海洋二酸化炭素除去の展開のための米国、EU、国連の規制からの政策シグナルの分析

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.

巴黎协定设定了将全球变暖控制在比工业化前水平高出远低于2°C的目标，并努力将全球地表温度上升限制在1.5°C以内。实现这些目标取决于实现净零排放，即残余的人为排放通过二氧化碳移除（CDR）来抵消。利用海洋进行CDR具有巨大潜力，但也带来了科学挑战以及围绕海洋地球工程干预措施所涉风险的社会关切。此外，框定海洋干预措施的监管环境难以驾驭，因为它涉及复杂且多变的国际法。是否部署海洋CDR（mCDR）的问题因此需要来自全球监管框架的明确信号。本文回顾了来自美国、欧盟和联合国的mCDR相关监管文本和政策文件。我们根据这些文本是提供部署激励还是限制，以及它们针对技术发展的哪个阶段（即研究、创新、试点、需求或市场工具）进行分类。围绕mCDR的争议反映在监管方法之间的鲜明对比中：美国大多提供监管激励，而欧盟建立的监管框架未发出明确信号，且大多数联合国条约致力于限制mCDR的部署。这些截然不同的政策方法根植于科学不确定性，但是否部署这些有争议的干预措施的问题也是一个政治问题。政策方法必然涉及社会决策，特别是在处理mCDR和气候变化的风险与不确定性时。 关键政策见解 联合国、美国和欧盟政策之间对比鲜明的政策信号表明，mCDR极具争议性。 研究是减少不确定性并为mCDR部署决策提供信息的关键，我们语料库中几乎所有监管文本都倡导深入研究。 预防原则要求在不确定性下指导决策的健全机制，但这些机制尚未实施。 政策制定者可以就更需要何种程度的确定性来做出是否部署mCDR的决定提供更明确的信号。

AI 翻訳（deepseek-v4-flash）。 正確を期す場合は下の原文を参照してください。

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.32480060.v1first seen 2026-06-17 04:43:03 · last seen 2026-06-18 04:40:54