JPMorgan Chase closed a landmark $210 million carbon loan to support Chestnut Carbon, a U.S.-based afforestation firm, in a move that could reshape how climate projects are financed. Microsoft also played a key role in this breakthrough. They committed to buying a large share of the high-quality carbon removal credits from the project.
The dual involvement of a leading global bank and a major tech firm shows rising trust in nature-based carbon removal. It is seen as a real, profitable asset class.
JPMorgan’s Climate Finance and Advisory team, ERM (an environmental consulting firm), and Chestnut Carbon formed a partnership that made the transaction possible. It shows a change in how carbon projects are financed. This is especially true for nature-based solutions, like afforestation.
Other major lenders include CoBank, Bank of Montreal, and East West Bank. So, what makes this funding different from existing climate financing models? Let’s find out.
How the Financing Structure Works
The deal marks the largest-ever non-recourse project financing in the voluntary carbon market (VCM). The program, funded by future carbon credit revenues, aims to plant forests and remove CO₂ across the U.S. for 30 years.
Microsoft’s purchase agreement made the deal less risky. This gave JPMorgan the confidence to structure and underwrite the loan.
This carbon loan is notable because it uses future carbon credit revenue as collateral. Chestnut Carbon expects to generate millions of tons of carbon credits over the life of the forests it’s planting. These credits will be verified and sold in the voluntary market.
Instead of waiting decades for the trees to grow and credits to be sold, Chestnut Carbon now has upfront capital to scale quickly. The loan will be repaid over time as credits are generated and sold.
This structure is common in renewable energy or infrastructure—but it’s new to carbon markets, especially in the U.S.
The design of the model aims to de-risk investment by separating project performance from broader market volatility. That makes it easier for pension funds, banks, and institutional investors to enter the carbon space.
Chestnut’s Chief Financial Officer, Greg Adams, remarked:
“Not only does this facility provide the capital to accelerate our afforestation and carbon removal initiatives, but it establishes a replicable model for sustainable finance in the voluntary carbon sector.”
Chestnut Carbon’s Afforestation Mission
Chestnut Carbon focuses on afforestation, which involves planting trees on land that hasn’t been forested for a long time. This differs from reforestation (which restores forests after logging or wildfires). It is especially useful in regions like the U.S., where marginal lands are convertible into carbon sinks.
Chestnut Carbon Projects
The company’s long-term goal is to plant trees across tens of thousands of acres, targeting carbon removal at scale. Their model includes:
- Rigorous monitoring and MRV (measurement, reporting, and verification) using satellite data and third-party audits
- Carbon credits certified under leading registries like Verra or ACR
- Partnerships with local landowners to secure access to suitable land
- Biodiversity and ecosystem restoration as co-benefits of the program
Chestnut Carbon’s credits aim to meet the growing need for trustworthy carbon removals. This is particularly important for big companies with net-zero targets. ERM, which advised on the deal, says this model is replicable in other places. It can help fund similar nature-based climate projects globally.
Wall Street Meets the Forest: A Signal to Carbon Investors
This financing is a game-changer for the voluntary carbon market. It has faced problems like low liquidity, verification issues, and a lack of investor trust. Here’s what this deal signals to the broader market:
- VCM Projects Are Bankable:
JPMorgan and partners created a non-recourse loan using carbon credits. This shows that institutional investors see high-quality carbon projects as financially viable, not just charitable.
- More Deals to Come:
The structure used in this deal can now serve as a blueprint. JPMorgan has signaled interest in scaling this model to other project developers and regions—especially those in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa.
- Meeting Corporate Carbon Goals:
As demand for verified carbon removals grows—driven by new SEC and EU regulations—companies are scrambling to find high-quality offset credits. This creates a strong buyer base for the types of credits Chestnut Carbon will issue.
- Liquidity and Credibility Boost:
Third-party financing increases transparency and accountability. That helps solve two major problems in the carbon credit market: poor liquidity and doubts about credit quality.
BloombergNEF reports that the VCM could jump from $2 billion in 2024 to $50 billion by 2030. This growth is likely as net-zero goals become real and reporting rules get stricter. In a more optimistic outlook, the market could reach up to $500 billion by 2050.
Carbon Credits and the Path to Net Zero
Carbon credits allow companies to offset emissions they can’t yet eliminate. But not all credits are created equal. There’s a growing interest in removal-based credits, such as afforestation, instead of avoidance methods, like stopping deforestation.
Chestnut Carbon’s model supports this shift. Each project removes CO₂ from the atmosphere by planting trees that sequester carbon over decades. These credits will qualify for science-based targets and corporate ESG reporting under frameworks like the GHG Protocol and SBTi.
JPMorgan’s role shows that carbon markets are now central to finance, not just a side tool. Their deal helps close the financing gap for nature-based solutions. The United Nations estimates that $387 billion per year is necessary through 2030 to meet climate goals.
Vijnan Batchu, Global Head of Center for Carbon Transition at J.P. Morgan, echoed this thought, saying:
“Providing this kind of financing gives developers the runway they need to succeed at an attractive cost of capital, allowing them to focus on delivering significant carbon projects and fulfilling contracts…J.P. Morgan is extremely proud to be a part of this significant deal and contribute to the growth of the carbon markets at large.”
A Template for Future Climate Finance: What Comes After the Deal?
JPMorgan’s $210 million loan to Chestnut Carbon is more than a single transaction. It’s a financial innovation that connects capital markets to real carbon removal work on the ground. It offers investors a fresh way to join climate solutions. It also provides project developers with the resources to act quickly and increase their impact.
As VMCs grow, deals like this may lead to new financial tools linked to nature, emissions, and verified climate results. They may also pave the way for carbon credit securitization, green bonds linked to offsets, or public-private climate investment partnerships.
The Chestnut Carbon deal shows that big afforestation projects can draw in large investments. They lower risks and provide clear results in the battle against climate change.
- FURTHER READING: S&P Global and JPMorgan Partner to Tokenize Carbon Credits
The post JPMorgan, Microsoft Back $210 Million Carbon Loan in Landmark Climate Finance Deal appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits