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 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.
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.
- READ MORE: After $102B Quarter Revenue and Record Stock, Google Turns to Nuclear to Power the AI Boom
The post Google’s Bold Climate Actions: AI in the Amazon and Solar Power in Space! appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
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.
