

“…Protecting nature makes our business more resilient…”

For companies with land, water, food, fiber, or commodity exposure, the supply chain may be the most practical place to turn nature from a risk into an operating asset.

Your supply chain already has a nature strategy. It may be undocumented. It may live in procurement files, supplier contracts, commodity maps, and one spreadsheet nobody opens without coffee. But it exists.

If your business depends on farms, forests, water, soil, packaging, rubber, timber, fibers, minerals, or food ingredients, nature is part of your operating system. The question is whether you manage that system with intent, or discover it during a disruption, audit, or difficult board question.

That is why more companies are asking how to find Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain. Do not begin by shopping for offsets. Begin by asking where nature already affects cost, continuity, emissions, regulatory exposure, and supplier resilience.

What Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain Means

The European Commission defines nature-based solutions as approaches inspired and supported by nature that are cost-effective, deliver environmental, social, and economic benefits, and help build resilience. They should also benefit biodiversity and support ecosystem services.

In supply-chain terms, that becomes practical. Nature-based solutions in your supply chain can include agroforestry in cocoa, coffee, rubber, or palm supply chains. They can include soil health programs for food ingredients, watershed restoration near water-intensive operations, mangrove restoration linked to coastal sourcing regions, and avoided deforestation in forest-linked commodities.

The key test is business relevance. If your procurement team relies on a landscape, watershed, crop, or supplier base, that is where opportunity may sit. The best projects do not hover outside the business like a framed certificate. They plug into the system that already produces your revenue.

Why the Boardroom Should Care

For many companies, the largest climate and nature exposure sits outside direct operations. The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard gives companies a method to account for and report value-chain emissions across sectors. Purchased goods, land use, transport, supplier energy, and product use can make direct emissions look like the visible tip of a very large iceberg.

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures notes that many nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities arise upstream and downstream. That is why nature-based supply chain investments matter to boards. You are managing supply security, audit readiness, investor confidence, and regulatory preparedness.

For companies exposed to EU markets, this also connects to rules and expectations such as CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and SBTi FLAG.

Step One: Map Where You Touch Land, Water, and Living Systems

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain starts with mapping, not marketing.

Begin with procurement and Scope 3 data. Which categories carry high spend, high emissions, or high sourcing risk? Which suppliers depend on agriculture, forestry, mining, water-intensive processing, or land conversion? Which regions face water stress, heat, flood risk, soil degradation, deforestation, or biodiversity pressure?

The Science Based Targets Network uses a clear process for companies: assess, prioritize, set targets, act, and track. That sequence keeps companies from treating nature as a mood board. You identify where the business has exposure, then decide where intervention can create measurable value.

Step Two: Look for Operational Value Before Carbon Value

This is the center of CCC’s Dual-Value Model. A nature-based supply chain investment should do useful work for the business before anyone counts the carbon.

Agroforestry may improve farmer resilience, shade crops, protect soil, and reduce pressure on forests. Watershed restoration may reduce water risk for beverage, textile, or manufacturing sites. Soil health programs may improve the stability of agricultural inputs.

Carbon and sustainability value can still be created. In some cases, the project may support Scope 3 insetting. In others, it may generate verified carbon credits. Sometimes the main value may be resilience, readiness, and better supplier data.

The IPCC has found that ecosystem-based adaptation can reduce climate risks to people, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, with multiple co-benefits, while also warning that effectiveness declines as warming increases. That is a sober argument for acting early.

Step Three: Separate Insetting, Offsetting, and Resilience

Nature-based solutions in your supply chain are not automatically carbon credits. They are not automatically Scope 3 reductions either.

An insetting opportunity usually sits inside or close to your value chain. It may support Scope 3 reporting if the accounting rules, project boundaries, supplier connection, and data quality are strong enough.

An offsetting opportunity usually involves verified credits outside your value chain. High-quality credits can still play a role for residual emissions, but they should not distract from direct reductions or credible value-chain work.

A resilience opportunity may deliver business value even if you cannot claim a Scope 3 reduction immediately. That may include water security, supplier capacity, land restoration, biodiversity protection, or regulatory readiness.

Gold Standard’s Scope 3 value-chain guidance focuses on reporting emissions reductions from interventions in purchased goods and services. Verra’s Scope 3 Standard Program is being developed to certify value-chain interventions and issue units for companies’ emissions accounting. The direction is clear: stronger evidence, tighter boundaries, and more disciplined claims.

Step Four: Design for Audit-Readiness From the Beginning

Weak data is where promising nature projects go to become expensive anecdotes.

Before public claims are made, you need to know the baseline. What would have happened without the project? Who owns or manages the land? Which suppliers are involved? How will outcomes be measured? How will leakage, permanence, and double counting be addressed?

The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard gives companies methods to quantify, report, and track land emissions, CO2 removals, and related metrics. This matters because land projects are rarely neat. Farms change practices. Suppliers shift volumes. Weather changes outcomes.

What Recent Corporate Examples Show

Recent case studies show that supply-chain nature work is becoming more serious, and more scrutinized.

Reuters has reported on insetting to reduce emissions within supply chains, including examples linked to Reckitt, Danone, Nestlé, Earthworm Foundation, and Nature-based Insights. The same article highlights familiar problems: measurement, double counting, supplier incentives, and credibility.

Reuters has also reported on companies using the Science Based Targets Network process to examine nature impacts. GSK, Holcim, and Kering were among the first companies with validated science-based targets for nature.

The Financial Times has covered the promise and difficulty of soil carbon in corporate supply chains, including a PepsiCo example in India where yields reportedly increased while greenhouse gas emissions fell. The lesson is that carbon, soil, biodiversity, farmer economics, and measurement need to be handled together.

A Practical Screening Checklist

A supply-chain nature-based solution deserves deeper review when you can answer yes to most of these questions:

  • Does it sit in or near a material supply-chain hotspot?
  • Does it address a real business risk?
  • Can you connect it to supplier behavior, land management, or sourcing practices?
  • Can the outcomes be measured?
  • Are the claim boundaries clear?
  • Does it support Scope 3 strategy, SBTi FLAG, CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, or investor reporting needs?
  • Are permanence, leakage, land rights, and community issues addressed?

Build the Asset, Then Make the Claim

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain is about identifying where your business already depends on living systems, then designing interventions that make those systems more resilient, measurable, and commercially useful.

For companies with material Scope 3 exposure, the right project can support supplier resilience, emissions strategy, regulatory readiness, and credible climate communication. The wrong project can become a glossy story with a weak audit trail.

Carbon Credit Capital helps companies design nature-based carbon and sustainability assets that embed directly into corporate supply chains. Through CCC’s Dual-Value Model, you can assess where sustainability investment may support operational resilience, Scope 3 insetting eligibility, regulatory readiness, and high-quality carbon or sustainability value.

Schedule your consultation with the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital to explore how nature-based supply chain investments can support your next stage of climate strategy.

Sources

  1. European Commission: Nature-based solutions
  2. GHG Protocol: Corporate Value Chain Scope 3 Standard
  3. TNFD: Guidance on value chains
  4. European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Reporting
  5. European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence
  6. European Commission: Regulation on Deforestation-free Products
  7. SBTi: Forest, Land and Agriculture FLAG
  8. Science Based Targets Network: Take Action
  9. IPCC AR6 WGII Summary for Policymakers
  10. Gold Standard: Scope 3 Value Chain Interventions Guidance
  11. Verra: Scope 3 Standard Program
  12. GHG Protocol: Land Sector and Removals Standard
  13. Reuters: Can insetting stack the cards towards more sustainable supply chains?
  14. Reuters: Three companies put their impacts on nature under a microscope
  15. Financial Times: The dubious climate gains of turning soil into a carbon sink

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living

Published

on

Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.

For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.

Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.

The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.

More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)

Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.

Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.

Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:

  • Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
  • Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
  • Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
  • Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs

The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?

How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs

There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.

Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)

According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)

In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)

The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)

After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)

For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.

How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

A light bulb, a pen, a calculator and some copper euro cent coins lie on top of an electricity bill

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.

Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.

Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)

As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)

These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)

Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)

For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.

How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates

On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.

Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.

As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)

While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.

How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes

Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.

The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.

These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.

Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action

While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.

While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.

For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:

  1. Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
  2. Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
  3. Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.

Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.

Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.

The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com