You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Congratulations to Mati Carbon, an enhanced rock weathering startup that works with farmers in India.

Mati Carbon, a startup that spreads rock dust on small farms in India to increase the land’s ability to suck carbon from the air, was awarded the $50 million grand prize in the Carbon Removal XPRIZE contest on Wednesday.
More than 1,000 teams initially registered for the four year-long competition, which Elon Musk bankrolled in 2021. The goal was to challenge scientists and entrepreneurs to scale new solutions to remove the carbon already blanketing the planet.
To win, entrants had to demonstrate that they’d removed at least 1,000 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere during the final year of the contest, and that the carbon would be locked away for at least 100 years. They also had to make the case to the judges that they had a viable path to scale up their operations to remove a billion tons per year in the future.
The three runners up include NetZero, a French biochar company, Vaulted Deep, which takes carbon-rich waste streams (including sewage) and turns them into a slurry that can be injected underground, and UNDO, which is advancing a similar solution to Mati Carbon but on larger farms in Scotland and Canada.
If you’ve been following the growth of the carbon removal industry, you may notice that none of the winners is building a big contraption to pull carbon from the air, also known as direct air capture. The tech has become a sort of industry poster child due to the public successes of companies like Climeworks and the U.S. federal government pouring billions into direct air capture hubs.
But the engineering, permitting, and construction challenges of direct air capture are more difficult to overcome on a tight timeframe than with other methods. While XPRIZE entrants could pick from many potential carbon removal approaches, and there were some direct air capture teams in the mix, the contest’s rules ultimately favored low-tech solutions that could be deployed quickly.
The winners are more “logistically oriented,” Mike Leitch, XPRIZE’s senior technical lead, told me, meaning their main challenges are sourcing and moving around large volumes of material like rocks, biomass, and waste.
Mati Carbon and UNDO, for example, take a naturally occurring, abundant type of rock called basalt, crush it up, and spread it on farmland — a process known as enhanced rock weathering. In doing so, they are speeding up the natural process by which carbon dioxide and water combine in the atmosphere, fall to earth as rain, and react with minerals, breaking them down and transforming the carbon into a form that can’t easily be released. Basalt is a particularly reactive rock, and crushing it into a fine powder makes it even more reactive. Applying it to farms — where there is already a lot of carbon dissolved in water present in the soil — also speeds the process. It’s a win-win for farmers, since basalt is rich in nutrients like calcium, magnesium, and potassium that plants use to grow.
Measuring precisely how much carbon enhanced rock weathering removes from the atmosphere is more difficult than with a direct air capture plant, but it’s easier to do a lot more of it in a shorter amount of time.
“The thing that knocked out the vast majority of the teams was the deadlines,” Leitch said. Only seven of the 20 finalist teams surpassed the 1,000-ton threshold. In the end, the judges recognized the skewed results and decided to award two $1 million “XFACTOR” prizes to Project Hajar, a partnership to build a direct air capture plant in Oman, and a company called Planetary, which is depositing crushed minerals in the ocean to help it absorb more carbon from the atmosphere.
“We know that we need a diverse portfolio of carbon removal solutions, because they all have different strengths and weaknesses,” Nikki Batchelor, the executive director of the contest, told me. “They have land and water and energy implications, and so we can’t be all in on just one of them, because we’re probably going to run into global limiters for any one of those categories.”
Mati Carbon’s founder and CEO, Shantanu Agarwal, told me he plans to use the prize money to bring enhanced rock weathering to farmers throughout the Global South. “When you get some money, you start dreaming big, right?” he said. “Our objective is 100 million farmers and a gigaton of carbon removal.”
Agarwal started his carbon removal career working on direct air capture and co-founded a company called Sustaera to develop the tech. But he started to realize the energy requirements were going to be a significant challenge and began to doubt it could be a solution in the near term. Around the same time, he had the opportunity to tour smallholder farms in rural India and learned about their vulnerability to drought. He was aware of enhanced rock weathering and thought it might be a way to help these farmers remain viable, as it improves the soil’s ability to retain moisture. Today, Mati Carbon is wholly owned by a nonprofit and shares the revenue it brings in from selling carbon removal credits with its partner farmers.
Leading companies in the enhanced rock weathering field, including Mati, tackle the challenge of measuring how much carbon they have removed by taking tons and tons of soil samples before and after spreading the rocks, and tracking changes in its chemistry. But the science behind calculating the results is still evolving — there are different ideas about how to interpret the changes, and how to model what happens to the carbon down the road.
For the purposes of identifying a winner for the contest, XPRIZE relied on third party experts to verify the carbon claims made by the teams. So it’s important to add a caveat that the claims made by Mati and other companies are subject to the experiences and opinions of the scientists who verified them, Erin Burns, the executive director of the carbon removal advocacy nonprofit Carbon180, told me. “This isn’t settled science, there are ongoing debates,” she said. But she added that she hoped contests like the XPRIZE would help the field reach consensus.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.