Aerospace giant Boeing has signed a multi-year agreement with carbon removal platform Carbonfuture to purchase at least 40,000 tonnes of durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) credits. The deal ranks among the largest carbon removal procurements in the aviation sector so far.
The carbon credits will come from a portfolio of biochar carbon removal projects, mainly located across the Global South. Biochar is created by heating plant material in a low-oxygen environment. The process converts biomass into a stable form of carbon that can be stored in soil for long periods.
Carbonfuture will track each credit using its digital monitoring system. The platform records the entire carbon removal process—from biochar production to soil application. It also verifies ownership of the credits.
The agreement helps Boeing tackle emissions that technology or fuel changes can’t eliminate yet. The company plans to apply these credits to Scope 3 emissions linked to business travel.
Allison Melia, VP Global Enterprise Sustainability, Boeing, said:
“To support long-term global demand for air travel, the aviation industry has set goals to reduce emissions. We’re excited to team up with Carbonfuture to support technological innovation in carbon removals to help meet these needs.”
This partnership reflects a broader shift in corporate climate strategies. Many industries now combine emissions reductions with carbon removal to manage their climate impact.
Why Aviation Is Turning to Carbon Removal
Decarbonizing aviation is difficult. Aircraft can last for decades, and alternatives like hydrogen planes or fully electric aircraft are still years away from wide use.
The aviation sector produces around 2–3% of global carbon dioxide emissions, based on research from energy and industry studies. When scientists look at the warming effects of contrails and other non-CO₂ emissions, aviation’s climate impact gets bigger.
Demand for flights also continues to grow. Rising global travel has offset many efficiency improvements in aircraft design and operations.
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is one promising solution. However, SAF still accounts for less than 1% of global jet fuel supply and often costs two to ten times more than conventional jet fuel.
Because of these limits, aviation companies are turning to carbon removal technologies. These systems physically remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than simply avoiding emissions.
Boeing’s deal with Carbonfuture shows how carbon removal can complement other decarbonization strategies.
Biochar Carbon Removal: Turning Biomass Into Long-Term Carbon Storage
The credits in Boeing’s deal come from biochar-based carbon removal projects. Biochar forms through a process called pyrolysis. Organic waste, such as crop residues or forestry by-products, is heated in a low-oxygen environment. This converts the biomass into a carbon-rich charcoal.
When biochar is added to soil, it can store carbon for hundreds of years while improving soil health and water retention.
The projects in Boeing’s agreement also provide environmental benefits beyond carbon storage. Biochar can increase soil fertility, improve crop yields, and support agricultural resilience in regions facing land degradation.
Carbonfuture’s digital platform tracks every stage of the carbon removal process. This monitoring system aims to increase transparency and trust in carbon credit markets.
High-quality verification matters. Voluntary carbon markets have faced criticism for weak oversight and questionable offset projects.
Inside Boeing’s Emissions Footprint and Net-Zero Strategy
The carbon removal agreement is part of Boeing’s broader sustainability strategy. Like many aerospace companies, the aerospace giant faces large emissions from its value chain. Most of its climate impact comes from Scope 3 emissions. These include airline aircraft operations and other indirect activities.
Boeing’s total carbon footprint is estimated at around 374 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent for 2024. Of this, about 373 million tons are from Scope 3 sources.
Direct emissions from Boeing operations are much smaller. The company reported about 517,000 tons of Scope 1 emissions and 464,000 tons of Scope 2 emissions from purchased electricity.
Because Scope 3 emissions dominate aviation’s footprint, companies must work across the entire ecosystem. That includes airlines, fuel suppliers, airports, and aircraft manufacturers.
The ariplane maker says its strategy focuses on four main areas:
- improving aircraft fuel efficiency,
- supporting sustainable aviation fuel development,
- advancing new propulsion technologies, and
- using carbon removal for residual emissions.
Carbon removal purchases help address emissions that cannot yet be eliminated through technological change.
Corporate Demand Is Fueling the Carbon Removal Market
Boeing’s deal also reflects rapid growth in the carbon removal market. Corporate demand for carbon dioxide removal has expanded in recent years. Many companies now view durable removals as a key tool for meeting net-zero climate targets.
Recent data shows that high-durability carbon removal credits hit nearly 8 million metric tons in 2024. This is up from about 2.4 million tons in 2023. That’s a jump of around 233% in just one year, according to CDR.fyi.
Analysts expect carbon removal demand to rise sharply over the next decade as climate targets tighten. BCG estimates that annual demand for carbon removal might hit 40–200 million tons of CO₂ by 2030. It could grow further to 80–900 million tons by 2040 as more companies commit to net-zero goals.
New technologies such as biochar, direct air capture, and mineralization are gaining attention from investors and large corporate buyers.
Early demand will likely come from voluntary corporate buyers. These buyers could make up about 90% of carbon removal purchases soon as companies are looking for high-quality solutions to tackle hard-to-eliminate emissions.
Large technology companies such as Alphabet, Stripe, and Microsoft currently dominate the market. Microsoft alone purchased about 5.1 million tons of durable carbon removal credits in 2024, representing around 63% of total market demand.
Earlier, Boeing signed another major removal agreement with carbon removal firm Charm Industrial. That deal targeted up to 100,000 tons of CO₂ removal, showing the company’s growing interest in durable climate solutions.
Aviation’s Net-Zero Path: Fuel Innovation Meets Carbon Removal
The Boeing–Carbonfuture agreement highlights a growing trend in hard-to-abate industries. Aviation, steel, shipping, and cement all face similar challenges. These sectors depend on energy-dense fuels and long-lived infrastructure.
Because of this, companies are exploring multiple climate strategies at once. These include:
- new aircraft designs,
- sustainable aviation fuels,
- operational efficiency improvements, and
- carbon removal technologies.
Durable carbon removal is increasingly viewed as a bridge solution. It can help manage emissions while new technologies mature.
As global air travel grows, airlines and aircraft makers will face more pressure. They need to show clear paths for decarbonization.
Scaling Climate Solutions for Hard-to-Abate Sectors
Boeing’s carbon removal partnership with Carbonfuture marks an important step in aviation’s evolving climate strategy. The agreement will secure at least 40,000 tonnes of durable carbon removal credits, making it one of the largest such deals in the aerospace sector.
Carbon removal won’t solve aviation’s emissions issue by itself. However, it can support fuel innovation, improve efficiency, and help with cleaner energy systems.
As industries move toward net-zero targets, carbon removal markets are likely to grow rapidly. For companies across transportation, the path to a low-carbon future will rely on a mix of technological breakthroughs and credible climate solutions.
The post Boeing Locks In 40,000 Tons of Carbon Removal Credits in Major Biochar Climate Deal appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
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.