Investment in mCDR will not happen at the scale needed without addressing the current situation of policy and regulatory uncertainty. It is critical to build enabling governance frameworks (a mixture of policy, regulatory structures, and public investment) that provide increasing clarity around how mCDR can move forward such as the model legislation for mCDR research by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.  This must include things like clarified permitting processes, and clearly identified oversight authorities. Details on key elements of this priority can be found in the Engaging Key Audiences Road Map.

A growing carbon market will be ultimately necessary for the successful scaling of mCDR. Ensuring that mCDR pathways will be accepted into carbon markets will depend upon resolving some critical information challenges in the first instance, including:  

1. Scope and develop the measurement technologies, and verification tools to support creation and application of standards and protocols for each mCDR approach to provide assurances to negative emissions markets. See current work being done by [C]-Worthy on measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV). 
2. Develop the science needed to underpin standards for verifying carbon sequestration and permanence from various mCDR pathways.  For example, Oceans2050 is already developing a methodology for quantifying natural carbon sequestration underlying macroalgae farms (Duarte et al., 2022), but additional science and research on carbon fate and transport is needed for macroalgae cultivation and sinking. See recent framework to guide research on seaweed cultivation and sinking for carbon dioxide removal.
3. Lessons may be learned by looking to the more mature terrestrial carbon markets.

Corporate buyers of carbon removal (e.g., Stripe, Microsoft) can play a key role in providing support for RD&D needed to make future carbon credit purchases possible.

• Scope creation of a “Carbon Removal Buyers Alliance” to pool demand and resources to help develop ocean-based pathways for carbon removal.  Such an Alliance could:
  • Provide early developmental and testing funding in exchange for future CDR options
  • Provide forward contracts for future purchase of CDR allowing entrepreneurs to make investments now
  • Develop and coordinate the specifications needed for the private removal market (as the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance did for wind and solar).  This also would build on existing investments and/or purchase of CDR (Stripe’s first purchase, Stripe commits $8M, Shopify invests $5M) that have allowed for infusions of capital into entrepreneurial efforts needed to further test and develop these approaches. 

Co-products generated from mCDR (e.g., Albright & Fujita, 2023) pathways need viable routes to market to provide revenues that can offset the costs of mCDR deployment. Market analyses need to be performed that evaluate the potential for:

• Existing markets to accommodate additional supply of co-products (e.g. hydrogen gas produced from electrolysis) (Understand Market Potential for Co-Products)
• New markets to grow to match the supply of new co-products with buyers

Additional human and physical resources are needed to accelerate mCDR technology RD&D. Opportunities to accelerate RD&D include: 

• Building new public-private partnerships, such as between universities, national laboratories, and industry to address critical bottlenecks in the technological readiness of various mCDR pathways. (See Carbon to Sea as an example.)
• Cataloging outstanding science questions/gaps pertinent to mCDR development and working with existing funders of basic and applied science to build funding programs around for the needed science.  One such option is encouraging relevant national science funding agencies (e.g., the US National Science Foundation), to open requests for proposals around key science needs.  

Much higher levels of public investment are needed to move mCDR RD&D forward. This in turn requires a supportive policy environment. Supporters of mCDR must cultivate awareness and support among policymakers by: 

• Developing targeted education and communication strategies for key policymakers at different levels of government to increase support for mCDR RD&D
• Engaging a diverse coalition of organizations to help educate and inform policy and appropriations for mCDR RD&D.

There are several emerging innovators and entrepreneurs working on mCDR, but they often lack access to the critical talent and expertise needed to move their innovations out of labs and into field trials and potential deployment. There are key actions that can help create a more supportive environment for these entrepreneurs.  

• Facilitate related technology transfer out of academia: These road maps can be used to work with specific universities to profile needed technology development and then to help connect academics with external actors.  To facilitate better tech transfer, a series of outreach materials and webinars to familiarize ocean scientists and engineers with technology transfer offices at key universities would be useful. 
• Build partnerships with leading accelerators, such as Y-Combinator, the Ocean Solutions Accelerator, Creative Destruction Lab, Larta Institute, or Indie Bio to increase their focus on mCDR ventures and to access their expertise for building these ventures.  
• Work with prizes and competitions, such as those hosted by The Ocean Exchange to ensure the inclusion of mCDR in prizes and competitions.
• Ensure that mCDR research and development is well represented in the myriad “ocean clusters” springing up (e.g., Alaska Ocean Cluster) to support a global Blue Economy 

• Develop a publicly available database where people can track investments and projects. Ensure that this includes tracking of public investment in mCDR, and from countries besides the US and the European Union, to gain a full picture of the global landscape around mCDR.
• Develop targeted outreach and materials for investor education to build their familiarity and comfort with CDR, and mCDR specifically (something akin to the Climateworks – Economist knowledge hub for mCDR pathways). Reach out to specific associations such as TONIIC.  
• Develop comparative analyses (e.g., cost-benefit) between mCDR and terrestrial-based or technology-based CDR to inform and reduce barriers to entry for CDR investors looking to support ocean-based pathways.