Microsoft has signed a 10-year carbon removal agreement with Arca, a Canadian startup that turns mine waste into carbon storage. The partnership backs Microsoft’s goal to be carbon negative by 2030. It also helps Arca grow its natural mineralization technology.
The deal came just before Microsoft reported $77.7 billion in revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2026, an 18% increase from a year earlier. Operating income also rose 24% and net income increased by 12%.
Despite the strong results, Microsoft’s stock fell about 3% after the earnings release. Investors are becoming cautious about spending more on data centers, AI infrastructure, and OpenAI costs.
Yet, Microsoft’s financial strength allows it to support big climate and energy projects, like the Arca deal. This shows how the company connects AI growth with long-term sustainability goals.
Turning Mine Waste into Carbon Storage
Arca uses a process called mineralization, which captures CO₂ by reacting it with magnesium-rich mine waste. This reaction forms stable carbonates, permanently locking carbon in solid rock.
The company works with mining firms that produce waste materials such as nickel, cobalt, and platinum tailings. These minerals naturally react with CO₂, but Arca speeds up the process using technology developed in Canada.
The captured carbon can stay stored for thousands of years, making it one of the most durable forms of carbon removal. The process also helps mining sites lower emissions and improve environmental performance.
Arca’s CEO, Paul Needham, said the Microsoft deal gives the company long-term stability to grow and reach more industrial partners. It also strengthens Arca’s position as a global leader in geology-based carbon storage, noting:
“This agreement with Microsoft validates Industrial Mineralization as a viable pathway for durable carbon removal with the potential to scale and meaningfully contribute to global climate goals.”
Microsoft’s Path to Carbon Negativity
Microsoft first pledged in 2020 to become carbon negative by 2030, meaning it will remove more carbon from the air than it emits. By 2050, it aims to erase all historical emissions since its founding in 1975.

The company is one of the largest corporate buyers of carbon removal. It has signed contracts with companies like Heirloom, Climeworks, and Running Tide. They use a mix of direct air capture (DAC), biomass, and ocean-based methods.
As of 2024, Microsoft reported cutting its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 22% from 2020 levels. However, Scope 3 emissions — those from supply chains and product use — still make up over 95% of its total footprint.

To meet its targets, Microsoft is combining renewable energy investments with durable carbon removal projects such as Arca’s. Following this deal, the tech giant reported its Q1 2026 financial results.
Microsoft’s Latest Earnings: Strong Results, But Shares Slip
Microsoft reported strong first-quarter fiscal 2026 results. Revenue rose 18% to $77.7 billion. Operating income grew 24% to $38.0 billion. Net income was $27.7 billion, up 12%. Profit also climbed to $30.8 billion, up 22%.
Microsoft Cloud revenue hit $49.1 billion, up 26%, and Azure and other cloud services grew 40%. The company returned $10.7 billion to shareholders through buybacks and dividends.

Despite the beats, Microsoft’s shares dropped roughly 3% in extended trading. Traders flagged three main worries.
- First, Microsoft raised its investment profile — management signalled higher capital spending to build more data centers and AI infrastructure.
- Second, the company disclosed a $3.1 billion hit related to its OpenAI investments that lowered reported earnings.
- Third, investors flagged margin pressure and possible capacity limits as cloud demand keeps rising.
These factors tempered the market’s initial enthusiasm, even as core business metrics beat expectations.

Meeting AI’s Growing Energy Demands
Microsoft’s AI and cloud services require large amounts of energy. As its Azure platform and data centers expand, electricity demand keeps climbing.
Global data centers used about 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) of power in 2024, equal to roughly 1.5% of total global use. By 2030, that number could rise to 945 TWh, more than double current levels. AI computing will likely drive much of that growth.
To balance this, Microsoft is investing in clean and firm power sources such as nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal. The company is also studying small modular reactors (SMRs) to power future data centers.
The deal with Arca adds another tool to help offset emissions from AI expansion. Microsoft is expanding its climate strategy. It’s now focusing on permanent carbon removal, not just renewables. It remains the top buyer of durable carbon removal in the second quarter of this year.
SEE MORE: Microsoft (MSFT Stock) Tops Q2 2025 Record-Breaking Surge in Durable Carbon Removal Credit Purchases
Arca’s Role in the Growing Carbon Removal Market
The global carbon removal market remains small but is growing fast. Experts say that by 2030, companies will need to remove at least 1 billion tonnes of CO₂ each year to meet climate goals. Today, only about 5 million tonnes of verified removals exist globally — meaning the market must expand hundreds of times.
Arca’s mineralization process is highly scalable. It uses abundant mining waste instead of new raw materials. Pilot projects in British Columbia and Ontario have shown good results. So, new facilities are planned all over North America.
The Microsoft deal gives Arca both credibility and financial backing to grow faster. Funds will help build larger operations, improve carbon measurement, and expand partnerships with mining companies globally.
Economic and Environmental Impact
For Arca, this deal marks a major step in scaling a once experimental process. It proves that natural mineralization can attract big corporate buyers and investors. It also highlights Canada’s leadership in carbon management and clean mining innovation.
The Honourable Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, commented:
“The next generation of clean growth will be built by Canada’s first-class innovation ecosystem – companies like Arca, which are turning Canadian ingenuity into global leadership. Carbon removal technologies are not only strategic tools we can use to tackle climate change, they create good jobs and position Canada at the forefront of the global opportunity of a low-carbon economy.”
The deal helps Microsoft balance the environmental costs of its AI and cloud growth. It also supports its carbon removal efforts. Every tonne of CO₂ removed will be verified and stored permanently. This follows the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) standards.
A Broader Shift Toward Permanent Carbon Removal
Tech giants like Google, Meta, and Shopify have signed similar long-term deals with carbon removal startups. These contracts give small companies predictable income, helping them scale and lower costs over time.
Analysts think the carbon removal market might reach $50–100 billion a year by 2030. This growth will depend on policy support and corporate buyer demand.
Both companies see this partnership as a model for combining technology, industry, and nature to fight climate change. For Microsoft, it is a key step in cleaning up emissions from its fast-growing AI business. For Arca, it provides a launchpad for global expansion and further innovation.
As more companies race toward net-zero goals, the demand for reliable and permanent carbon removal will keep rising. The Microsoft–Arca deal shows that tackling climate change can also drive new business opportunities where sustainability and growth can work hand in hand.
The post Microsoft Seals 10-Year Arca Carbon Deal Ahead of Earnings Beat and Record Profits appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares
Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
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

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:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- 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.
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months 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 Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

