Successful adoption of any new technology or innovation seldom relies on its function, engineering, or design alone. Some level of public awareness and acceptance is needed for the uptake of any new technology; technologies associated with marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) are not an exception. To gain approval for field tests, which are a critical method of research, practitioners will need some level of public acceptance.
Perception of CDR, particularly mCDR, is multifaceted and evolving, and conversations around mCDR have increased significantly in the past couple of years (Cox et al. 2024). While there is growing recognition of the urgent need for CDR solutions to address climate change, alongside rapid and deep decarbonization, the perception of mCDR remains mixed among various stakeholders including policymakers, decision-makers, and the public. Addressing public concerns, fostering transparent communication, and engaging stakeholders in decision-making processes are essential for building public trust and acceptance of mCDR research and testing. Collaboration among key groups and interdisciplinary approaches are essential for navigating these complexities and ensuring that mCDR initiatives align with sustainability goals and societal values. [post_title] => Overview [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => overview [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-01 17:55:29 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-01 17:55:29 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 1892 [guid] => https://oceanvisions.org/roadmaps/growing-public-support/overview-growing-public-support/overview/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => page [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )For some technologies, public awareness and technological readiness can exist in a virtuous cycle, wherein successful development of said technology (e.g., smart phones) increases public attention and support which in turn further accelerates support for more development. The converse is also true. In a “vicious cycle”, low levels of development lead to low levels of awareness which in turn inhibits flow of resources even for research and development.
Many mCDR pathways are trapped in this latter cycle and hence remain critically underdeveloped.
A few points of evidence include:
- The relative paucity of information about mCDR pathways relative to terrestrial and technological pathways in CarbonPlan’s CDR database.
- The paucity of ocean-based applications submitted to Stripe’s first round of negative emissions purchases and Microsoft’s first negative emissions purchase.
- The lack of big environmental and climate NGOs that include ocean-based CDR, or any CDR for that matter, as priorities on their climate or ocean agendas.
- The minimal attention paid to ocean-based CDR pathways in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate suggests a lack of scientific awareness that further slows broader public awareness.
Another cause of the low levels of development of mCDR relates to what is referred to as the “moral hazard” of CDR itself.
CDR, whether in the oceans or on land, has been dubbed by some as a “moral hazard” that will detract energy and attention away from the [more] important effort to reduce current and future greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of society (Lawford-Smith & Currie, 2017). The fear is that some actors will use CDR as a means to reduce their net emissions while avoiding more difficult reductions in gross greenhouse gas emissions. This can reduce support even for research and development of mCDR.
Even though the international science community now recognizes that we need both CDR and overall emission reductions to stabilize planetary warming at 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels (IPCC 2018, IPCC 2022), understanding and stakeholder recognition of the imperative for CDR remains low, and the “moral hazard” argument is partly responsible.
[post_title] => The “Moral Hazard” of CDR Argument [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-moral-hazard-of-cdr-argument [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-04-18 21:05:47 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-04-18 21:05:47 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 1893 [guid] => https://oceanvisions.org/roadmaps/growing-public-support/barriers-to-increasing-public-acceptance-growing-public-support/the-moral-hazard-of-cdr-argument/ [menu_order] => 1 [post_type] => page [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )Even when CDR is viewed as a critical tool, the role of the ocean lags far behind other pathways in public understanding and acceptance. This, despite the fact that the ocean covers ~71% of the surface area of the planet, and already plays a major planetary role in cycling atmospheric and terrestrial carbon and safely storing it in the deep sea.
Despite the ocean’s potential for efficacious and scalable carbon removal, ocean-based pathways have not been investigated with the same level of interest and rigor as land-based (e.g., afforestation), technological (e.g., direct air capture), and hybrid (e.g., bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) approaches. For example, an earlier report on CDR pathways by the Academy largely ignored ocean-based pathways (with the exception of restoration of coastal aquatic vegetative habitats). We hope that the call for about $1.3 billion over ten years in new prioritized research and development in the recently released (2022) U.S. National Academy of Sciences publication of the research strategy for ocean-based CDR will help to increase the awareness of the ocean's potential for carbon removal.
The oceans are gaining increased attention on the international stage, as evidenced by discussions at events like COP28, recognizing their crucial role in climate regulation and biodiversity. At COP28, numerous initiatives highlighted the importance of ocean conservation and sustainable management, including commitments to marine protected areas, sustainable fisheries, and reducing marine pollution. However, amidst growing recognition of the ocean's importance, mCDR remains relatively underexplored in these contexts. [post_title] => Low Awareness of the Ocean’s Potential for Carbon Removal [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => low-awareness-of-the-oceans-potential-for-carbon-removal [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-04-18 21:07:37 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-04-18 21:07:37 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 1893 [guid] => https://oceanvisions.org/roadmaps/growing-public-support/barriers-to-increasing-public-acceptance-growing-public-support/low-awareness-of-the-oceans-potential-for-carbon-removal/ [menu_order] => 2 [post_type] => page [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )The ongoing and future threats to marine ecosystems from both legacy and continuing greenhouse gas pollution are clear and urgent. They include sea level rise and unprecedented rates of warming and acidification that threaten the existence of critical ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs and kelp forests, as well as severe alteration to marine biodiversity and ecosystem function generally (IPCC 2019).
The harms posed by a warming, rising, and acidifying ocean are already clear and visible, especially for island and coastal countries. Polling among coastal residents of the United States done in 2022 also shows concern about the impact of climate change in the ocean and support for mCDR. However, for many people, the terrestrial impacts - increased wildfires, stronger hurricanes, heatwaves, and drought on land- are more visible and may make the climate crisis appear more dire on land than in the ocean.
Despite the clear impacts of and continuing risks posed by the build-up of carbon dioxide pollution in the air and water, there seems to be more fear about the risks of taking experimental action versus the risks of inaction. This is particularly true for ocean pathways, with a reticence as some have stated to “use the ocean to fix the climate” (which overlooks the fact that they are inextricably intertwined).
There are concerns about unknown and unbounded environmental risks from mCDR pathways, many of which may have been born from controversies over ocean iron fertilization experiments in the 1990s and 2000s (Strong et al., 2015; Strong et al., 2009) or the ocean fertilization project by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation off Canada (Tollefson, 2017).
[post_title] => Perceptions About Relative Environmental Risks [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => public-perceptions-about-relative-environmental-risks [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-04-18 21:56:17 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-04-18 21:56:17 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 1893 [guid] => https://oceanvisions.org/roadmaps/growing-public-support/barriers-to-increasing-public-acceptance-growing-public-support/public-perceptions-about-relative-environmental-risks/ [menu_order] => 3 [post_type] => page [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )The precautionary principle has often been used to manage risk when a proposed activity has the potential for causing harm, and where extensive scientific knowledge and conclusive evidence to the contrary is lacking. Implicit in the precautionary principle is that the burden of proof falls on the proponent of the action to show that potential harm can be avoided or minimized.
Also implicit is that potential harm can be avoided by not taking the action. However, this assumes that the condition of the system will stay constant without the action. This is certainly not the case in the oceans; there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the ocean is on a dangerous downward trajectory as a result of too much carbon in the air and water (Mahli et al., 2020).
If one accepts the foundational premise that “no action” on CDR is not a credible alternative, then any ocean-based CDR action has to be compared against other CDR actions that will equally solve for the problems in the ocean driven by high levels of greenhouse gases in the air and water. It is not credible to compare ocean-based CDR to a “no-action” alternative: inaction is not “safe”, and a “no-action alternative” is a fallacy as a choice to safeguard marine biodiversity and ecosystems. No action leads to continuing loss of ocean health and growing threats to communities and economies.
[post_title] => The Precautionary Principle/”No Action Fallacy” [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-precautionary-principle-no-action-fallacy [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-04-18 21:57:05 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-04-18 21:57:05 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 1893 [guid] => https://oceanvisions.org/roadmaps/growing-public-support/barriers-to-increasing-public-acceptance-growing-public-support/the-precautionary-principle-no-action-fallacy/ [menu_order] => 4 [post_type] => page [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )Although mCDR technologies are nascent, there is already emerging evidence of public preference for pathways regarded as more “nature-based”, such as restoration of coastal blue carbon habitats, over “engineering-based” approaches, such as ocean alkalinity enhancement. This appears to be due to concerns about the potential for environmental risk and unintended impacts with “engineering-based” approaches.
This apparent bias for nature-based approaches creates a situation where the techniques with greatest CDR potential and permanence (“engineering-based”) face greater obstacles to public acceptance than those with reduced CDR potential and permanence (“nature-based”) (Bertram & Merk, 2020).
[post_title] => Perceptions on Nature-Based versus Engineered Solutions [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => perceptions-on-nature-based-versus-engineered-solutions [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-04-18 21:09:23 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-04-18 21:09:23 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 1893 [guid] => https://oceanvisions.org/roadmaps/growing-public-support/barriers-to-increasing-public-acceptance-growing-public-support/perceptions-on-nature-based-versus-engineered-solutions/ [menu_order] => 5 [post_type] => page [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )Advancing the development and testing of mCDR approaches will require governance structures that both enable the permitting of legitimate testing and development and ensure that public interests are protected.
Current governance-related challenges include:
- There are no specific regimes in the United States nor internationally governing mCDR (Webb 2024, Webb & Silverman-Roati 2023)
- There have been recent efforts to regulate mCDR under three long-standing international agreements
- The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS")
- The 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter ("the London Convention") (see also Vivian & Del Savio 2024)
- The 1996 Protocol to the London Convention ("the London Protocol") (see also Vivian & Del Savio 2024)
- There have been recent efforts to regulate mCDR under three long-standing international agreements
- In many countries, there are complex regulatory mazes to navigate to gain permits for in-water experimental trials, hindering the development of trials.
- In the United States, this is particularly complicated by overlapping jurisdictions and authorities in the coastal zone (NASEM 2022).
These and other governance and regulatory uncertainties present real challenges and risks to those working to conduct research and development on mCDR pathways. Lack of such regimes both inhibits experimentation and the development of public confidence in mCDR experimentation. Governance structures and regimes with a specific focus on mCDR must be developed.
These governance structures must provide consistency; transparency; work to facilitate experimentation and demonstration; minimize negative environmental impacts; and ensure that field trials are controllable in size and scope. They may also require different skill sets appropriate to specific mCDR pathways (i.e. different governance for macroalgal sequestration versus ocean liming) (Bellamy, 2018).
[post_title] => Underdeveloped Regulatory and Governance Structures [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => underdeveloped-regulatory-and-governance-structures [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-10-01 17:43:50 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-10-01 17:43:50 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 1893 [guid] => https://oceanvisions.org/roadmaps/growing-public-support/barriers-to-increasing-public-acceptance-growing-public-support/underdeveloped-regulatory-and-governance-structures/ [menu_order] => 6 [post_type] => page [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )It is essential to swiftly raise awareness of and knowledge about mCDR across the key sectors and actors that are engaged in shaping climate and ocean policy. As various alternatives are evaluated, accelerating research into mCDR needs a “seat at the table” and to receive due consideration. This requires a much broader array of voices articulating the case for consideration than we currently have. It is a priority to engage a broad and diverse range of credible individuals, organizations, and entities to vocally support the research and development of mCDR.
The key first step is to design and launch a multi-dimensional, multi-year communications campaign to reach critical actors in this space.
- Target actors include policymakers at multiple levels, climate and ocean specialists, marine sectors, scientists, investors, philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and others. The campaign should be designed to educate about the outsize and growing impacts of greenhouse gas pollution on the oceans, the role of CDR as one approach to slowing these impacts, and the potential role of ocean-based pathways for CDR. All with the underlying objective of expanding support for accelerated research, development, and demonstration of mCDR pathways.
The communications campaign should:
-
-
- Identify all target audiences that will be part of creating an enabling environment for mCDR research, development, and design.
- Research their current perceptions and understanding of mCDR.
- Develop appropriate content and information formats for these key audiences.
- Identify and engage credible spokespeople (scientists, business leaders, and other opinion leaders) to help carry the messages.
-
Marine CDR field trials will stand the best chance of success when they are developed with as many communities of interest participating as possible. All practitioners and researchers need to move field trials forward with transparency and broad stakeholder and interest group involvement, and with third-party scientific review and validation. It is particularly important to expand access for diverse communities of interest to participate in the development of this field.
Researchers and practitioners need to:
- Cultivate alliances with diverse stakeholders:
- Communities subjected to ocean change, including fishers and tribal communities.
- Indigenous and tribal communities who often hold legal rights to the sea and marine resources.
- Work with partners already trusted by communities (e.g., SeaGrant in the US).
- Work with local stakeholders to ensure that benefits of field testing (environmental and economic) are equitably shared, and that risks of field testing are not externalized on local communities.
- Ensure there are adequate resources as part of field trial designs to engage stakeholders.
- Identify and quantity co-benefits to the environment and people of mCDR approaches.
- Engage social scientists to design involvement processes and help address economic, social, and political challenges and opportunities around mCDR.
- Ensure broad dissemination of progress and results.
- Engage relevant stakeholders in the development of a code (Hubert, 2020) to guide scientific experimentation and field trials in a manner that is transparent, participatory, rigorously monitored, and carefully controlled.
- The Aspen Institute has been actively involved in developing a code of conduct for mCDR, aiming to provide guidance and principles for responsible deployment of CDR technologies, maximizing their potential benefits while minimizing risks and negative impacts on society and the environment. Key aspects of their work include stakeholder engagement, transparency and accountability, risk assessment and mitigation, governance and regulation, and capacity building and education.
- The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has launched a plan to develop an Ethical Framework for Climate Intervention Research, Experimentation and Deployment. This will be a code of conduct to guide the ethics of climate intervention.
- Develop assessment frameworks to guide scientific field trials under all relevant international conventions and national laws.
-
Government actors at various levels responsible for climate action need to be specifically engaged to ensure that mCDR is considered in national programs for climate mitigation. There requires increasing governmental awareness and support for mCDR research, design, and development (RD&D) at national and international scales.
- Increase outreach to relevant political jurisdictions to educate about mCDR opportunities and needs.
- Seek to expand governmental involvement in mCDR through enabling legislation and policy. See recent work by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law on model legislation for mCDR research.
- Work with relevant jurisdictions to expand governmental support/funding for needed RD&D. See recent Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Fast Track Action Committee (MCDR-FTAC) requests for input from all interested parties to inform the development of an implementation plan to advance a key recommendation of the Ocean Climate Action Plan (OCAP) regarding marine carbon dioxide removal (CDR) research.
- Build a broad coalition/alliance to demonstrate the diversity of interests in support of mCDR testing.
-
Sub-national, national, and international regimes to govern the development and testing of mCDR are absolutely critical for this field to progress. Key first order needs are:
- Governance Reviews: Governance reviews are needed to identify and describe the existing legal frameworks for mCDR pathways in priority coastal countries/jurisdictions.
- The Sabin Law Center at Columbia University has initiated such an effort with working papers to look at legal challenges and opportunities for:
- Macroalgal cultivation and sequestration and ocean alkalinity enhancement in the US (Webb et al., 2021)
- Offshore carbon capture and storage in Canada (Webb & Gerrard, 2021)
- The legal framework for sub-seabed carbon storage in the U.S and Canada (Webb & Gerrard 2017; Webb & Gerrard 2019)
- Model federal legislation to advance safe and responsible marine carbon dioxide removal research in the United States (Webb & Silverman-Roati, 2023)
- The Sabin Law Center at Columbia University has initiated such an effort with working papers to look at legal challenges and opportunities for:
Planned additional working papers will add geographic context and expand the suite of mCDR pathways considered.
- Identify Needed Improvements to Governance Regimes
- Review scans to assess gaps, needs, and opportunities.
- Convene stakeholders at relevant scales to discuss and develop draft proposals for new or amended regimes, including developing specific legislative and executive directives that provide key agencies with scope to engage in mCDR (EFI, 2020)
- Engage with sub-national jurisdictions. Small-scale field testing under the jurisdiction of cities and/or states may help build data and evidence to support larger-scale testing in federal waters and under federal authority.
- Review and Propose Needed Changes to International Regimes
- Engage a global community of experts to review existing international governance regimes and laws for mCDR RD&D, and to make specific recommendations for improving the international regimes.
- Identify the specific processes and opportunities to more clearly embed governance and oversight of mCDR into international governance frameworks.
- Engage a global community of experts to review existing international governance regimes and laws for mCDR RD&D, and to make specific recommendations for improving the international regimes.
-
- Develop Tools to Help Researchers and Experimental Efforts
- Permitting guides: Develop specific tools and plans by country (and sub-national jurisdictions) to navigate the leasing, permitting, and legal considerations.
- Convene relevant practitioners in working groups to identify and advocate for common tools and information needs that would benefit all practitioners of a given methodology (e.g. coastal enhanced weathering) in a specific jurisdiction.
- Co-develop such tools with the relevant permitting agencies to “bring regulators along for the journey”.
- Identify and support the development of the needed interagency and intergovernmental structures to facilitate review and compliance.
- Governance Reviews: Governance reviews are needed to identify and describe the existing legal frameworks for mCDR pathways in priority coastal countries/jurisdictions.
-
It is essential to expand the field of researchers from across diverse disciplines to engage in mCDR-related research. Many of the above activities to legitimize the field will help draw more scholarly attention but additional actions could also help, such as:
- Create prize competitions, awards, and funding opportunities to mobilize ocean scientists and engineers to work on critical needs identified throughout these road maps.
- Carbon to Sea is bringing together scientists, engineers, field builders, and market shapers to systematically assess whether and how OAE can be a safe, scalable, and permanent CDR method, and to lay the groundwork for cost-effective and responsible deployment in the future.
- Global ONCE is a research program endorsed in June 2022 under the UN Decade for Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2022 – 2030) co-chaired by Prof. Nianzhi Jiao from Xiamen University, China, and Prof. Carol Robinson from the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, and with 79 partners from 33 countries. The objective of Global ONCE is to provide data, knowledge, and best practices in the application of ONCE approaches towards achieving the global strategy of carbon neutrality by mid-century.
- Develop long-term strategies to engage more leading academic and research institutions against these challenges and opportunities to build the next generation of researchers and practitioners.
- Ocean Visions' Launchpad provides tailored expert support to innovators developing marine carbon dioxide removal strategies.
- Create prize competitions, awards, and funding opportunities to mobilize ocean scientists and engineers to work on critical needs identified throughout these road maps.
Engaging Key Audiences
Engaging key audiences on ocean-based CDR