The rise, fall and rebirth of ocean carbon sequestration as a climate 'solution'

While the ocean has long been portrayed as a victim of climate change, threatened by ocean warming and acidification, it is now increasingly framed as a key solution to the climate crisis. In particular, the promising carbon sequestration potential of the ocean is being emphasised. In this paper, we seek to historicise the practices, discourses and actors that have constructed the ocean as a climate change solution space. We conceptualise the debate about the mitigation potential of the ocean as a contested site of governance, where varying actors form alliances and different sociotechnical narratives about climate action play out. Using an innovative quali-quantitative methodology which combines scientometrics with document analysis, observational fieldwork, and interviews, we outline three historical phases in the history of ocean carbon sequestration that follow recurring cycles of hype, controversy and disappointment. We argue that the most recent hype around ocean carbon sequestration was not triggered by a technological breakthrough or a reduction in scientific uncertainty, but by new socio-technical configurations and coalitions. We conclude by showing that how climate change solutions are put on the agenda and become legitimised is both a scientific and political process, linked to how science frames the climate crisis, and ultimately, its governance

The formative phase of German carbon dioxide removal policy: Positioning between precaution, pragmatism and innovation

Since net-zero greenhouse gas emissions targets have become a keystone of European and German climate policy, a debate about the need to actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in addition to drastically reducing emissions has emerged. Although still relatively scarce, empirical studies on the emergence of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the political agenda have shown that variations in the constellations and positions of policy-relevant actors play a key role in shaping patterns of CDR policymaking. The German and wider European Union (EU) CDR policy space is emergent, and political actors are just beginning to position themselves. Building on our previous work which established a typology of CDR policy integration patterns and developed a discourse analytical framework for mapping CDR-policy-relevant speaker positions, we present the first fine-grained empirical reconstruction of CDR-policy-relevant actors and their positions in the German context. Our analytical approach aims to improve understanding of patterns in CDR policymaking by showing that on the EU, national, and subnational levels, a multitude of institutional actors may adopt differing positions as the CDR policy space evolves. In addition to identifying fine-grained ‘ideal types’ of positions that policy actors may adopt in the formative phase of German CDR policy, our analysis provides an empirical ‘map’ of CDR policy-relevant actors and explores hypotheses about emerging discourse coalitions and potential conflict cleavages

Navigating Potential Hype and Opportunity in Governing Marine Carbon Removal

As the technical and political challenges of land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approaches become more apparent, the oceans may be the new “blue” frontier for carbon drawdown strategies in climate governance. Drawing on lessons learnt from the way terrestrial carbon dioxide removal emerged, we explore increasing overall attention to marine environments and mCDR projects, and how this could manifest in four entwined knowledge systems and governance sectors. We consider how developments within and between these “frontiers” could result in different futures—where hype and over-promising around marine carbon drawdown could enable continued time-buying for the carbon economy without providing significant removals, or where reforms to modeling practices, policy development, innovation funding, and legal governance could seek co-benefits between ocean protection, economy, and climate

Casting a wider net on ocean NETs

Societal issues involving policies and publics are generally understudied in research on ocean-based Negative Emission Technologies (NETs), yet will be crucial if novel techniques are ever to function at scale. Public attitudes are vital for emerging technologies: publics influence political mandates, help determine the degree of uptake by market actors, and are key to realizing broader ambitions for robust decision-making and responsible incentivization. Discourses surrounding ocean NETs will also have fundamental effects on how governance for the techniques emerges, shaping how they are defined as an object of governance, who is assigned the authority to govern, and what instruments are deemed appropriate. This Perspective brings together key insights on the societal dimensions of ocean NETs, drawing on existing work on public acceptability, policy assessment, governance, and discourse. Ocean iron fertilization is the only ocean NET on which there exists considerable social science research thus far, and we show that much evidence points against its social desirability. Taken in conjunction with considerable natural science uncertainties, this leads us to question whether further research is actually necessary in order to rule out ocean iron fertilization as an option. For other ocean NETs, there is a need for further research into social dimensions, yet research on analogous technologies shows that ocean interventions will likely evoke strong risk perceptions, and evidence suggests that the majority of ocean NETs may face a greater public acceptability challenge than terrestrial NETs. Ocean NETs also raise complex challenges around governance, which pose questions well-beyond the remit of the natural sciences and engineering. Using a conceptual exploration of the ways in which different types of discourse may shape emerging ocean NETs governance, we show that the very idea of ocean NETs is likely to set the stage for a whole new range of contested futures

Knowledge co-production and science-policy engagement

Knowledge production and learning related to ESTPs face significant challenges, with implications for effective science-policy interactions. Scientific knowledge about ESTPs is increasingly reflected in IPCC assessment reports, but governance actors are not yet using this growing knowledge base sufficiently. Lack of awareness, misconceptions and learning challenges limit the demand for, and use of, existing scientific insights. At the same time, engagement with tipping points in the social sciences and humanities is lagging. The knowledge needed to understand, assess and support governance efforts related to ESTPs in a polycentric setting must be solutions-oriented, context-specific and actor-relevant. Anticipatory knowledge and related capacities for making sense of and acting with regard to uncertain futures (e.g. complex systems thinking) are essential tools for decision makers. Currently dominant patterns of knowledge co-production and science-policy engagement do not foster learning and anticipatory capacity-building sufficiently to generate robust and actionable knowledge for policy. To effectively support governance efforts related to ESTPs across multiple scales, knowledge production should be inter and transdisciplinary, and increasingly participatory. Developing capacities for anticipation requires expanded use of methods like participatory scenario development, roleplay simulations and storytelling, which combine quantitative and qualitative data, foster participants’ ability to deal with uncertainty, and strengthen long-term agency. Experiments with some of these approaches are currently taking place in global knowledge-generating institutions like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). However, more profound changes to current science-policy interface institutions and processes will be needed to support effective decision making on ESTPs. The needed knowledge-production and capacity-building processes are more resource intensive and require more time (longer and more frequent engagement) than common science-policy interactions. They are also difficult to include in the scope of international institutions like the IPCC. Regional (e.g. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) and national scientific organisations (e.g. national academies of science) and policy advisory bodies might be best suited to drive innovation and progress in this domain

A Code of Conduct for Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Research

Given the clear need to inform societal decision-making on the role marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR) can play in solving the climate crisis, it is imperative that researchers begin to answer questions about its effectiveness and impacts. Yet overly hasty deployment of new ocean-based climate interventions risks harm to communities and ecosystems and could jeopardize public perception of the field as a whole. In addition, the harms, risks and benefits of mCDR efforts are unlikely to be evenly distributed. Unabated, climate change could have a devastating impact on global ecosystems and human populations, and the impacts of mCDR should be contemplated in this context. This Code of Conduct exclusively applies to mCDR research and does not attempt to put any affiliated risk in the context of the risk of delaying climate action. Its purpose is to ensure that the impacts of mCDR research activities themselves are adequately understood and accounted for as they progress. It provides a roadmap of processes, procedures, and activities that project leads should follow to ensure that decisions regarding whether, when, where, and how to conduct mCDR research are informed by relevant ethical, scientific, economic, environmental, and regulatory considerations

Secure robust carbon dioxide removal policy through credible certification

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is a key element of any mitigation strategy aiming to achieve the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, as well as national net-zero and net-negative greenhouse gas emissions targets. For robust CDR policy, the credibility of certification schemes is essential