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 uptake of any new technology; technologies associated with ocean-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are not an exception.
Participants in the workshops and review cycles leading to the production of these road maps broadly agreed that ocean-based CDR technology pathways are currently at very low levels of public awareness and, accordingly, public support. These views are in broad agreement with the growing scholarly research on the subject.{{1}}
Given these low levels of awareness and understanding, workshop participants agreed that a great deal more investment is needed to educate and inform key audiences on ocean-based CDR, and to connect directly to those key audiences that will be most critical to accelerate the research and development of ocean-based CDR.
[post_title] => Overview [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => overview [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-06-23 12:16:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-06-23 12:16:14 [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 ocean-based pathways are trapped in this latter cycle, and hence remain critically underdeveloped.
A few points of evidence include:
- The relative paucity of information about ocean-based CDR pathways relative to terrestrial and technological pathways in CarbonPlan’s CDR database.{{1}}
- The paucity of ocean-based applications submitted to Stripe’s first round of negatives emissions purchases{{2}} and Microsoft’s first negative emissions purchase.{{3}}
- 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{{4}} suggests a lack of scientific awareness that further slows broader public awareness.
Another cause of the low levels of development of ocean-based CDR 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{{1}}. 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.
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{{2}}{{3}}, 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] => 2022-04-28 01:37:41 [post_modified_gmt] => 2022-04-28 01:37:41 [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{{1}} pathways by the Academy largely ignored ocean-based pathways (with the exception of restoration of coastal aquatic vegetative habitats){{2}}. We hope that the call for about $1.3 billion dollars 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.
[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] => 2022-04-15 02:37:57 [post_modified_gmt] => 2022-04-15 02:37:57 [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{{1}}.
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 ocean-based carbon dioxide removal. However, for many people the terrestrial impacts - increased wildfires, stronger hurricanes, and heatwaves and drought on land- are more visible and may make the climate crisis appear more dire on land than in the ocean.
In spite of 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 ocean-based CDR pathways, many of which may have been born from controversies over ocean iron fertilization experiments in the 1990s and 2000s{{2}}{{3}} or the ocean fertilization project by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation off Canada{{4}}.
[post_title] => Public 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] => 2022-04-28 01:34:10 [post_modified_gmt] => 2022-04-28 01:34:10 [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{{1}}.
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] => 2021-07-19 20:09:40 [post_modified_gmt] => 2021-07-19 20:09:40 [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 ocean-based CDR 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”){{1}}.
[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] => 2021-09-29 16:29:02 [post_modified_gmt] => 2021-09-29 16:29:02 [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 ocean-based CDR approaches will require governance structures that both enable the permitting of legitimate testing and development and ensure that the public interests are protected.
Current governance-related challenges include:
- There are no specific regimes in the US nor internationally governing ocean-based CDR{{1}}.
- In many countries, there are complex regulatory mazes to navigate to gain permits for in-water experimental trials, hindering development of trials.
- In the US this is particularly complicated by overlapping jurisdictions and authorities in the coastal zone{{2}}.
These and other governance and regulatory uncertainties present real challenges and risks to those working to conduct research and development on ocean-based CDR pathways. Lack of such regimes both inhibits experimentation and the development of public confidence in ocean-based CDR experimentation. Governance structures and regimes with a specific focus on ocean-based CDR 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 ocean CDR pathways (i.e. different governance for macroalgal sequestration versus ocean liming){{3}}.
[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] => 2021-07-19 20:09:30 [post_modified_gmt] => 2021-07-19 20:09:30 [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 ocean-based CDR across the key sectors and actors that are engaged in shaping climate and ocean policy. As various alternatives are evaluated, ocean-based CDR 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 research and development of ocean-based CDR.
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 to expand support for accelerated research, development and demonstration of ocean-based CDR pathways.
The communications campaign should:
-
-
- Identify all target audiences that will be part of creating an enabling environment for ocean-based CDR RD&D
- Conduct research on their current perceptions and understanding of ocean-based CDR.
- Develop appropriate content and information formats for these key audiences.
- Identify and engage credible spokespeople (scientists, business leaders, other opinion leaders) to help carry the messages{{1}}.
-
Ocean-based 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 ocean-based CDR approaches.
- Engage social scientists to design involvement processes and help address economic, social, and political challenges and opportunities around ocean-based CDR.
- Ensure broad dissemination of progress and results.
- Engage relevant stakeholders in development of a code{{1}} to guide scientific experimentation and field trials in a manner that is transparent, participatory, rigorously monitored and carefully controlled.
- The Aspen Institute, with support from the ClimateWorks Foundation, published a set of key questions that should be considered by researches and practitions of ocean-based CDR.
- 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 ocean-based CDR is considered in national programs for climate mitigation. There requires increasing governmental awareness and support for ocean-based CDR RD&D at national and international scales.
- Increase outreach to relevant political jurisdictions to educate about ocean-based CDR opportunities and needs.
- Seek to expand governmental involvement in ocean-based CDR through enabling legislation and policy.
- Work with relevant jurisdictions to expand governmental support/funding for needed RD&D.
- Build a broad coalition/alliance to demonstrate the diversity of interests in support of ocean-based CDR testing.
-
Sub-national, national, and international regimes to govern development and testing of ocean-based CDR 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 ocean-based CDR 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{{1}}.
- Offshore carbon capture and storage in Canada{{2}}
- The legal framework for sub-seabed carbon storage in the U.S and Canada {{3}}{{4}}
- 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 ocean-based CDR 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 ocean-based CDR.{{5}}
- 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 ocean-based CDR 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 ocean-based CDR into international governance frameworks.
- Engage a global community of experts to review existing international governance regimes and laws for ocean-based CDR 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 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 ocean-based CDR pathways in priority coastal countries/jurisdictions.
-
It is essential to expand the field of researchers from across diverse disciplines to engage on ocean-based CDR-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.
- 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.
Growing and Maintaining Public Support
Engaging key audiences on ocean-based CDR