Google Carbon Removal and Superpollutant R&D Awards 2026: Up to $450,000 for Climate Research

Google Carbon Removal and Superpollutant R&D Awards 2026: Up to $450,000 for Climate Research

Google Research is accepting applications for its 2026 Carbon Removal and Superpollutant Elimination R&D Awards, an open research funding call for projects that can improve the science, measurement, scale, or practical deployment of climate mitigation strategies. The call covers both carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and the abatement of superpollutants such as methane, nitrous oxide, ozone-depleting substances, and fluorinated gases.

Applications opened on 11 August 2026 and must be submitted by 25 September 2026 at 11:59:59 p.m. BST (GMT+1). Google expects funding for successful applications to be disbursed by 31 December 2026. The official page lists several priority research areas with awards of up to $350,000, $400,000, or $450,000 per project. A separate open call can also provide up to $450,000 for a project that addresses a major bottleneck in carbon removal or superpollutant abatement outside the named priority areas.

This is a research and development award, not a general climate-activism grant or a prize for a finished product. The strongest applications will connect a defined technical or scientific problem to a credible, measurable outcome and show how the work adds to what is already known. Google is especially interested in work whose results can be shared with researchers and the wider public through publications, datasets, code, models, or other openly accessible outputs.

Key details

The dollar figure is a ceiling, not a guaranteed award. Google states that the amount of funding, the number of grants, and the applications selected are at its discretion. A proposal should therefore request the amount needed for a well-defined project and justify it with a quarterly spending plan rather than automatically asking for the maximum.

What the awards are designed to support

The call is built around two broad goals: increasing certainty about the climate impact of a mitigation strategy and increasing the scale at which that strategy can operate. “Certainty” can involve better environmental evidence, stronger monitoring and verification, more reliable models, or a clearer understanding of permanence and trade-offs. “Scale” can involve materials, engineering, field operations, supply chains, land use, or other constraints that prevent a promising method from moving beyond a small demonstration.

The priority areas are specific. They include environmental and ecological impacts of ocean alkalinity enhancement; the scaling potential of ocean alkalinity enhancement; next-generation carbon-capture systems for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; underutilized biomass feedstocks for biochar; resilience of mangrove restoration to sea-level rise; and land-use optimization in nature-based carbon removal projects. The page also lists additional areas involving carbon removal measurement, biological pathways, and related mitigation questions. Applicants should read the current research-area descriptions carefully because each area has its own objective, examples of expected outcomes, and funding ceiling.

The open call is broader but still bounded. It covers breakthroughs in the certainty, scale, or affordability of CDR or superpollutant abatement, as well as improvements in quantifying the climate impact of interventions. An open-call proposal must explain why the work is technically feasible, why it is additive to existing R&D, and how it addresses a critical bottleneck. A generic climate project without a clear connection to these aims is unlikely to fit.

Who can apply

The eligibility rules allow a wider set of applicants than a conventional university-only research competition. Individuals may apply through a university, research institution, nonprofit organization, social enterprise, or business focused on advancing research or innovation. Applicants from businesses, nonprofits, and social enterprises are expected to have R&D experience comparable to that of a researcher working in a university or research institution.

The official criteria also expect a clear record of community engagement and open science. That does not mean every project must have the same public-participation model. It does mean the application should show that the applicant understands how affected communities, practitioners, researchers, or other stakeholders relate to the work, and how useful results will be shared beyond the immediate project team.

The primary applicant is expected to be the principal investigator. A project may include one co-PI, but the co-PI must meet the same eligibility standard as the primary applicant. The form is therefore not designed for an organization to submit an unassigned concept and decide later who will lead it. Name the person responsible for the scientific direction, delivery, budget, and contact with Google before preparing the final PDF.

The project itself must fit one of the named priority research areas or the open-call scope. Google lists theoretical, laboratory, field-based, engineering, prototyping, data, and modeling work as eligible approaches. Literature reviews and meta-analyses may also be considered when they directly serve the objectives of a priority area. The method matters less than the connection between the proposed work, the call’s objective, and an outcome that can be evaluated.

How much funding is available

The maximum varies by research area. The official descriptions include single-project ceilings of up to $350,000, $400,000, and $450,000. The open call offers up to $450,000 for a single project. One listed priority area can support up to two projects at $400,000 each, for a combined total of up to $800,000. Applicants should use the ceiling for the exact area they select, not the largest number mentioned anywhere on the page.

Budgets may include direct project expenses such as personnel salaries, research equipment, development materials, computing or data resources, and field measurements. Overhead or tax may be included where applicable, but the budget cannot be used solely for overhead or other indirect costs. The requested amount, including overhead and tax where applicable, must stay within the relevant area’s maximum.

The funding mechanism depends on the recipient. Google says funds will be disbursed as unrestricted gifts to universities or degree-granting research institutions and through sponsorship agreements for other organizations. Selected applicants may be asked for additional due-diligence information, including financial statements, leadership or board information, and further details about the application. Build time for those checks into the organization’s plan after selection.

What the application must contain

The complete application is a single PDF in English. A single-PI application may not exceed five pages: a maximum four-page overview and a one-page CV for the primary PI. If a co-PI is included, one additional page is accepted for that CV, making the total limit six pages. The document must use single spacing, one-inch margins, and at least 10-point type.

The overview should be organized as clearly numbered sections. It must identify the proposal title, PI contact and affiliation, the applicable research area, and an abstract. It must explain the expected outcomes and how they relate to the objective of that research area. It must then describe the work, methods, and timeline using explicit quarterly milestones. The application also asks for the relationship to prior work, the PI’s qualifications, plans for sharing results, a proposed budget with quarterly expense detail, conflicts of interest, and references.

The primary PI’s CV is required and should be one page. A co-PI CV is also one page if a co-PI is named. The final filename must follow the format [First Initial][Last name]-2026, using only letters, numbers, and hyphens. For example, the official guidance gives JDoe-2026 as a model. These mechanical requirements are easy to check and should be handled before the scientific review of the draft.

Do not include confidential or proprietary information. Google says applications may be shared with internal and external experts for evaluation, and the application terms grant broad rights to use and share submitted materials for evaluation and funding administration. If the proposal relies on protected information, rewrite it so the reviewer can understand the contribution without receiving trade secrets or restricted data.

A practical application process

Start by choosing the one research area that best matches the proposed outcome. Do not begin with a broad climate problem and try to force it into a category at the end. Write a one-sentence fit test: the project will address a named bottleneck, use a stated method, and produce an outcome that directly advances the area’s objective. If that sentence is difficult to write, the project may need a narrower scope or a different call category.

Next, assemble the evidence base. Review the relevant literature, existing datasets, pilot results, and competing approaches. The proposal should explain what is already known, what remains uncertain, and why the proposed work can resolve an important part of that uncertainty. For an open-call submission, this comparison is especially important because the category is broad and Google explicitly asks for an evidence-based case that the work is additive.

Build the quarterly work plan and budget together. Each milestone should have a concrete output and a corresponding cost. A field measurement milestone might require personnel time, travel, equipment, permits, or data management. A modeling milestone might require computing and data resources. The budget should make it possible for a reviewer to see why the requested amount is proportionate to the work and how the project will know whether it is on track.

Then prepare the four-page overview and one-page CV. Ask a technically qualified colleague to test the logic and a non-specialist to test the explanation. Google says applications may be read by non-experts, so a proposal that depends on unexplained acronyms or assumes the reviewer knows the local context can lose force even if the science is strong. Finally, combine the pages into the required PDF, check the filename, and submit through the official application portal before the deadline.

What reviewers are likely to look for

The official recommendations point to a few practical signals. A strong proposal has a specific and credible outcome, not just an interesting research direction. It identifies execution risks and explains how they will be managed. It makes a direct case for open access or another public form of knowledge sharing. It differentiates the proposed work from prior studies using standard citations and a clear explanation of what is new.

For field, ecological, or community-facing work, the proposal should be precise about how evidence will be collected and how uncertainty will be handled. For engineering or laboratory work, describe the conditions under which the result would count as useful rather than only reporting that a prototype will be built. For modeling, define the data, validation approach, and decision the model will inform. For a review or meta-analysis, state the selection logic and explain how the synthesis will answer the priority area’s question.

Community engagement and open science should be operational rather than aspirational. Identify who will use the results, how their knowledge or needs shape the project, and what will be published or released. A plan that says “results will be shared” is weaker than a plan naming a dataset, model, preprint, peer-reviewed paper, technical protocol, or public briefing and assigning it to a milestone.

Common mistakes to avoid

The most serious mistake is submitting a proposal that is climate-related but outside the call. The page is not accepting every form of sustainability research; it is accepting work tied to the listed CDR and superpollutant areas. A second mistake is asking for the maximum without showing why that amount is needed. A smaller, internally consistent budget is more credible than an inflated one.

Watch the page limit closely. The four-page overview includes the required content, and the CV pages count toward the total. Do not assume that references, budget notes, or an extra biography can be attached outside the limit. Keep the final document in English, use the required font and margins, and submit the proposal and CV material as one PDF with the specified filename.

Do not promise an outcome that cannot be reached or measured in the project’s likely timeframe. Google gives two years as a guideline for achieving proposed outcomes. That is not a rigid delivery deadline, but it is a useful test of whether the milestones are realistic. Also avoid including confidential information, relying on unsupported claims about climate impact, or leaving conflicts of interest unreported.

Finally, do not wait until 25 September to discover that the application portal, organization authorization, PDF conversion, or file naming is a problem. Google’s page says the deadline is fixed at 11:59:59 p.m. BST and recommends following the full submission guidelines. Submit early enough to preserve time for a corrected version if the portal reports a problem.

FAQ

Is this a prize or a normal research grant?

It is an open request for applications for possible research funding, not a contest. Google states that the amount of funding, number of grants, and selected applications are at its discretion.

Can a business apply?

Yes. Businesses focused on advancing research or innovation may apply, provided the applicant has R&D experience comparable to a university researcher and the project fits the call.

Can a project have a co-PI?

Yes. One co-PI is allowed, and that person must meet the same eligibility criteria. The co-PI requires a separate one-page CV within the six-page total limit.

Is a university affiliation required?

No. The eligibility criteria include universities, research institutions, nonprofits, social enterprises, and research-focused businesses. The payment structure differs by recipient type, so non-university applicants should review the sponsorship-agreement terms and be prepared for due diligence.

Can the money pay salaries or equipment?

Yes. The FAQ lists personnel salaries, research equipment, development materials, computing or data resources, and field measurements as examples of direct project expenses. Overhead and tax may be included where applicable, but the budget cannot be only overhead or indirect costs.

What is the deadline?

Applications are due by 25 September 2026 at 11:59:59 p.m. BST (GMT+1). Google expects selected funding to be disbursed by 31 December 2026.

Official links and next steps

Read the full Google Research Carbon Removal and Superpollutant Elimination R&D Awards page before drafting. Use the research-area descriptions to select the correct ceiling, review the eligibility and page-limit rules, and submit through the application link on that official page. Questions can be sent to [email protected], although Google notes that high application volume may delay replies.

The immediate preparation checklist is short: choose the exact priority area or open call, define one measurable outcome, map the quarterly milestones, verify the requested amount, prepare the proposal and one-page CV, remove confidential material, and submit the single PDF before the 25 September deadline. Treat the official page and application portal as controlling if any date, requirement, or funding detail changes.