The organization has stated that it is not indefinitely ceasing its carbon removal purchases (though it has not directly addressed further inquiries regarding this apparent suspension). However, amidst this wave of news, apprehension is prevalent within the industry—hence, it’s essential to discuss the current landscape of carbon removal, and the role of major tech firms within it.

Carbon removal seeks to effectively extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and confine it permanently. There exists a variety of technologies in this domain, such as direct air capture (DAC) facilities, which often utilize some form of sorbent or solvent to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Another significant technique is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), where biomass like trees or biodegradable fuels are combusted for energy, and filtration equipment captures the emitted greenhouse gases.

There was a significant surge of interest in carbon removal technologies during the initial half of this decade. A 2022 UN climate report indicated that nations might need to eliminate up to 11 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2050 to restrict temperature increases to 2 °C above preindustrial figures.

A persistent challenge is that the economics involved have always been complicated. There’s a substantial potential public advantage to extracting carbon pollutants from the atmosphere. The question remains, Who will fund it?

Until now, the response has been Microsoft. The company is indisputably the most substantial purchaser of carbon removal agreements, and it stands as the only buyer that has made megatonne-scale transactions, according to Robert Höglund, cofounder of CDR.fyi, a public-benefit corporation that assesses the carbon removal industry. “Microsoft has played a crucial role, particularly in initiating large-scale projects and demonstrating there’s a demand for extensive contracts,” Höglund stated via email.

Microsoft has committed to becoming carbon-negative by 2030 and to eliminate the equivalent of its historical emissions by 2050. However, progress in reducing emissions has proven challenging—in the company’s most recent Environmental Sustainability Report, released in June 2025, it revealed that emissions had increased by 23.4% since 2020.

On April 10, Heatmap News reported that Microsoft personnel had informed suppliers and collaborators about pausing future carbon removal purchases, although it was unclear if the company would enhance support for ongoing projects, or when purchasing might recommence. Bloomberg reported similar information the following day. In one case, Microsoft staff indicated that the decision was affiliated with financial factors, one source relayed to Bloomberg.

In response to written inquiries, Microsoft mentioned that it is not permanently terminating its carbon removal program. “At times we might modify the pace or quantity of our carbon removal procurement as we continually enhance our approach to sustainability objectives. Any modifications we implement are part of our disciplined methodology—not a shift in ambition,” Microsoft Chief Sustainability Officer Melanie Nakagawa articulated in the statement.

Regardless of what is happening internally, many in the industry express unease, states Wil Burns, Co-Director of the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal at American University. There’s a perception of the company as the fundamental supporter of carbon removal, he notes.

“This pause—whether short-term or whatever it is—the manner in which it has been communicated is exceedingly irresponsible,” Burns asserts. The vast majority of businesses seeking carbon removal agreements are likely targeting Microsoft deals. So, while Microsoft possesses the right to adjust its plans, the company must be transparent with the industry at this moment, he adds.

“I don’t believe one can position themselves as the model for promoting carbon removal and then treat an emerging industry with such disregard,” Burns remarks.

Carbon removal firms were already facing turmoil in the US, particularly due to recent shifts in policy: Funding has been narrowed, and new alterations at the Environmental Protection Agency aimed at diminishing the government’s capacity to target carbon emissions.

Now, if the largest corporate supporter is altering its plans or instituting a significant pause, the situation could become unstable.

Depending on how extensive this pause is, the industry may have to rely on smaller purchases and await assistance from governments and philanthropy, Höglund suggests. However, for carbon removal to genuinely scale, it is essential for policymakers to establish mandates making emitters accountable for either storing the carbon dioxide they generate or funding its removal, Burns emphasizes.

“Perhaps the silver lining of this situation is that Microsoft has issued a wake-up call, illustrating that reliance on external benevolence is insufficient to achieve the scaling of carbon removal.”

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. 

Nonetheless, I realize that the concept of living harmoniously with nature may appear sentimental. Hence, I was thrilled to be a part of a meeting in Oxford, UK, aimed at developing more accurate tools to evaluate human-nonhuman interactions. Scientists have created numerous metrics for measuring environmental degradation, from carbon dioxide concentrations to species extinction rates to “planetary thresholds.” While these are useful, they often engage people primarily through fear. We contemplated the possibility of creating metrics that would spark people’s hopes and aspirations instead.

The task proved more challenging than I anticipated. How does one quantify the degree to which individuals in various nations coexist well with other beings on Earth? Some of the indicators proposed by the group seemed to me too reminiscent of the older, more confrontational methods. Why track the amount of agricultural land utilized per person, for instance? Environmentalists have usually regarded farms as antithetical to nature, yet they can also be potential zones for both consumable and non-consumable biodiversity. Some participants favored using satellite imaging to assess factors like proximity to green areas. However, without local data, establishing whether people can genuinely access that space is impossible.

Ultimately, the approximately 20 scientists, writers, and philosophers convened in Oxford settled on three fundamental inquiries. First, is nature flourishing and accessible to people? We sought to determine whether humans could engage meaningfully with their surroundings. Second, is nature utilized with consideration? (Certainly, “consideration” could encompass various interpretations. Is it merely about keeping harvesting below maximum sustainable levels? Or does it necessitate a fully circular economy?) Lastly, is nature protected? Again, assessing this is not straightforward. But if we could loosely quantify each of these three elements, they could combine into a cumulative score for the quality of the human-nature relationship.

We published our concepts in Nature the previous year. While they weren’t flawless, green-space remote sensing and agricultural footprint assessments were included. Since then, a team at the United Nations Human Development Office has advanced this work, planning to unveil a Nature Relationship Index (NRI) later this year alongside the 2026 Human Development Report. Everybody appreciates a ranked list; we hope nations will strive for a favorable score and compete to achieve the highest rankings.

Pedro Conceição, the lead author of the Human Development Report, informs me that he aims for the new index to transform how countries perceive their environmental initiatives. (He wouldn’t share any spoilers regarding the final metrics, but he did mention that nothing from our Nature paper made it in.) The NRI, Conceição states, will be essential for “challenging the notion that humans are inherently destructive to nature and that nature is unspoiled.” Narratives focused on limitations, restraints, and boundaries are divisive rather than inspiring, he adds. Therefore, the NRI isn’t about highlighting our failures. It addresses aspirations for a lush, bountiful world. As we improve, the number increases—and there is no upper limit.

Emma Marris is the author of Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World.