Google and McKinsey Back Carbon Removal Through Brazilian Cattle Pastures
Google and McKinsey & Company have signed agreements to purchase carbon removal from Working Trees, backing an agricultural model that combines cattle grazing with tree planting on degraded Brazilian pastureland.
Announced on October 19, the contracts cover a combined 320,000 metric tons of carbon removal over ten years. The purchases were arranged through the Symbiosis Coalition and mark its first silvopasture project, extending corporate carbon procurement into a land-use approach that keeps ranching in place. Reuters reported that the agreements represent an early attempt to expand carbon-financed silvopasture beyond pilot deployments.
The purchases will support the restoration of 8,700 hectares of degraded and semi-degraded pasture within a broader 50,000-hectare project across the southeastern Amazon and central Cerrado. These figures describe different scales: the agreements support part of the wider development, rather than financing its entire footprint.
Integrating Trees Into Working Ranches
Silvopasture deliberately combines trees, forage and grazing livestock on the same land. Google confirmed that its individual purchase covers 270,000 tons of carbon dioxide removal through the Brazilian initiative.
In its announcement, Google described the approach as a way to restore active ranchland without displacing cattle. Trees can provide shade, while timber and carbon revenues offer ranchers additional income sources. The company also identified improved soil conditions and drought resilience as expected benefits, alongside potential gains in livestock and land productivity. These remain outcomes to establish through implementation and monitoring, rather than automatic consequences of signing a purchase agreement.
The project will plant rows of native and commercial timber trees, leaving grazing space between them. Planned native species include baru and ingá, alongside commercial species such as teak and African mahogany. Symbiosis says the program aims to increase its native-species share from a minimum of 25% to 50% by 2030.
Commercial timber is intended to give landowners an economic reason to retain the system after carbon revenue declines. According to the coalition, harvesting cycles are included in carbon calculations, an important consideration where trees serve both as carbon stores and future products.
Long-Term Purchasing Supports Farm Investment
For participating ranchers, the transition requires more than seedlings. Establishing and maintaining a silvopasture system involves expenditure, technical knowledge and management changes before trees generate significant returns.
Working Trees says it covers most implementation costs and provides assistance with system design, establishment and long-term management. Its approach uses remote sensing and field data to adapt planting arrangements to individual farms. On its website, the company reports 2,167 hectares planted, approximately 450,000 trees and 18 partner farmers. These are company-reported operating figures, distinct from the much larger development ambitions associated with the new contracts.
The commercial significance of the agreements is the connection between future carbon purchases and present-day land management. Reuters reported that Working Trees chief executive Leif Gonzales-Kramer identified long-term purchasing commitments as essential to enabling investment in this type of project. For developers and financiers, contracted demand provides a clearer revenue outlook than reliance on future spot-market sales.
Monitoring Must Substantiate the Carbon Claims
Working Trees describes a monitoring system combining satellite imagery, machine learning and field observations to track carbon over time. Planted trees are geotagged, and participating farmers use an application to record and monitor them. Google also highlighted the developer’s digital platform as a means of creating a traceable record of project activity.
Such records support oversight, but credible carbon accounting also requires comparison with what would have happened without the intervention. Symbiosis’ published quality criteria require conservative accounting, assessment of additionality and monitoring against appropriate baselines. They also address leakage, where a project shifts agricultural production or associated emissions elsewhere.
Maintaining cattle production within the project area is relevant to that risk. However, keeping ranching in place does not, by itself, establish the quantity of additional carbon removed or demonstrate that every wider land-use impact has been avoided. Those conclusions require evidence.
Durability is another central issue. Symbiosis’ criteria call for assessment of fire, storms and other reversal risks, long-term management plans and mechanisms to compensate for lost carbon. They also require evidence of land tenure and carbon rights, alongside transparent benefit sharing and safeguards for affected communities. These requirements provide a framework against which project delivery can be assessed.
Implications for Corporate Climate Strategies
The agreement adds another pathway to the growing market for nature-based carbon removal. Its practical appeal lies in using carbon finance to change management on productive agricultural land, while offering farmers reasons to maintain those changes.
Nevertheless, purchasing future removals is different from demonstrating delivered climate benefits. Reuters placed the transaction within wider corporate demand for carbon credits, including technology companies facing emissions pressures from expanding artificial intelligence infrastructure. It also noted criticism that offsets can allow companies to defer direct emissions cuts.
For buyers, the project’s value will therefore depend on verified delivery, transparent accounting and continued progress in reducing their own emissions. For ranchers, its longer-term relevance will depend on whether trees, livestock and diversified revenues form an economically workable system after the initial carbon contracts.
Sources:
Cut through the green tape
We don't push agendas. At Net Zero Compare, we cut through the hype and fear to deliver the straightforward facts you need for making informed decisions on green products and services. Whether motivated by compliance, customer demands, or a real passion for the environment, you’re welcome here. We provide reliable information. Why you seek it is not our concern.