Microsoft digs deep into soil carbon

Microsoft’s 12-year, 2.85 million-tonne soil carbon deal with Indigo Ag marks a shift from pilots to mature, scalable climate solutions

2 Feb 2026

A few years ago soil carbon was a curiosity in carbon markets, discussed at conferences and tested in small plots. Today it is attracting contracts measured in millions of tonnes. Microsoft’s latest deal makes that shift plain.

The company has agreed to buy about 2.85m tonnes of soil carbon removal credits from Indigo Ag over 12 years, one of the largest such agreements yet. The credits will be generated on American farmland. For a firm that has pledged to become carbon-negative, the message is that soil carbon is no longer a sideshow. It is being treated as a serious, scalable option.

The agreement builds on earlier, modest purchases between the two firms, around 40,000 tonnes one year and 60,000 the next. Those were trials. This one is a statement of intent. Long contracts suggest confidence that soil carbon can meet tougher demands on durability, data and verification.

Much of the value lies in certainty. Farmers must change how they manage land years before extra carbon can be reliably measured. That requires trust and money up front, and faith that buyers will still be there later. A long-term buyer helps to underwrite that risk. For Indigo Ag, Microsoft’s commitment offers the security needed to invest in farmer support, monitoring systems and audits.

“This kind of scale allows the market to move beyond pilots,” an industry analyst said. “Long-term agreements give farmers confidence and push developers to build stronger, more transparent systems.”

For Microsoft, the deal fits its preference for removals that endure, rather than short-lived offsets. Soil carbon is not permanent in the geological sense, but with careful management it can last decades. It can also bring side benefits, such as healthier soils and more resilient farms.

The timing matters. Carbon markets are under scrutiny from regulators and investors worried about exaggerated claims. At the same time, American farmers are being nudged towards regenerative practices by subsidies and private schemes. Linking corporate demand to changes in farming offers a way to satisfy both pressures.

Risks remain. Carbon stored in soil can be lost, and a handful of large buyers could end up shaping the market. Even so, the direction is clear. Bigger, longer contracts suggest a market growing up, with sharper expectations of quality and accountability. Soil carbon, once experimental, is being put to work at scale.