Microsoft has teamed up with Vaulted Deep to eliminate millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂), one of the largest deals made in the sector. They will use a special carbon removal technology that injects organic waste deep underground. This infrastructure approach seeks to store carbon permanently while also addressing waste management issues throughout the United States.
Let’s examine in depth how this technology offers a promising solution in tackling carbon emissions and what the details are involved in the partnership.
Beneath the Surface: Vaulted Deep’s Carbon Capture Tech
Vaulted Deep captures CO₂ by redirecting organic waste away from disposal methods. This includes landfilling, incineration, or land application. The waste is injected deep underground into basalt rock formations, where it breaks down slowly.
Carbon minerals form during this process and trap carbon for thousands of years. This effectively removes it from the atmosphere permanently.
To date, Vaulted has removed nearly 18,000 tonnes of CO₂ and diverted more than 69,000 tonnes of organic waste from surface disposal. Their carbon removal methodology is certified by the carbon registry Isometric.
The certification promises over 1,000 years of carbon storage durability. It ensures that every carbon credit issued stands for a scientifically validated tonne of permanent CO₂ removal.
For every tonne of CO₂ the company sequesters, it releases just 0.05 tonnes of CO₂. This efficiency rate, verified by Isometric, is among the best in the industry.
The company’s technology has been operating safely since 2008 and is approved and permitted in multiple U.S. states. For example, in Los Angeles, Vaulted has processed about 20% of the city’s biosolids for over 15 years. In Kansas, Vaulted oversees 75% of biosolids for Derby.
The company also works with local farmers to handle extra manure. This manure often causes nutrient runoff and odor. Plus, it helps sequester carbon underground.
Economic and Environmental Impact of Vaulted’s Technology
Vaulted’s Great Plains site in Kansas illustrates the combined environmental and economic benefits of this approach. Within its first 18 months, the facility created 18 full-time local jobs and generated more than $5 million in economic investment.
Vaulted’s technology turns tough organic waste into a resource for carbon capture. This process cuts down greenhouse gas emissions from regular waste management. At the same time, it helps solve environmental issues such as nutrient pollution and unpleasant odors associated with organic waste.
According to industry estimates, the U.S. produces about 200 million tons of organic waste every year. This includes food scraps, yard clippings, and paper products. Sadly, most of this waste ends up in landfills. Only around one-third is turned into useful compost or energy.
Reducing organic waste is important to protect the environment. This is a big opportunity to help fight climate change, and where Vaulted Deep technology comes in. Vaulted is looking for new waste partners in different sectors to expand its reach and boost carbon removal efforts.
Power Partnership: Microsoft’s Drive to Scale Impact
Microsoft’s recent investment supports Vaulted Deep in scaling operations with an ambitious goal to remove approximately 4.9 million tonnes of CO₂ over the next 12 years. The partnership will aim to expand site capabilities. It will also build new relationships with waste suppliers from agriculture, municipalities, and manufacturing.
Brian Marrs, Senior Director of Energy and Carbon Removal at Microsoft, noted:
“Vaulted Deep provides a differentiated, scalable approach to permanent carbon removal with low technology risk. Its work delivers immediate climate benefits while stimulating local economies and addresses long-standing environmental challenges that communities face every day. We support this solution as part of our broader effort to accelerate durable, high-integrity carbon removal.”
Microsoft’s Growing Commitment to Carbon Removal
Microsoft is working hard to grow its carbon dioxide removal options. The ech giant aims to be carbon negative by 2030. In 2024, the company secured long-term deals for almost 22 million metric tons of carbon removal credits. This amount surpasses the total from all prior years combined.
Their CDR contracts include various technologies. These include biochar, direct air capture, soil carbon sequestration, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
One of the biggest CDR deals Microsoft made is made Exomad Green. This agreement is the largest biochar carbon removal deal ever. It will last for over a decade. The plan aims to sequester at least 1.24 million tons of CO₂. They will do this by turning crop waste and woody debris into stable charcoal-like carbon.
Moreover, Microsoft signed a record contract with Fidelis’ company AtmosClear. They will remove 6.75 million metric tons of CO₂ over 15 years. This will use BECCS technology.
Microsoft also works with Carbon Direct, a science-based carbon management group. Together, they set strict quality standards for carbon removals. They released the 2025 Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal. This sets clear standards for various removal methods. The focus is on durability, social and environmental benefits, and transparency.
Microsoft follows a “do our best and remove the rest” approach. This means they aim for strong emissions cuts while also backing new, trustworthy carbon removal methods. The company is tackling rising energy demands from AI. It is investing a lot in carbon offset and removal to meet its net-zero goals.
Carbon Credits and Market Boom: The CDR Opportunity
The market for carbon dioxide removal is growing fast. Governments and businesses are pushing for net-zero emissions targets. Durable carbon removal methods are gaining interest, and Vaulted Deep’s underground storage is one example. These methods have a lasting impact.
Analysts say the durable CDR credit market will grow at a rate of 38% each year from 2025 to 2035. By 2035, it could reach around $14 billion. Other research forecasts the broader CDR industry could generate between $650 million and $3 billion by 2034.
This growth shows that more people want verified carbon credits. These credits promise permanent removal and follow strict environmental standards.
Microsoft and other big companies are investing in carbon removal technologies. These include direct air capture and reforestation, but solutions that use natural waste streams are seen as very promising.
Challenges in Scaling and the Road Ahead for CDR
Although promising, carbon removal at scale comes with challenges. Infrastructure investments are significant. Monitoring carbon permanence for centuries needs advanced technology and clear reporting. Moreover, collecting organic waste from different sources is tricky. It also involves transporting it to sequestration sites.
However, Vaulted Deep’s proven track record and ongoing expansion provide a positive blueprint for growth. Partnering with big companies like Microsoft gives them the cash and market access to speed up deployment.
In response to the CarbonCredits team queries, Bryan Epps, Head of Commercialization at Vaulted, shared the following:
Q: Given that Vaulted Deep’s process involves injecting organic waste deep underground for carbon sequestration, how do you ensure the long-term monitoring and verification of carbon permanence over the 1,000+ year timescale you mention, and how might this scalability model differ as you expand to new U.S. sites under the Microsoft agreement?
A: “Vaulted Deep’s permanence is independently verified by Isometric, our third-party carbon registry and MRV partner. Isometric’s Biomass Geological Storage protocol is purpose-built to evaluate geologic storage durability, and it requires rigorous site-specific modeling and lifecycle emissions accounting for every tonne of removal.
All of Vaulted’s sites are engineered for long-term containment based on each area’s unique geology, drawing on decades of best practices from industrial underground injection.
As we scale under the Microsoft agreement, these protocols carry forward. Each new site undergoes its own geologic validation, regulatory review, and third-party audit to ensure durable, verifiable sequestration.
Across all site types, Vaulted mitigates key risks to permanence (e.g., wellbore failure, migration through confining layers, methane re-emissions) through conservative injection design, site-specific modeling, and continuous subsurface monitoring.”
Q: Microsoft’s investment supports the removal of nearly 4.9 million tonnes of CO2 over 12 years—what are the key challenges Vaulted Deep anticipates in integrating your carbon removal solution across diverse waste streams from municipalities, industry, and agriculture, and how do you see this infrastructure-based approach complementing emerging technologies like direct air capture in the broader carbon removal ecosystem?
A: “Vaulted’s model is built around flexible waste management infrastructure. Our patented slurry injection technology can accept a wide range of organic wastes—from biosolids and manure to paper sludge and ag residues—many of which are too wet, contaminated, or variable for most other BiCRS or BECCS systems to handle.
The core challenge is ensuring each stream meets our standards for safety, flowability, and carbon density. To manage that, we’ve developed a rigorous waste qualification protocol, informed by real-world R&D at our Kansas site. Every waste stream is tested and optimized for injection performance, emissions profile, and net carbon value. This allows us to expand across industries and geographies while keeping MRV and environmental safety fully intact.
Our infrastructure-based approach doesn’t compete with direct air capture; it complements it. Vaulted addresses a different part of the problem: capturing and permanently storing biogenic carbon that’s already circulating in the economy, while eliminating pollutants in the process.
As the CDR ecosystem matures, we’ll need a portfolio of solutions: some pulling carbon from the atmosphere, others preventing it from ever reaching it. Our work focuses on the latter, with the added benefit of solving urgent waste and contaminant challenges for communities today.”
By combining climate impact with economic benefits for local communities, Vaulted Deep is positioned to be a key player in building an effective, durable carbon removal infrastructure in the United States.
FURTHER READING: Carbon Removal in 2025: Are You Investing in the Right Climate Credits?
The post Microsoft (MSFT Stock) and Vaulted Deep Team Up to Unlock Almost 5M Ton of Carbon Removal from Organic Waste 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.
