Connect with us

Published

on

Google's Bold Climate Actions: AI in the Amazon and Solar Power in Space!

Google has announced a new deal with Mombak, a Brazilian reforestation company, to buy 200,000 metric tons of carbon removal. The goal is to expand forest restoration projects in Brazil and remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Mombak will team up with Google DeepMind’s Perch group. They will use AI and bioacoustic tools to see how forest restoration boosts biodiversity. In simple terms, the project will not only track how much carbon the trees store but also how wildlife returns and ecosystems recover.

The new agreement is part of Google’s wider climate strategy. Along with nature-based removals, the company recently unveiled plans for solar-powered data centers in space. These centers will provide clean energy for computing. These initiatives show how Google blends natural and tech solutions. They aim to cut emissions and create a more sustainable future.

Why Nature-Based Carbon Removal Matters

Forests are among the most effective natural systems for storing carbon. When trees grow, they capture CO₂ and store it in trunks, roots, and soil. Over time, healthy forests help slow global warming. But restoring damaged land takes money, time, and clear monitoring to prove results.

Nature-based solutions may take up to 85% of the total carbon credits supply annually by 2030, per McKinsey analysis below. Carbon credits are certificates representing the number of tonnes of carbon avoided or removed from the atmosphere.

In contrast, technology-based solutions could account for about 34% for the same period.

nature based solutions
Source: McKinsey

Nature-based projects can also deliver extra benefits, often called co-benefits. These include:

  • Protecting wildlife habitats.
  • Preventing soil erosion and flooding.
  • Creating local jobs.
  • Supporting Indigenous and rural communities.

However, measuring these outcomes is complex. Forests vary by region, and climate, soil, and species all affect how much carbon is stored. That’s why the use of advanced technology and transparent data reporting has become a key part of modern carbon removal projects.

Mombak Mission: Rebuilding the Amazon, One Native Tree at a Time

Mombak is a Brazil-based startup focused on restoring degraded land in the Amazon using native tree species. The company aims to rebuild natural forests rather than create single-species plantations. Its projects also aim to generate carbon credits that meet strict quality standards.

Mombak’s founders are seasoned entrepreneurs and scientists. They have expertise in forestry and sustainable finance. Since its launch, the company has gained support from climate investors and global brands focused on verified carbon removal.

Earlier this year, Mombak raised around $30 million to expand its planting programs and improve monitoring systems. The company’s current projects cover thousands of hectares in the Amazon region. Over the next few years, it plans to scale up to tens of millions of trees planted.

The new Google deal builds on a previous, smaller partnership. This latest purchase of 200,000 metric tons of carbon removal makes Mombak one of Google’s largest nature-based carbon suppliers.

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

“Mombak’s proven approach balances high integrity reforestation – such as the use of native, biodiverse forests and strong durability safeguards – with industrial scale and operations. We’ll need both to ensure a large and lasting impact, and Mombak is well-positioned to do so across Brazil. And excitingly, today Mombak was also selected as the first nature restoration project by the Symbiosis Coalition, further validating their approach to measuring impact with a high standard of scientific rigor.”

The Role of AI and Bioacoustics in Measuring Forest Health

An important part of this partnership is the use of AI through DeepMind’s Perch project. Perch uses machine learning to analyze natural sounds, such as bird calls and insect noises, recorded in restored forests. These recordings help scientists understand which species are returning and how ecosystems are recovering.

Bioacoustics works by placing microphones in the forest to capture the “soundscape” of nature. Each species has a unique sound, so by analyzing these patterns, AI can estimate biodiversity levels. This allows for tracking recovery more accurately and continuously. Plus, it won’t disturb wildlife.

Traditional field surveys can take months and cover limited areas. AI-powered monitoring offers faster and larger-scale data collection. It also lets people verify biodiversity outcomes independently. This has often been absent from many carbon credit projects.

One of the main criticisms of past carbon offset programs is a lack of clear reporting. Some projects overstated their impact, while others failed to monitor long-term results.

By using these tools, Mombak and Google aim to set a new standard for transparency in forest monitoring. This approach could make nature-based carbon credit projects more credible and easier to verify for buyers and regulators alike.

If a project’s credits lose value, like from forest fires or other risks, Google will replace them. This way, they can keep real climate benefits.

This “replacement plan” shows a move toward permanence and accountability. It means that companies buying carbon credits must ensure their impact lasts for decades, not just a few years.

Transparency also helps local communities and independent experts see progress. It builds trust that promises are being kept.

How the Symbiosis Coalition Sets New Carbon Standards

This project has also received the first official endorsement from the Symbiosis Coalition. The coalition is a group of major corporate buyers that commit to purchasing high-quality carbon removal credits. It supports projects that have strong environmental integrity. They also provide clear social and biodiversity benefits.

The endorsement shows that Mombak’s methods meet higher standards. These include climate impact, community engagement, and scientific monitoring. The coalition aims to boost investment in verified, nature-based solutions. They plan to do this by ensuring steady demand for these credits.

Companies like Google work with Symbiosis to make sure their credits meet industry standards and support global climate goals.

What It Means for Brazil and the Carbon Market

Brazil is emerging as a global hub for reforestation and carbon removal projects. With the Amazon rainforest as one of the world’s largest carbon sinks, the country plays a central role in climate mitigation.

The new Mombak project supports both local restoration and global climate efforts. It also matches Brazil’s goal to cut deforestation. This supports climate talks before COP30, which is taking place in Belém in 2025.

This deal shows how big buyers in the carbon market are shifting. They are moving from avoidance credits, which stop emissions, to removal credits that take carbon out of the atmosphere.

Reports say global investment in nature-based carbon removal projects hit almost $20 billion between 2021 and 2024. However, this is still less than the total finance needed by 2050, which is around $674 billion. Expanding reforestation projects like Mombak’s will help close that gap.

doubling investments in nature-based solutions
Source: McKinsey & Company

Beyond Earth: Google’s Solar-Powered Space Data Centers

Google launched Project Suncatcher this year. This initiative aims to create solar-powered data centers in space. It supports their climate and forest-restoration goals. The company plans to launch prototype satellites by early 2027. These satellites will have their custom TPU (Tensor Processing Unit) chips.

Solar panels in low-sunlight zones around Earth can be up to eight times more efficient than those on the ground. For instance, Google research shows that in a dawn-dusk sun-synchronous orbit, panels can produce almost constant power. This helps cut down on the need for big battery systems.

By the mid-2030s, management estimates say launch and operational costs for these satellites may fall below $200 per kilogram. This would make space-based data centers as affordable as those on Earth.

The move is significant for several reasons. Data centers on Earth use a lot of electricity and water for cooling. This becomes a climate and resource problem as AI use grows. By shifting computing to space, Google hopes to reduce strain on land-based grids and ecological systems.

The plan still has big engineering challenges, including:

  • heat management,
  • high-bandwidth optical links between satellites, and
  • making the hardware resilient to radiation.

Google’s Dual-Frontier Climate Vision

The partnership between Google, Mombak, and DeepMind reflects how large technology companies are linking AI, clean energy, and reforestation to address the climate crisis. Google’s efforts in climate innovation now cover many areas. They include restoring forests on Earth and capturing solar power in space.

If successful, these projects could become models for combining technology and nature to achieve measurable, lasting results. Google aims to tackle carbon removal and energy sustainability in many ways. The company combines large-scale reforestation with advanced monitoring and next-gen clean power systems. This approach shows its commitment to the environment.

The post Google’s Bold Climate Actions: AI in the Amazon and Solar Power in Space! appeared first on Carbon Credits.

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

Carbon Footprint

Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance

Published

on

A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com