Google has agreed its largest carbon-removal purchase to date, backing a Terradot project in southern Brazil that combines two climate interventions in rice agriculture.
The project aims to reduce methane emissions from rice paddies while also removing carbon dioxide through enhanced rock weathering. It is planned to cover more than 200,000 hectares in Rio Grande do Sul and is expected to generate 1 million tonnes of methane-abatement credits by 2030 and 1 million tonnes of carbon-removal credits by 2040.
The headline scale matters.
But the more important message is about climate strategy.
Methane and carbon dioxide do not behave in the same way in the atmosphere. They cannot be treated as interchangeable simply because both are measured in tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent.
Methane is a powerful short-lived greenhouse gas. Reducing it can slow warming relatively quickly.
Carbon dioxide remains in the climate system for far longer. Cutting emissions and, where necessary, removing CO₂ from the atmosphere are essential to limiting long-term warming.
The Terradot project is therefore a useful test of a more mature climate-finance model: one programme delivering distinct methane and carbon-removal outcomes, with separate crediting, measurement and verification.
Why the two-gas strategy matters
Corporate climate plans often focus almost entirely on carbon dioxide.
That is understandable. CO₂ is the central long-term driver of climate change, and fossil-fuel combustion remains the largest source of global emissions.
But a credible climate strategy also needs to consider methane.
Methane comes from oil and gas operations, agriculture, waste and other sources. It has a much stronger warming effect than CO₂ in the near term, even though it does not remain in the atmosphere for as long.
This creates two related but different climate tasks:
Near-term warming reduction→methane abatement
Long-term climate stabilisation→deep CO₂ cuts + durable carbon removal
The distinction matters because an organisation can reduce methane substantially and make an important contribution to slowing near-term warming, while still needing a long-term plan for carbon dioxide.
Equally, buying carbon removals does not replace the value of reducing methane in sectors where action can be rapid and cost effective.
The strongest climate strategies will do both.
What enhanced rock weathering does
Enhanced rock weathering accelerates a natural geological process.
Certain rocks react with carbon dioxide and water over time. The process can convert CO₂ into stable dissolved forms that are eventually transported to the ocean and stored over long periods.
In agricultural projects, crushed silicate rock—often basalt—is spread on fields. As it weathers, it may remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while also potentially affecting soil chemistry.
The climate potential is significant, but so are the measurement challenges.
Enhanced rock weathering needs robust monitoring to understand:
The composition and quantity of rock applied
How quickly the material weathers
Changes in soil and water chemistry
The actual amount of CO₂ removed
Emissions from mining, grinding and transporting the rock
Potential environmental impacts on soils and water systems
The durability of the storage outcome
Whether the removal would have occurred without the carbon-finance incentive
This is why high-quality measurement, reporting and verification are central to the project’s credibility.
Rice methane is a major opportunity
Rice paddies are an important source of methane because flooded conditions create an environment in which methane-producing microbes thrive.
Reuters reports that rice paddies account for an estimated 10% to 12% of global methane emissions, citing a 2021 United Nations Environment Programme assessment.
Reducing methane from rice cultivation can involve changes in water management, planting methods, crop-residue treatment and fertiliser practices. These changes need to work for farmers as well as climate models.
If a project creates extra cost, labour or production risk for farmers without fair financial support, adoption will be limited.
This is where long-term corporate demand can be valuable. It can help fund implementation support, farmer engagement, monitoring systems and incentives for sustained practice change.
However, project outcomes need to be clearly separated.
A methane-abatement credit should not be marketed as a carbon-removal credit.
A carbon-removal credit should not be used to imply that methane reductions alone have delivered durable atmospheric removal.
The distinction protects buyers, project developers and the wider market from misleading claims.
Why separate crediting matters
The Terradot project intends to generate methane-abatement credits and carbon-removal credits separately.
That is a positive design feature.
Different climate outcomes require different methodologies, different monitoring approaches and different claims.
Climate outcome | Core question | Main integrity challenge |
|---|---|---|
Methane abatement | How much methane was avoided compared with a credible baseline? | Baseline quality, farmer adoption, additionality and ongoing practice change |
Enhanced rock-weathering removal | How much atmospheric CO₂ was removed and stored durably? | Measurement, lifecycle emissions, mineral verification and storage durability |
Combining activities in one landscape can create operational efficiencies and broader environmental benefits. But combining credit labels can create confusion.
Corporate buyers should insist that each credit type has a clearly defined use case.
For example, methane-abatement credits may support a company’s broader climate-finance or value-chain engagement strategy. Durable removals may be relevant for residual emissions, provided the buyer has a credible reduction pathway and makes appropriate claims.
The price and scale challenge
Google and Terradot did not disclose the price of the new agreement.
Reuters reported that a previous Terradot agreement in 2024 for 90,000 tonnes of carbon removal implied a price of roughly $300 per tonne. The companies said the new project should be cheaper, although it has not yet reached the approximate $100-per-tonne level many developers view as important for wider demand.
This illustrates a central carbon-removal challenge.
The market needs projects to scale.
But scaling cannot come at the expense of scientific integrity.
Enhanced rock weathering, direct air capture, biochar, biomass carbon removal and storage, and other removal pathways all need sufficient demand to invest in operations, measurement systems and infrastructure. Yet buyers must also avoid treating early-stage cost reductions as more important than robust verification.
The real question is not whether a project can produce the largest volume of credits at the lowest price.
It is whether it can deliver additional, measurable and durable climate benefits at a cost that supports credible market growth.
What buyers should ask
Corporate buyers considering projects that combine emissions reductions and removals should ask:
What outcomes are being credited?
Are methane reductions and CO₂ removals accounted for separately?
What methodology is used for each outcome?
How are lifecycle emissions measured?
What is the project’s farmer-engagement and benefit-sharing model?
What evidence supports additionality?
How frequently are outcomes monitored and verified?
What happens if projected removals or methane reductions do not materialise?
What public claim can the buyer make without overstating the outcome?
These questions are particularly important for companies facing growing scrutiny of climate-neutral, net-zero and carbon-removal claims.
A model worth watching
The Terradot project does not resolve every challenge in carbon markets.
It does, however, show where the market may be heading: larger, longer-term procurement agreements that finance multiple climate benefits while maintaining separate accounting for different outcomes.
That approach is more demanding than buying a generic “offset”.
It requires scientific rigour, farmer participation, transparent methodologies and careful communications.
But it is also more useful.
The climate problem is not one gas, one sector or one technology.
A credible response will need to reduce methane quickly, cut carbon dioxide deeply and scale durable removals without using any of these actions as an excuse to delay the others.