Analysing policy signals from the US, EU and UN regulations for the deployment of marine carbon dioxide removal

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a structured categorization of regulatory signals for mCDR, useful for studying technology governance and policy coherence.

🏢実務担当者:Offers insight into the regulatory environment for companies considering investment in mCDR technologies.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights the conflicting signals between jurisdictions and the need for clearer policy guidance on mCDR deployment under uncertainty.

The Paris Agreement set a goal to keep global warming to well below 2°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the rise in global surface temperature to 1.5°C. Achieving these targets hinges on reaching net-zero emissions, where residual anthropogenic emissions are counterbalanced by carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Using oceans for CDR holds great potential but also poses scientific challenges and societal concerns around the risks involved in marine geoengineering interventions. Furthermore, the regulatory context framing ocean interventions is hard to navigate as it involves complex and variable international law. The question of whether to deploy marine CDR (mCDR) therefore requires clear signals from regulatory frameworks worldwide. This paper reviews mCDR-related regulatory texts and policy documents from the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations. We categorize the texts based on whether they provide incentives or restrictions to deployment, and which stage of technology development they target, i.e. research, innovation, pilots, demand, or market instruments. The controversies surrounding mCDR are reflected in the stark contrasts between regulatory approaches: the US mostly provides regulatory incentives whereas the EU creates regulatory frameworks that do not send clear signals, and most UN treaties work to restrict the deployment of mCDR. These contrasting policy approaches are rooted in scientific uncertainty, but the issue of whether or not to deploy these controversial interventions is also a political one. A policy approach necessarily involves societal decisions, particularly when addressing risks and uncertainties of mCDR and climate change.Key policy insights Contrasting policy signals between the UN, the US and the EU policies show that mCDR is highly controversial.Research is key to reducing uncertainty and informing decisions on mCDR deployment, and almost all regulatory texts in our corpus advocate deep research.The precautionary principle calls for robust mechanisms to guide decisions under uncertainty that have not yet been implemented.Policymakers could provide clearer signals about the level of certainty required to make a decision on whether or not to deploy mCDR.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32480060first seen 2026-06-17 04:43:03 · last seen 2026-06-17 09:17:10