Sustainability Atlas
Climate Tech & Data·13 min read··...

Interview: the builder's playbook for Data interoperability & climate APIs — hard-earned lessons

A practitioner conversation: what surprised them, what failed, and what they'd do differently. Focus on unit economics, adoption blockers, and what decision-makers should watch next.

The climate data analytics market reached $1.15 billion in 2024 and is projected to surge to $5.65 billion by 2030, growing at a 28.6% CAGR. Yet beneath these impressive figures lies a more sobering reality: 38% of enterprises initiated emissions-tracking automation pilots in 2024, but fewer than half achieved seamless integration across their data systems. We spoke with practitioners building climate data infrastructure—from open-source foundation directors to startup CTOs and enterprise sustainability architects—to understand what separates successful implementations from expensive failures.

The climate data interoperability challenge isn't merely technical. It represents the friction between urgent decarbonisation timelines and the slow, methodical work of building shared standards. As one practitioner put it: "We're trying to rewire the global economy's information architecture while the house is on fire."

Why It Matters

Climate data fragmentation costs the global economy an estimated $30-50 billion annually in duplicated verification efforts, manual reconciliation, and delayed decision-making. The Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) estimates that financial institutions spend 60-70% of their climate disclosure preparation time on data acquisition and harmonisation rather than analysis. For UK sustainability leads navigating the Transition Plan Taskforce requirements and incoming ISSB standards, data interoperability isn't optional—it's the difference between compliance and regulatory exposure.

The stakes extend beyond corporate reporting. Carbon markets require trusted data flows between project developers, registries, verification bodies, and buyers. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles now mandate robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV)—requirements that cannot be met without interoperable systems. Digital MRV platforms that achieve this integration demonstrate 75% lower transaction costs compared to traditional approaches, according to World Bank technical analyses.

For practitioners, the unit economics are compelling but the adoption curve is steep. Early movers capture disproportionate value through faster verification cycles and premium pricing for high-integrity credits, while laggards face mounting compliance costs and market access barriers.

Key Concepts

Understanding climate data interoperability requires familiarity with several technical domains that practitioners must navigate simultaneously.

Data Standards and Formats: The climate data ecosystem relies on established formats including netCDF (Network Common Data Form) for climate model outputs, CF Metadata Conventions endorsed by NASA for geolocation and temporal referencing, and emerging standards like STAC (Spatio-Temporal Asset Catalog) for metadata discovery. The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) provides foundational specifications including Web Map Service (WMS) and Web Coverage Service (WCS) that underpin satellite and climate archive accessibility.

API Architectures: Climate APIs range from the Copernicus Climate Data Store API—which provides programming-language-agnostic batch access to European climate services—to enterprise-grade REST APIs from commercial providers. The Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) RESTful API serves climate model data from CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project), while newer specifications like NGSI-LD (ETSI GS CIM 009 v1.7.1) enable context-aware information management for IoT and smart city applications.

Carbon Crediting Data Framework (CCDF): Developed by RMI, this tiered data structure (Tiers 0-3) with standardised metadata tags enables interoperability across registries, marketplaces, and ratings agencies. The framework supports specialised tools for socio-environmental indicators while maintaining a common language that reduces integration friction.

Digital MRV (dMRV): The convergence of IoT sensors, satellite imagery, AI/ML models, and blockchain for automated monitoring creates new possibilities for real-time verification. However, practitioners report that the technology stack complexity often exceeds organisational capacity, requiring careful sequencing of capability development.

What's Working

OS-Climate Data Mesh Architecture

The Linux Foundation's OS-Climate project, with members including Allianz, Amazon, BNY Mellon, Goldman Sachs, and S&P Global, launched its Data Mesh at COP28 in Dubai. The architecture provides open-source access to climate-relevant datasets through Trino SQL databases, S3 buckets for raster and geospatial data, and Python-based Jupyter libraries.

"What we learned is that enterprises don't want another data platform—they want their existing platforms to speak climate," explains a senior contributor to the project. "The Data Mesh approach lets financial institutions query PCAF sovereign carbon footprints, EPA GHGRP data, and RMI Utilities information using tools they already know."

The PCAF sovereign carbon footprint datasets, published openly through OS-Climate, now enable investors to calculate Scope 3 Category 15 emissions for sovereign bond portfolios using standardised EDGAR and OECD data spanning 1990-2021. This eliminates months of data acquisition work for institutions facing regulatory disclosure requirements.

Climatiq's Embedded Carbon Calculation

Climatiq's API approach demonstrates how focused functionality drives adoption. Rather than attempting to solve the entire interoperability challenge, the platform provides GHG Protocol-compliant carbon footprint calculations across 30+ datasets including EPA, IEA, and ecoinvent. The API covers energy, transport, supply chain, waste, and IT sectors with materials mapping for Scope 3 calculations.

"We saw enterprises struggling to embed carbon calculations into their existing workflows—ERP systems, procurement platforms, travel booking tools," notes a practitioner familiar with Climatiq implementations. "By providing a simple REST API that returns CO2e for any activity, we removed the data science bottleneck."

Salesforce's Net Zero Cloud integration with Climatiq illustrates the enterprise adoption pattern: platforms that already own customer relationships layer in carbon calculation capabilities rather than requiring users to adopt new systems.

Regrow Agricultural MRV

Regrow's agricultural MRV platform demonstrates successful interoperability in a notoriously fragmented sector. The platform integrates with farm management systems (FMS) across 15+ crop types and 5 continents, automating data entry and biogeochemical modelling for soil carbon credits.

A case study spanning 2018-2022 tracked 553,743 hectares enrolled in a carbon programme, achieving 398,408.5 tCO2e in verified emissions reductions. Cover cropping practices demonstrated 1.29 tCO2e/ha/year reduction rates. The digital pipeline—from data ingestion through quality checks to uncertainty deductions—replaced months of manual verification with continuous monitoring.

"The breakthrough wasn't the satellite imagery or the ML models—it was the FMS integration," explains an agricultural data architect. "Farmers aren't going to adopt new software. You have to meet them where they already work."

What's Not Working

Standards Proliferation Without Convergence

The climate data ecosystem suffers from an embarrassment of standards riches. Verra VCS, Gold Standard, Puro, ACR, and emerging Article 6.4 mechanisms each impose different MRV requirements. The resulting compliance burden forces project developers to maintain parallel data pipelines for each registry.

"We spent 18 months building integrations to four major registries, and by the time we finished, two had updated their APIs with breaking changes," reports a climate tech CTO. "There's no coordination mechanism for API versioning across the ecosystem."

The EU's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) promises regulatory clarity but adds another layer of requirements. Practitioners warn that enterprises are deferring investments until the standards landscape stabilises—a rational response that delays the interoperability infrastructure the market needs.

Blockchain Solutions Seeking Problems

The 2021-2023 wave of blockchain-based carbon registry projects has largely failed to deliver on interoperability promises. While distributed ledger technology offers theoretical benefits for preventing double-counting and ensuring traceability, implementation realities have proven challenging.

"We invested $2 million in a blockchain-based MRV pilot and discovered that our verification bottleneck was field data quality, not ledger immutability," admits a sustainability director at a major commodity trader. "The blockchain was solving a problem we didn't have while ignoring the problem we did."

The World Bank Climate Warehouse initiative continues development, but enterprise adoption remains limited. Smart contract complexity, gas fees (for public chains), and the need for consortium governance create friction that exceeds the benefits for most use cases.

IoT Sensor Economics

The unit economics of IoT-based monitoring remain challenging for many climate applications. Soil carbon sensors cost $50-500 per unit, with deployment, maintenance, and connectivity adding 2-3x the hardware cost over a project lifetime. For agricultural projects generating $15-30 per tonne carbon credits, the monitoring infrastructure can consume 40-60% of revenues.

"Everyone loves the idea of real-time soil carbon monitoring until they see the per-hectare cost model," observes an agricultural MRV specialist. "Satellite-based approaches with periodic ground-truthing are winning because the economics actually work."

The constraint isn't technology capability but commercial viability. Practitioners recommend hybrid approaches combining satellite monitoring for spatial coverage with targeted sensor deployments for calibration and validation.

Key Players

Established Leaders

OS-Climate (Linux Foundation) — Open-source climate data commons with members including Allianz, Amazon, BNY Mellon, Goldman Sachs, LSEG, and S&P Global. Provides Trino SQL access to PCAF sovereign footprints, EPA GHGRP, and RMI Utilities data through Data Mesh architecture launched at COP28.

Copernicus Climate Data Store (C3S) — European Commission's climate service providing free API access to reanalysis datasets, climate projections, and sectoral applications. Millions of unique users accessed the platform in 2024 across research, commercial, and policy applications.

Climate TRACE — Coalition tracking global emissions through satellite observation and machine learning. Monthly emissions data through October 2025 (release 5.2.0) covers facilities, sectors, and countries with methodology transparency that supports third-party verification.

Verra — Largest voluntary carbon market registry with VCS methodology library. API access to project listings, credit issuance, and retirement data enables marketplace and corporate buyer integrations.

Emerging Startups

Climatiq — Carbon footprint calculation API with 30+ datasets and GHG Protocol compliance. Salesforce Net Zero Cloud integration demonstrates enterprise platform adoption model. Freemium pricing enables developer experimentation.

Carbonfuture — Digital MRV platform for durable carbon removal with near real-time tracking from capture to storage. Integrations with Puro, CSI, and Isometric standards. MRV+ product enables continuous verification rather than periodic audits.

Pachama — AI-powered forest carbon monitoring using satellite imagery and predictive baselines. Platform serves both project developers seeking efficient verification and buyers requiring transparency on credit quality.

Centigrade — Climate impact visualisation across 6 million+ credits from 25+ projects using RMI's Carbon Crediting Data Framework. Enables buyers to compare projects across methodologies using standardised metrics.

Key Investors & Funders

EU Innovation Fund — €3.6 billion committed to green industrial projects including climate data infrastructure. COP29 announcements included expanded support for digital MRV development.

Breakthrough Energy Ventures — Bill Gates-backed fund with portfolio companies across carbon accounting, MRV, and climate analytics. Recent investments emphasise data infrastructure enabling scale.

Lightspeed Faction — Led WeatherXM's $7.7 million Series A in May 2024 for decentralised weather data network. Investment thesis emphasises community-owned climate data infrastructure.

U.S. Department of Energy — $518 million+ committed to carbon storage infrastructure in October 2024, including MRV system requirements that will drive standardisation.

Action Checklist

  1. Audit your climate data architecture: Map current data sources, formats, and integration points. Identify which systems can accept API connections and which require manual data transfers. Prioritise connections to high-value data flows first.

  2. Adopt tiered data standards: Implement RMI's Carbon Crediting Data Framework or equivalent for internal carbon data management. Standardised metadata enables future interoperability even if immediate integrations aren't feasible.

  3. Start with read-only API integrations: Begin interoperability work with data consumption rather than data publication. Query OS-Climate datasets, Climatiq emission factors, or Copernicus climate projections before building custom publishing pipelines.

  4. Validate vendor interoperability claims: Request technical documentation on API standards, data formats, and registry integrations before procurement. Many platforms claim interoperability while implementing proprietary schemas that create lock-in.

  5. Build hybrid MRV capability: Combine satellite-based monitoring (lower cost, broader coverage) with targeted ground-truth sampling. Avoid over-investing in IoT infrastructure before validating unit economics for your specific use case.

  6. Participate in standards development: Join OS-Climate working groups, OGC Climate and Disaster Resilience pilots, or registry technical advisory committees. Early engagement shapes standards in directions that reduce your future integration costs.

  7. Plan for API versioning: Budget for ongoing integration maintenance, not just initial development. Climate data APIs change frequently as methodologies evolve—allocate 20-30% of initial development cost annually for updates.

  8. Document data lineage rigorously: Regulatory frameworks increasingly require audit trails from raw data through calculations to reported figures. Implement data lineage tracking before it becomes a compliance requirement.

FAQ

Q: How do we justify the investment in climate data interoperability when ROI timelines are uncertain?

A: Frame the investment as risk mitigation rather than revenue generation. The cost of non-compliance with incoming ISSB standards, EU CSRD requirements, and sector-specific regulations (CRCF, Article 6) exceeds interoperability development costs for most enterprises. Practitioners report that early movers achieve 40-60% lower compliance preparation costs compared to organisations building capabilities under regulatory deadline pressure. Additionally, digital MRV platforms demonstrate 75% transaction cost reductions versus traditional approaches—savings that compound as carbon market volumes grow.

Q: Should we build custom integrations or rely on vendor platforms?

A: The build-versus-buy calculus depends on data volume and strategic importance. For standard use cases—corporate carbon accounting, supply chain emissions, portfolio climate metrics—vendor platforms like Climatiq, Clarity AI, or Watershed offer faster time-to-value and ongoing maintenance. For differentiated applications—proprietary trading strategies, novel MRV methodologies, integrated operational decisions—custom development on open-source foundations (OS-Climate, STAC) provides flexibility. Most enterprises adopt hybrid approaches: vendor platforms for commoditised functions, custom development for competitive advantage.

Q: What's the realistic timeline for climate data standards convergence?

A: Practitioners estimate 5-7 years before meaningful convergence across major standards bodies. The EU's CRCF implementation (2025-2027), Article 6.4 operationalisation, and ISSB adoption will force coordination that market mechanisms alone haven't achieved. However, convergence at the semantic layer (what data means) will precede convergence at the technical layer (how data is exchanged). Enterprises should invest in translation capabilities that bridge current standards fragmentation rather than betting on any single standard winning.

Q: How do we evaluate the quality of climate data APIs before integration?

A: Assess five dimensions: data provenance (original sources and methodology documentation), update frequency (real-time, daily, annual), coverage completeness (geographic, sectoral, temporal), API reliability (uptime SLAs, rate limits, versioning policy), and community adoption (user base size, integration examples, support responsiveness). Request sample data exports and run validation against known benchmarks. The Climatiq and OS-Climate communities publish methodology documentation that enables independent verification—platforms lacking this transparency warrant scepticism.

Q: What skills do we need to build internal capability?

A: Climate data interoperability requires three capability clusters: domain expertise (carbon accounting standards, MRV methodologies, regulatory requirements), data engineering (API development, ETL pipelines, database management), and sustainability science (emissions factors, uncertainty quantification, attribution methods). Few individuals possess all three—successful teams combine specialists with structured collaboration processes. Consider upskilling existing data engineers on climate domain knowledge rather than teaching climate specialists to code; the technical learning curve is typically steeper.

Sources

The climate data interoperability challenge will define which organisations can translate sustainability commitments into verifiable action. The infrastructure is being built now—by open-source communities, venture-backed startups, and enterprise pioneers. Practitioners who engage with this ecosystem, contribute to standards development, and build integration capabilities today will shape the data architecture that governs tomorrow's carbon markets and climate accountability systems.

Topics

interoperabilityAPIsadditionalityriskdata interoperabilityMRVIoT sensors

Related Articles