Meta and Microsoft have entered into long-term agreements to purchase carbon credits from a forestry project in Washington State’s Olympic Peninsula. These deals aim to support climate-smart forest management practices and contribute to the companies’ sustainability goals.
A Forest with a Mission
The project aims to shift 68,000 acres of forestland on the Olympic Peninsula to climate-smart management. This area near Olympic National Park is managed by EFM. It is supported by Climate Asset Management (CAM), a partnership of HSBC Asset Management and Pollination.
The initiative focuses on Improved Forest Management (IFM) practices. These include:
- Lengthening tree rotation periods,
- Reducing logging impact, and
- Promoting selective harvesting.
These methods aim to increase carbon storage, enhance biodiversity, and support local communities. James Bullen, Head of Asset Management at CAM, remarked:
“Blending timber income, conservation easements, and carbon credits can simultaneously de-risk and enhance returns…The Olympic Rainforest shows how corporates can mobilize capital at scale for high-integrity climate outcomes that complement, not replace, emissions reductions.”
For Microsoft and Meta, this initiative is a move forward for their carbon reduction and climate goals. Together, they’ll purchase almost 1.4 million carbon credits from the said reforestation project.
Meta’s Commitment to Net-Zero Emissions
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is working toward an ambitious climate target: to achieve net-zero emissions across its entire value chain by 2030. This means the company plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions from not only its operations, such as data centers and offices, but also from its suppliers and users’ activities, referred to as Scope 3 emissions, shown below.
Meta GHG Emissions 2023
To meet this goal, Meta is focusing on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and carbon removal. As of 2020, Meta has already achieved net-zero emissions for its own operations and runs all its global facilities on 100% renewable energy. However, its larger challenge lies in addressing emissions from suppliers, product use, and transportation—areas that are harder to control directly.
The company’s recent 10-year agreement with EFM, which will provide 676,000 nature-based carbon removal credits by 2035, is part of its broader climate strategy. These credits will help offset unavoidable emissions while supporting reforestation and biodiversity restoration.
Meta also supports other high-quality carbon removal projects, such as direct air capture and soil carbon storage. By investing in nature-based solutions, Meta aims to balance its environmental impact while setting a strong example for digital platforms worldwide.
Microsoft’s Path to Becoming Carbon Negative
Microsoft has set one of the boldest climate goals in the tech sector: to become carbon negative by 2030. This means that the company plans not only to reduce its own emissions but also to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits.
In addition, by 2050, Microsoft aims to remove all the carbon it has emitted either directly or through electricity use since it was founded in 1975.
To achieve this, Microsoft is taking a three-part approach: reducing its emissions, removing carbon through innovative solutions, and supporting high-integrity carbon offset projects.
As part of this strategy, Microsoft signed a multi-year agreement with EFM to purchase up to 700,000 carbon removal credits from the Olympic Rainforest project. These credits come from improved forest management practices that help store more carbon and support local ecosystems.
Beyond this agreement, Microsoft has committed $1 billion to its Climate Innovation Fund. This fund invests in early-stage technologies and nature-based solutions like reforestation, soil carbon enhancement, and ocean-based removal.
One of its key investments includes EFM Fund IV, which aims to raise $300 million for climate-smart forestry across the U.S. With this investment, Microsoft could access an additional 2.3 million carbon credits—further strengthening its long-term carbon removal portfolio and advancing global climate solutions.
Why Forests Matter for Climate Action
Forests play a critical role in fighting climate change. They act as carbon sinks, meaning they absorb more carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere than they release. Trees store this carbon in their trunks, branches, leaves, and roots. When forests are managed well, they can remove large amounts of CO₂ every year, helping to slow global warming.
Globally, forests absorb about one-third of the CO₂ released from burning fossil fuels each year. That makes them one of the most effective natural tools we have for reducing greenhouse gases. Projects like the Olympic Rainforest help by stopping deforestation. They also remove CO₂ by boosting forest growth and restoring land.
Forests become very useful when managed with “climate-smart” practices. These practices balance carbon removal, conservation, and sustainable timber use.
As major companies like Meta and Microsoft and governments seek to meet climate targets, forestry-based carbon removal is gaining more attention. High-quality forest carbon credits can be a reliable part of long-term climate plans. This is true when they are monitored and verified correctly. That’s why big companies are putting money into nature-based solutions.
The latest market data shows that credits generated by IFM projects are getting more interest and value from corporations. Their trading volume increased three times as seen below.
Benefits of Climate-Smart Forestry
The project’s climate-smart forestry practices are expected to deliver multiple benefits:
- Carbon Removal. Over one million tonnes of carbon emissions are projected to be removed over the next decade.
- Biodiversity Enhancement. The project aims to restore habitats for endangered species and support wild salmon restoration.
- Community Engagement. Partnerships with the Quileute and Hoh locals focus on wildlife restoration and cultural harvesting.
- Economic Opportunities. The initiative supports sustainable timber growth and creates diverse, healthy habitats for wildlife and recreation.
Carbon Credits Get a Corporate Upgrade
These long-term carbon credit agreements reflect a shift in corporate procurement strategies. Companies are moving from spot carbon credit purchases to long-term offtake agreements, signaling a new era where carbon credits serve as strategic assets. This approach provides price certainty and supports the development of high-integrity carbon markets.
Climate Asset Management, managing over $1 billion in investor commitments, illustrates this evolution through its Natural Capital Fund and Nature-Based Carbon Fund. These funds offer exposure to real-asset carbon strategies that combine financial returns with measurable climate, biodiversity, and community impacts.
Meta and Microsoft’s long-term carbon credit deals with the Olympic Rainforest project represent significant steps toward their respective climate goals. By investing in climate-smart forestry practices, these companies are contributing to carbon removal efforts, biodiversity conservation, and community engagement. These agreements also highlight the growing importance of high-integrity carbon credits in corporate sustainability strategies.
The post Meta and Microsoft Secured Long-Term Carbon Credit Deals to Support Olympic Rainforest appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 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”
-
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 Energy10 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