Microsoft (MSFT stock) has signed a long-term carbon removal agreement that highlights both the scale and direction of the emerging carbon market. The company will purchase 626,000 tonnes of durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) credits over 15 years from the North Star project in Saskatchewan, Canada.
This project is being developed by Svante Technologies Inc. in partnership with the Meadow Lake Tribal Council (MLTC), through their joint venture North Star Carbon Solutions LP.
The facility will use bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it permanently underground. Notably, the project will be co-located at the existing MLTC Bioenergy Centre and powered by waste biomass from a nearby Indigenous-owned sawmill.
This makes it one of the first fully integrated, Indigenous-led BECCS projects in Canada and a landmark deal in Microsoft’s growing carbon removal portfolio.
Indigenous-Led Carbon Project Sets New Benchmark in Canada
The North Star project stands out not just for its technology, but also for its ownership model. It is expected to be Canada’s first major Indigenous-owned, high-quality carbon removal project. The Meadow Lake Tribal Council, which represents several First Nations communities, plays a central role in both ownership and development.
This structure ensures that economic benefits stay within the local community. During construction, the project is expected to create around 50 jobs. Once operational, it will support a smaller but steady workforce while also boosting demand for nearby businesses. As a result, the project delivers both climate and economic value.
Equally important, the facility will rely on an existing industrial ecosystem. The MLTC Bioenergy Centre already generates renewable energy using wood waste.
That waste comes from the NorSask Forest Products sawmill, which is owned by MLTC and supplied through sustainably managed forests. This close integration reduces costs, improves efficiency, and strengthens the project’s environmental credibility.
Phillip Goodman, Director of Carbon Removal Portfolio, Microsoft, said:
“We’re pleased to work with North Star Carbon Solutions and Meadow Lake Tribal Council to help advance high-quality, durable carbon dioxide removal. To meet our climate goals, we need to help scale solutions that deliver durable storage and are backed by rigorous monitoring and verification. This agreement supports an Indigenous-led collaboration that enables the infrastructure needed to bring durable carbon removal online in Canada, thus creating a pathway for additional projects over time.”
How the North Star BECCS System Works
The North Star facility uses BECCS, a technology widely seen as critical for achieving net-zero emissions. It combines renewable energy production with carbon capture to deliver negative emissions.
- In this system, trees first absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere as they grow. When these trees are processed for wood products, leftover biomass is used as fuel to generate energy.
- Normally, this process would release carbon back into the air. However, in this case, the CO₂ is captured before it can escape.
- The captured carbon is then compressed, transported, and injected deep underground into a secure geological formation.
This ensures long-term storage, often lasting hundreds or even thousands of years. Continuous monitoring systems track the stored carbon to ensure safety and permanence.
Here’s a representation of the BECCS process:
A Fully Integrated “Source-to-Sink” Model
From the process explained above, it’s clear that one of the most important features of the North Star project is its fully integrated design. It connects every step of the carbon removal process, from biomass supply to permanent storage.
This end-to-end system improves efficiency and reduces uncertainty. It also strengthens the credibility of the carbon credits produced.
Significantly, Svante will fund the project through its early stages, supporting development until a final investment decision is made. Commercial operations are expected to begin in early 2029.
Reliable Carbon Removal, Verified and Transparent
At full capacity, the facility is expected to capture up to 90,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually. Over the 15-year contract period, this will translate into the delivery of 626,000 tonnes of verified carbon removal credits to Microsoft.
All credits will follow strict monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) standards, ensuring transparency and quality.
Microsoft Scales Up Carbon Removal Strategy
This agreement is part of Microsoft’s broader push to scale carbon removal. The company has rapidly increased its purchases over the past few years, signaling a shift from small pilot projects to large, long-term commitments.
In 2023, Microsoft contracted roughly 5 million tonnes of carbon removal. By 2024, that number rose to 22 million metric tons. In 2025, the target surged further to around 45 million tonnes, as announced by the company. This sharp increase shows how quickly the company is building a diversified carbon removal portfolio.
Importantly, Microsoft does not rely on a single technology. Instead, it spreads its investments across multiple pathways, including BECCS, direct air capture, and mineralization. This approach reduces risk while supporting the development of different solutions.
Recent agreements reflect this strategy. These include multi-million-tonne deals with BECCS facilities in the United States and Europe. Together, they position Microsoft as one of the most influential buyers in the global carbon removal market.
Rising Emissions Make Carbon Removal Essential
Despite its climate commitments, Microsoft faces a growing emissions challenge. The company’s total emissions have increased by more than 30% compared to 2020 levels. This rise is largely driven by the rapid expansion of data centers, cloud services, and AI infrastructure.
These operations require vast amounts of energy and materials, making it difficult to cut emissions quickly. As a result, carbon removal has become a key part of Microsoft’s strategy.
However, the company is clear about its priorities. It focuses first on reducing emissions through efficiency and clean energy. Carbon removal is used only for emissions that cannot be eliminated.
This approach supports Microsoft’s ambitious net-zero goals. The company aims to become carbon negative by 2030 and aims to run on 100% renewable electricity and eliminate all historical emissions by 2050.
BECCS Market Gains Momentum
The North Star deal also reflects growing interest in BECCS technology. While still at an early stage, the global BECCS market is expanding rapidly. Analysts expect it to grow at a CAGR of around 19.27% from 2024 to 2030 as governments and companies seek reliable carbon removal solutions.
BECCS is particularly valuable because it can deliver durable removals. Unlike some nature-based solutions, which may face risks like fires or land-use changes, BECCS stores carbon permanently underground. This makes it attractive for companies looking for high-quality credits.
According to the International Energy Agency, BECCS could play a major role in climate mitigation. It may contribute up to 15% of the emissions reductions needed by 2100 to limit global warming to 2°C.
At the same time, challenges remain. Concerns about biomass sourcing, land use, and storage safety continue to shape the debate. Even so, projects like North Star aim to address these issues through sustainable sourcing and rigorous monitoring.
North Star Marks a New Era in Carbon Markets
In conclusion, the Microsoft–North Star agreement highlights how quickly the carbon removal market is evolving. Large buyers are now committing to long-term deals that help bring new projects to life.
At the same time, the project sets a new benchmark for inclusive climate action. Indigenous ownership ensures that local communities benefit directly from the energy transition.
As demand for durable carbon removal continues to grow, more projects like North Star are likely to emerge. These developments will play a critical role in helping companies meet climate targets while building a scalable, high-integrity carbon market.
In that sense, this deal is more than just a contract. It is a clear signal that carbon removal is moving from concept to reality—and becoming a core part of global climate strategy.
The post Microsoft Signs 626,000-Tonne Carbon Removal Deal with Svante and Indigenous-Led North Star Project in Canada appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
