Microsoft’s carbon neutrality ambitions have repeatedly made international headlines, and the recent extension of its agreement with Stockholm Exergi adds fresh fuel to both optimism and controversy around the tech giant’s climate strategy. In a move touted as the world’s largest carbon removal deal of its kind, Microsoft has contracted to buy 500,000 tonnes of permanent carbon removal annually from Exergi’s bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) facility, located near Stockholm’s Värtan strait, for the next decade. This newly announced contract builds upon a previous 3.33-million-tonne, 10-year agreement and lifts Microsoft’s commitment to 5.08 million tonnes of permanent removals over the ten-year period. Yet, as bold as these pledges may be, their proclaimed climate impact and credibility remain deeply contested terrain.
The heart of the deal lies in BECCS technology, a controversial process promoted as "carbon-negative." By burning biomass—ranging from wood and agricultural waste to food scraps—BECCS captures the resulting CO₂ emissions and stores them underground. In theory, this removes more carbon from the atmosphere than is released, effectively creating "negative emissions." The Stockholm facility, slated for completion in 2028, is designed to strip up to 800,000 tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere each year, with rigorous monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) protocols forming the agreement’s backbone.
Proponents see BECCS as a vital tool for reaching net-zero targets and even achieving net-negative emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) highlights BECCS as “the only carbon dioxide removal technique that can also provide energy,” underscoring its perceived double dividend of renewable power and atmospheric cleansing. Additionally, under Swedish policy, carbon removals achieved by this project will count both toward Microsoft’s sustainability targets and Sweden’s national climate goals, demonstrating the complex interlinkage between corporate and governmental accounting of emissions.
Yet critics charge that BECCS is fraught with risks, uncertainties, and loopholes. The main thrust of concern centers on the source and lifecycle of the biomass, the permanence of carbon storage, and the risk of greenwashing.
On paper, this safeguards against some of the most egregious pitfalls: deforestation, double counting, and leakage. Still, detractors argue that even well-managed BECCS projects can fuel demand for biomass, thereby indirectly increasing deforestation or shifting carbon debt to other regions. There is also ongoing debate within the scientific community over how to calculate net removals, considering everything from upstream emissions linked to feedstock transport, processing, and land-use changes to methane leaks and the fate of harvested wood.
A 2022 paper in the journal Nature cautioned that the climate benefits of BECCS are “highly context-dependent” and sensitive to exactly these upstream variables. Likewise, the IEA admits that infrastructure for transporting and permanently storing CO₂ at scale—beyond pilot projects or single plants—remains lagging. These realities means that, while BECCS could play a major role in global carbon management, its success is not guaranteed and depends on robust oversight, government regulation, and transparent accounting.
This tension is particularly pointed for Microsoft, which set a high-profile goal of becoming “carbon-negative” by 2030. Nevertheless, in the years since this pledge, company disclosures revealed a striking 30 percent increase in its carbon emissions, a figure attributed in large part to skyrocketing use of AI servers and data centers.
Environmental campaigners remain unconvinced that large-scale offsetting is a credible substitute for direct emissions reductions. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), for example, labels BECCS “a hoax,” insisting that interlinkages between forests, land use, and atmospheric carbon are too complex for such projects to deliver reliable climate benefits. “The world’s forests are rich in nature and carbon. The best thing is to leave them standing. Cutting them down, burning them, and capturing the carbon makes climate change worse,” claims the NRDC, raising the specter of unintended consequences if biomass harvesting is not tightly regulated.
More broadly, critics argue that the growing trade in carbon credits—including Microsoft’s other high-profile deals with companies like Re.green in Brazil and Occidental Petroleum in the U.S.—risks providing “a license to pollute” by giving firms an accounting loophole, rather than meaningfully shifting global emissions trajectories. Some sustainability experts warn that widespread reliance on offsets can sap political will for direct decarbonization, undermine climate targets, and erode public trust.
Yet, it must be stressed that independent verification of these removals is only as strong as the standards employed and the enforcement practiced. In its press statements, Exergi emphasizes that certificates sold to Microsoft will be governed by “strict quality requirements,” and the company has collaborated with Microsoft to develop robust protocols for sustainable sourcing, net removals quantification, and full-lifecycle analysis. The project secured its environmental permit last year, and construction on the capture, liquefaction, and storage infrastructure has begun, supporting claims that the effort goes beyond paper promises.
Nevertheless, there remains substantial regulatory uncertainty at both the national and international levels regarding what truly constitutes a "permanent" removal, how to avoid double counting between corporate and national GHG inventories, and what social impacts may arise from prioritizing biomass for energy over food, habitat conservation, or traditional uses.
For now, it is broadly accepted among climate scientists and policy experts that carbon removal must be viewed as a supplement to, and not a replacement for, aggressive reductions in fossil fuel use. Not only are the available volumes of sustainably harvested biomass limited, but overreliance on removals risks delaying urgent action in sectors where direct cuts are both necessary and achievable.
Independent audits, public documentation of biomass sourcing, and open access to MRV data will be important indicators of project integrity. Should the project meet its rigorous sustainability criteria, full-lifecycle assessment standards, and deliver certified removals as promised, it may well become a benchmark in the emerging global carbon management market. On the other hand, any shortcoming—be it incomplete capture rates, unsustainable sourcing, or leakage from geological stores—could damage not only the credibility of the project, but of carbon removals more broadly.
It is also worth noting that Microsoft has diversified its offsetting portfolio through agreements worldwide, including an extension of its partnership with Re.green to plant millions of seedlings in Brazil and contracts with Occidental Petroleum for direct air capture removals. While diversity may enhance resilience and spread risk, it also underscores the fact that there is, at present, no single “silver bullet” solution for corporate climate action.
Organizations like the IEA stress that clear protocols and international coordination will be essential to avoid double accounting and to ensure that removals are truly “additional” to what would have happened anyway. Countries and corporations have a strong incentive to maximize the apparent impact of climate investments, but in the absence of harmonized rules across borders and sectors, the risk of overstating progress is genuine.
Moreover, the economic incentives at play are nontrivial. The development, marketing, and sale of carbon removal certificates represent a new industry, with billions of dollars in potential revenue. Critics caution that this profit motive could distort climate priorities or encourage accounting “creativity” at the edge of regulatory oversight.
If Microsoft’s carbon removals prove both robust and replicable, they could jumpstart a global market for high-quality, verifiable negative emissions, accelerating investment in scaling technologies that, while imperfect, are urgently needed. If, on the other hand, project claims are revealed to be exaggerated or unsustainable, they may slow progress by fueling cynicism and emboldening those who resist meaningful change.
Ultimately, the company’s campaign crystallizes a central tension in the climate crisis: whether technological ingenuity and market-driven mechanisms can deliver the planetary transformation scientists say is essential, or whether they provide only the fig leaf for business as usual. The next few years, as Stockholm Exergi’s facility comes online and the MRV data accumulates, will give the world a case study—not just in carbon management, but in the possibility of credible hope against the most daunting challenge of our era.
The heart of the deal lies in BECCS technology, a controversial process promoted as "carbon-negative." By burning biomass—ranging from wood and agricultural waste to food scraps—BECCS captures the resulting CO₂ emissions and stores them underground. In theory, this removes more carbon from the atmosphere than is released, effectively creating "negative emissions." The Stockholm facility, slated for completion in 2028, is designed to strip up to 800,000 tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere each year, with rigorous monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) protocols forming the agreement’s backbone.Proponents see BECCS as a vital tool for reaching net-zero targets and even achieving net-negative emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) highlights BECCS as “the only carbon dioxide removal technique that can also provide energy,” underscoring its perceived double dividend of renewable power and atmospheric cleansing. Additionally, under Swedish policy, carbon removals achieved by this project will count both toward Microsoft’s sustainability targets and Sweden’s national climate goals, demonstrating the complex interlinkage between corporate and governmental accounting of emissions.
Yet critics charge that BECCS is fraught with risks, uncertainties, and loopholes. The main thrust of concern centers on the source and lifecycle of the biomass, the permanence of carbon storage, and the risk of greenwashing.
Navigating the Science: Sustainability, Storage, and Scale
In the case of Stockholm Exergi, both Microsoft and the project operator have gone to considerable lengths to address sustainability. The agreement specifies that feedstock will be derived from sustainable forest management and will not divert wood otherwise destined for long-term products like construction materials or furniture—both of which are crucial carbon sinks in their own right. The “permanence” of sequestration, another major sticking point among skeptics, is set to be ensured by geological storage in the Nordic region, with stringent MRV requirements under international and local standards.On paper, this safeguards against some of the most egregious pitfalls: deforestation, double counting, and leakage. Still, detractors argue that even well-managed BECCS projects can fuel demand for biomass, thereby indirectly increasing deforestation or shifting carbon debt to other regions. There is also ongoing debate within the scientific community over how to calculate net removals, considering everything from upstream emissions linked to feedstock transport, processing, and land-use changes to methane leaks and the fate of harvested wood.
A 2022 paper in the journal Nature cautioned that the climate benefits of BECCS are “highly context-dependent” and sensitive to exactly these upstream variables. Likewise, the IEA admits that infrastructure for transporting and permanently storing CO₂ at scale—beyond pilot projects or single plants—remains lagging. These realities means that, while BECCS could play a major role in global carbon management, its success is not guaranteed and depends on robust oversight, government regulation, and transparent accounting.
Decarbonization or Distraction? The Offset Dilemma
Microsoft’s accelerated push for carbon removal is not unique among multinational corporations, but its scale and visibility place it under a fierce spotlight. Offsetting carbon emissions using techniques like BECCS offers companies—especially those in energy-intensive sectors such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence—a path to claim environmental responsibility even as their direct emissions may be climbing.This tension is particularly pointed for Microsoft, which set a high-profile goal of becoming “carbon-negative” by 2030. Nevertheless, in the years since this pledge, company disclosures revealed a striking 30 percent increase in its carbon emissions, a figure attributed in large part to skyrocketing use of AI servers and data centers.
Environmental campaigners remain unconvinced that large-scale offsetting is a credible substitute for direct emissions reductions. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), for example, labels BECCS “a hoax,” insisting that interlinkages between forests, land use, and atmospheric carbon are too complex for such projects to deliver reliable climate benefits. “The world’s forests are rich in nature and carbon. The best thing is to leave them standing. Cutting them down, burning them, and capturing the carbon makes climate change worse,” claims the NRDC, raising the specter of unintended consequences if biomass harvesting is not tightly regulated.
More broadly, critics argue that the growing trade in carbon credits—including Microsoft’s other high-profile deals with companies like Re.green in Brazil and Occidental Petroleum in the U.S.—risks providing “a license to pollute” by giving firms an accounting loophole, rather than meaningfully shifting global emissions trajectories. Some sustainability experts warn that widespread reliance on offsets can sap political will for direct decarbonization, undermine climate targets, and erode public trust.
The Big Picture: Can Corporations Really Go Carbon-Negative?
To fairly assess Microsoft’s approach, it is essential to recognize both the innovation and the limitations of current carbon removal technology. The sheer scale of Microsoft’s investment is of undeniable significance: 5.08 million tonnes of certified removals over a decade sends a powerful market signal and funds further R&D. In comparison to traditional offsets, which may be based on less verifiable activities like planting trees without follow-up, the BECCS agreement offers clearer MRV pathways, third-party validation, and permanent storage claims that are easier to audit and regulate.Yet, it must be stressed that independent verification of these removals is only as strong as the standards employed and the enforcement practiced. In its press statements, Exergi emphasizes that certificates sold to Microsoft will be governed by “strict quality requirements,” and the company has collaborated with Microsoft to develop robust protocols for sustainable sourcing, net removals quantification, and full-lifecycle analysis. The project secured its environmental permit last year, and construction on the capture, liquefaction, and storage infrastructure has begun, supporting claims that the effort goes beyond paper promises.
Nevertheless, there remains substantial regulatory uncertainty at both the national and international levels regarding what truly constitutes a "permanent" removal, how to avoid double counting between corporate and national GHG inventories, and what social impacts may arise from prioritizing biomass for energy over food, habitat conservation, or traditional uses.
For now, it is broadly accepted among climate scientists and policy experts that carbon removal must be viewed as a supplement to, and not a replacement for, aggressive reductions in fossil fuel use. Not only are the available volumes of sustainably harvested biomass limited, but overreliance on removals risks delaying urgent action in sectors where direct cuts are both necessary and achievable.
Transparency and Trust: The Next Test for Microsoft
One of the strengths of Microsoft’s arrangement with Exergi is its transparency—at least insofar as project details, timelines, and quantities are publicly reported and subject to third-party oversight. The expectation that the first batch of carbon removal certificates will be handed to Microsoft in 2028, continuing for a decade, is a measurable result against which progress and performance can be tracked.Independent audits, public documentation of biomass sourcing, and open access to MRV data will be important indicators of project integrity. Should the project meet its rigorous sustainability criteria, full-lifecycle assessment standards, and deliver certified removals as promised, it may well become a benchmark in the emerging global carbon management market. On the other hand, any shortcoming—be it incomplete capture rates, unsustainable sourcing, or leakage from geological stores—could damage not only the credibility of the project, but of carbon removals more broadly.
It is also worth noting that Microsoft has diversified its offsetting portfolio through agreements worldwide, including an extension of its partnership with Re.green to plant millions of seedlings in Brazil and contracts with Occidental Petroleum for direct air capture removals. While diversity may enhance resilience and spread risk, it also underscores the fact that there is, at present, no single “silver bullet” solution for corporate climate action.
Critical Eye on Climate Policy and Corporate Influence
The intertwining of corporate actions with national climate goals presents another layer of complexity. Microsoft’s Swedish deal is designed to satisfy both its internal targets and make progress toward Sweden’s stated climate commitments. While efficient on paper, this arrangement raises questions around double counting and whether credits used by corporations can or should count against national pledges under the Paris Agreement.Organizations like the IEA stress that clear protocols and international coordination will be essential to avoid double accounting and to ensure that removals are truly “additional” to what would have happened anyway. Countries and corporations have a strong incentive to maximize the apparent impact of climate investments, but in the absence of harmonized rules across borders and sectors, the risk of overstating progress is genuine.
Moreover, the economic incentives at play are nontrivial. The development, marketing, and sale of carbon removal certificates represent a new industry, with billions of dollars in potential revenue. Critics caution that this profit motive could distort climate priorities or encourage accounting “creativity” at the edge of regulatory oversight.
What Comes Next: Innovation, Scrutiny, and the Race to Net Zero
In the dynamic world of climate technology, Microsoft’s sweeping contracts with Exergi and others are setting standards as much as meeting them. The attention—both supportive and skeptical—being paid to these efforts reflects the stakes involved, not just for a single tech company, but for the credibility of global climate action writ large.If Microsoft’s carbon removals prove both robust and replicable, they could jumpstart a global market for high-quality, verifiable negative emissions, accelerating investment in scaling technologies that, while imperfect, are urgently needed. If, on the other hand, project claims are revealed to be exaggerated or unsustainable, they may slow progress by fueling cynicism and emboldening those who resist meaningful change.
Ultimately, the company’s campaign crystallizes a central tension in the climate crisis: whether technological ingenuity and market-driven mechanisms can deliver the planetary transformation scientists say is essential, or whether they provide only the fig leaf for business as usual. The next few years, as Stockholm Exergi’s facility comes online and the MRV data accumulates, will give the world a case study—not just in carbon management, but in the possibility of credible hope against the most daunting challenge of our era.