A new proposal in the U.S. Senate, called the CREST Act, could change how the country handles carbon emissions. It introduces a tax credit specifically aimed at biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS).
Backed by bipartisan support, the legislation supports the expansion of sustainable biomass projects that help pull carbon dioxide out of the air and store it safely. The bill hopes to boost much-needed investment in carbon removal just as demand grows sharply to address climate change.
How Will the CREST Act Support Carbon Removal?
The Carbon Removal Enhancement and Storage Tax (CREST) Act offers financial support for projects that remove and store carbon using biomass. This includes materials like wood, crop waste, and other organic matter. These materials naturally absorb carbon during growth, which can then be captured and stored through advanced processing methods like pyrolysis or gasification.
The main goal of the tax credit is to make these efforts more affordable and attractive to investors. Too often, biomass carbon removal projects struggle with financial uncertainty. Without strong incentives, many projects find it difficult to grow or even launch. The CREST Act aims to change this.
These tax credits would work much like similar credits for solar or wind power, helping companies offset costs and take on larger, long-term projects. This move could unlock more innovation and drive better carbon capture technology.
Why Biomass Could Be a Game-Changer for Carbon Removal
Biomass carbon removal uses organic materials—like trees or crops—to draw CO₂ from the air. Captured carbon can be stored underground or changed into products like biochar. Biochar is a solid carbon form that boosts soil health and traps carbon for hundreds of years.
This approach does more than lower emissions. It also helps rural communities. Many of these projects use forest or farm waste, creating jobs and boosting local economies. According to a USDA assessment, biomass can play a key role in sustainable agriculture and carbon management.
Still, scaling up biomass carbon removal faces challenges. It requires advanced infrastructure and clear policies to show that captured carbon will stay stored. The CREST Act would help by offering the financial support needed to build that infrastructure and refine these methods.
From CO₂ Cuts to Healthier Forests: CREST’s Broader Impact
Improving biomass carbon removal could reduce emissions while also benefiting the environment in other ways. Here’s how:
-
Lower Greenhouse Gases. Biomass captures carbon from the atmosphere, which can then be stored long-term. This reduces the amount of CO₂ contributing to climate change.
-
Healthier Forests and Farmland. Waste from agriculture and forestry is reused, helping prevent wildfires and supporting soil health.
-
Rural Development. More projects mean more jobs and steady income for farming and forestry communities.
-
Stable Carbon Storage. Technologies like biochar or carbon injection into geological formations keep carbon out of the atmosphere for long periods.
The success of these systems depends on strong rules. Experts warn that it’s important to track and verify every ton of carbon captured. With clear standards, this industry can provide real environmental value and win public trust.
Analysts See Growth in Biomass-Based Removal
Market analysts see strong growth potential for carbon removal, especially following this type of legislation. The global carbon market was worth $272 billion in 2020, and it keeps growing as countries adopt climate goals.
However, biomass has often been left behind due to a lack of support. Many government programs have favored industrial carbon capture, not biomass.
The CREST Act fills this gap. By targeting biomass carbon pathways with specialized tax credits, it offers the predictability investors want. Cutting dependence on unstable carbon credit prices helps attract private capital to sustainable biomass projects.
Industry leaders say this tax credit could drive innovation in methods like:
-
Pyrolysis – converting plant material into carbon-rich biochar
-
Combustion – managing heat energy for carbon storage
-
Gasification – turning biomass into gas-based fuel and capturing carbon
These tools could help develop a larger, more flexible carbon management system. With stronger funding, companies can improve accuracy, model carbon removal better, and ensure permanence in storage.
What the Numbers Say: Biomass Carbon Removal Is Surging
The carbon dioxide removal (CDR) market is growing fast. This shows that companies and governments are more committed to climate goals.
By 2025, the global carbon dioxide removal market could be about $842 million. It could grow at around 14% to nearly $2.85 billion by 2034. This growth comes from more people knowing about and using natural and tech carbon removal methods, like biomass-based approaches.
Biomass carbon removal is gaining traction. This includes methods like pyrolysis to make biochar, gasification, and combustion with carbon capture.
Biochar projects made up 86% of carbon removal purchases by volume in 2024. This shows how dominant the sector is in the CDR market. BiCRS refers to biomass carbon removal & storage, which includes BECCS and BCR.
The market for durable carbon removal credits is growing fast. These credits ensure long-term carbon storage. Forecasts say this market could hit $14 billion by 2035, at a growth rate of 38% from 2025 to 2035.
-
In the first quarter of 2025, about 780,000 carbon removal credits were contracted. This is a 122% increase from the same time in 2024.
The rising demand shows that companies want reliable, verified carbon credits to reach their net-zero goals.
The carbon removal market, which includes Direct Air Capture (DAC), Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), and enhanced weathering, is valued at about $2 billion. It could grow to $40 billion by 2030 and may even surpass $250 billion by 2035.
Biomass carbon removal is key in this ecosystem. It offers scalable, nature-based solutions. Plus, it brings extra benefits like rural economic growth and reduced wildfire risks.
The World Resources Institute says biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS) could make up around 20% of total biomass use in the U.S. by 2050. This is if biomass is used wisely for both carbon removal and other purposes. This shows strong growth potential for biomass pathways. Policies like the CREST Act support this.
Biomass Tax Credit Could Reshape Global Carbon Trading
A stable, well-supported industry around biomass carbon removal could shift the balance in carbon markets. It would encourage more entrants into the market, giving buyers more reliable and verified carbon credits. That means companies trying to meet climate goals could support cleaner methods and reduce their overall footprint with confidence.
If passed, the CREST Act could unlock large-scale funding for sustainable biomass projects across the country. This would not only help meet climate goals but also offer reliable income to farmers and foresters willing to participate.
The tax credit shows how good policy and advanced technology can tackle big climate problems. Whether it gains final approval depends on political negotiations, but momentum is strong thanks to bipartisan support.
Passing this bill would be a big step for U.S. carbon policy. It brings a mix of environmental responsibility, economic opportunity, and technical innovation into play.
The post Biomass Gets a Boost: What the CREST Act Means for Carbon Removal appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits