A new beer is turning carbon removal into a real-world product. U.S.-based Aircapture and Almanac Beer have launched what they call the world’s first commercial beer carbonated using (carbon dioxide) CO₂ captured directly from the atmosphere.
The system uses direct air capture (DAC) technology. It pulls carbon dioxide from ambient air and delivers it on-site for use in brewing. The captured CO₂ replaces conventional industrial CO₂, which is usually sourced from fossil fuel processes.
The DAC unit is installed at Almanac’s brewery in California. It captures CO₂ from the air and feeds it directly into the beer carbonation process. This removes the need to transport CO₂ from external suppliers and reduces the carbon footprint of production.
While the volume of CO₂ used in beer is small, the concept is significant. It shows how captured carbon can move beyond storage and into everyday consumer products.
How Direct Air Capture Works in Practice
Direct air capture is a technology that removes CO₂ directly from the atmosphere. Unlike traditional carbon capture, which targets emissions at industrial sources, DAC works anywhere.
The process uses chemical materials to bind CO₂ from the air. The captured gas is then purified and either stored or reused. In this case, it is reused in beverage production.
Globally, DAC is still at an early stage. According to the International Energy Agency, only 27 DAC plants are operating worldwide, capturing about 0.01 million tonnes of CO₂ per year.
However, the pipeline is growing. More than 130 DAC facilities are in development, including large-scale plants that could capture over 1,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year each.
Aircapture’s model is different from many large DAC projects. Instead of building centralized plants, it installs modular units directly at industrial sites. This allows companies to use captured CO₂ on-site, reducing transport costs and emissions.
This approach fits well with industries like food and beverage, where CO₂ is already used as an input.
Why CO₂ Matters in Beer Production
Carbon dioxide plays a key role in brewing. It creates the bubbles in beer and affects taste, texture, and shelf life. Most breweries rely on industrial CO₂ supplies, often sourced from fossil fuel processes or as a byproduct of fertilizer production.
This supply chain has faced disruptions in recent years. CO₂ shortages have affected breweries across the U.S. and Europe, highlighting the risks of relying on centralized supply.
Using DAC changes this model. Breweries can produce CO₂ on-site, reducing supply risks and emissions. It also provides a way to use carbon that would otherwise remain in the atmosphere.
Damian Fagan, CEO of Almanac Beer Co., stated:
“Brewing is both science and craft. By integrating direct air capture into our production floor, we’re rethinking one of our essential ingredients and contributing to carbon-removal efforts. Instead of relying on distant industrial supply, we’re sourcing CO₂ from the air right here in Alameda. It’s local, circular, and a glimpse of what the future will look like.”
This does not make beer carbon-negative on its own. But it reduces reliance on fossil-derived CO₂ and shows how carbon can be reused in circular systems.
Almanac’s DAC unit captures 50-100 tCO₂/year, small volume, massive market signal. On-site generation cuts fossil CO₂ emissions from trucking by 20-30% in the supply chain. It also creates premium utilization credits for beverage Scope 3 or supply chain emissions.
DAC Market Set for Explosive Growth
The launch comes as interest in carbon removal technologies is rising. Governments and companies are investing in solutions that remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, not just reduce emissions.
The DAC market is still small but growing fast. One estimate values the market at about $160 million in 2025, with projections reaching nearly $18.7 billion by 2035, growing at a 61% annual rate.
Other forecasts show similar trends. The market could reach over $9 billion by 2033, driven by corporate climate targets and government incentives.
This growth is supported by key factors, including:
- Net-zero commitments from major companies,
- Carbon pricing systems and policy support,
- Demand for high-quality carbon removal credits, and
- Advances in carbon capture technology.
North America currently leads the DAC market, accounting for a large share of global deployment. However, scaling remains a challenge. DAC systems require energy and infrastructure, and costs are still high compared to other climate solutions.
- SEE MORE: Deep Sky and Skyrenu Launch North America’s First Direct Air Capture (DAC) Storage Facility
From Storage to Utilization: A New Carbon Economy
Most DAC projects focus on storing CO₂ underground. This is known as carbon dioxide removal (CDR). It is essential for reaching global climate targets, especially for hard-to-abate sectors.
But there is growing interest in carbon utilization. This means using captured CO₂ as a resource rather than storing it. Common applications include:
- Synthetic fuels
- Building materials
- Chemicals
- Food and beverages
The beer project shows a simple but visible example of this shift. It turns captured carbon into a product that consumers can see and use.
While the scale is small, it helps build awareness and demand for carbon removal technologies. It also shows that DAC can integrate into existing industries without major changes to production systems.
Corporate Climate Strategies Drive Innovation
Projects like this are also linked to corporate climate goals. Many companies are looking for ways to reduce emissions across their operations and supply chains. Carbon removal is becoming part of these strategies.
Using captured CO₂ in products supports these goals. It reduces reliance on fossil inputs and creates new pathways for decarbonization.
More notably, in sectors like food and beverage, where emissions are harder to eliminate completely, these solutions can play a supporting role.
Carbon Markets Expand Beyond Offsets
The launch of a DAC-based beer highlights a broader shift in carbon markets. The focus is expanding from reducing emissions to actively removing and reusing carbon.
Carbon markets are expected to grow as demand for high-quality carbon credits increases. Many experts see carbon removal as essential for meeting global climate targets.
At the same time, new use cases for CO₂ could create additional value streams. Instead of treating carbon only as a cost, companies can use it as an input for products.
However, scale remains the key challenge. Current DAC capacity is far below what is needed. The IEA notes that global DAC deployment must reach around 65 million tonnes of CO₂ per year by 2030 to align with net-zero pathways. This will require major investment, policy support, and technological progress.
A Small Beer with a Big Climate Message
The beer itself is a niche product, but the idea behind it is larger. It shows how carbon removal can move into everyday life and consumer markets.
By turning captured CO₂ into a usable product, companies can demonstrate the value of climate technologies in simple terms. This can help build public support and encourage further investment.
The project also highlights a key trend. Climate solutions are becoming more integrated into business operations, not just separate offset programs.
For now, a single beer will not change global emissions. But it offers a glimpse of how carbon could be managed differently in the future, not just emitted or stored, but reused in practical ways.
The post From Air to Ale: Introducing the First-of-its-Kind Beer Made with Captured Carbon appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
