1932

Abstract

Ocean carbon dioxide removal (OCDR) is rapidly attracting interest, as climate change is putting ecosystems at risk and endangering human communities globally. Due to the centrality of the ocean in the global carbon cycle, augmenting the carbon sequestration capacity of the ocean could be a powerful mechanism for the removal of legacy excess emissions. However, OCDR requires careful assessment due to the unique biophysical characteristics of the ocean and its centrality in the Earth system and many social systems. Using a sociotechnical system lens, this review identifies the sets of considerations that need to be included within robust assessments for OCDR decision-making. Specifically, it lays out the state of technical assessments of OCDR approaches along with key financial concerns, social issues (including public perceptions), and the underlying ethical debates and concerns that would need to be addressed if OCDR were to be deployed as a carbon dioxide removal strategy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-032122-113850
2023-01-16
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/marine/15/1/annurev-marine-032122-113850.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-032122-113850&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Al-Enazi A, Okonkwo EC, Bicer Y, Al-Ansari T. 2021. A review of cleaner alternative fuels for maritime transportation. Energy Rep 7:1962–85
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alonso-Conde AB, Brown C, Rojo-Suarez J. 2007. Public private partnerships: incentives, risk transfer and real options. Rev. Financ. Econ. 16:335–49
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson ST. 2017. Risk, liability, and economic issues with long-term CO2 storage—a review. Nat. Resour. Res. 26:89–112
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ankamah-Yeboah I, Xuan BB, Hynes S, Armstrong CW. 2020. Public perceptions of deep-sea environment: evidence from Scotland and Norway. Front. Mar. Sci. 7:137
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Antal M, van den Bergh JCJM. 2013. Macroeconomics, financial crisis and the environment: strategies for a sustainability transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 6:47–66
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Asiyanbi AP. 2016. A political ecology of REDD+: property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in Cross River. Geoforum 77:146–56
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baatz C. 2016. Can we have it both ways? On potential trade-offs between mitigation and solar radiation management. Environ. Values 25:29–49
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bach LT, Gill SJ, Rickaby REM, Gore S, Renforth P. 2019. CO2 removal with enhanced weathering and ocean alkalinity enhancement: potential risks and co-benefits for marine pelagic ecosystems. Front. Clim. 1:7
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bach LT, Tamsitt V, Gower J, Hurd CL, Raven JA, Boyd PW. 2021. Testing the climate intervention potential of ocean afforestation using the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt. Nat. Commun. 12:2556
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Batres M, Wang FM, Buck H, Kapila R, Kosar U et al. 2021. Environmental and climate justice and technological carbon removal. Electr. J. 34:107002
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bayrak MM, Marafa LM 2016. Ten years of REDD+: a critical review of the impact of REDD+ on forest-dependent communities. Sustainability 8:620
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bednar J, Obersteiner M, Wagner F. 2019. On the financial viability of negative emissions. Nat. Commun. 10:1783
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bellamy R, Hulme M 2011. Beyond the tipping point: understanding perceptions of abrupt climate change and their implications. Weather Clim. Soc. 3:48–60
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bertram C, Merk C. 2020. Public perceptions of ocean-based carbon dioxide removal: the nature-engineering divide?. Front. Clim. 2:594194Reviews the roots of social acceptability of ocean CDR and identifies recurring concerns.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bhandary RR, Gallagher KS, Zhang F. 2021. Climate finance policy in practice: a review of the evidence. Clim. Policy 21:529–45
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Blake M, Smith PT. 2021. International distributive justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy EN Zalta Stanford, CA: Metaphys. Res. Lab., Stanford Univ https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/international-justice
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Boettcher M, Brent K, Buck HJ, Low S, McLaren D, Mengis N. 2021. Navigating potential hype and opportunity in governing marine carbon removal. Front. Clim. 3:664456
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Braun C, Merk C, Pönitzsch G, Rehdanz K, Schmidt U. 2018. Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence. Clim. Policy 18:471–84
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brockhaus M, Wong G, Luttrell C, Loft L, Pham TT et al. 2014. Operationalizing safeguards in national REDD+ benefit-sharing systems: lessons on effectiveness, efficiency and equity REDD+ Safeguards Brief 2, Cent. Int. For. Res. Bogor, Indones:.
  20. Buck HJ. 2016. Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications. Clim. Change 139:155–67
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Buck HJ. 2020. Should carbon removal be treated as waste management? Lessons from the cultural history of waste. Interface Focus 10:20200010
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Burt DJ, Fröb F, Ilyina T. 2021. The sensitivity of the marine carbonate system to regional ocean alkalinity enhancement. Front. Clim. 3:624075
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Campbell TH, Kay AC. 2014. Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107:809–24
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS, Raimi KT, Wolske KS. 2017. The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies. Clim. Change 143:321–36
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Carlisle DP, Feetham PM, Wright MJ, Teagle DAH. 2020. The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering. Clim. Change 160:303–22
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Carton W, Asiyanbi A, Beck S, Buck HJ, Lund JF. 2020. Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal. WIREs Clim. Change 11:e671
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Caserini S, Pagano D, Campo F, Abbà A, De Marco S et al. 2021. Potential of maritime transport for ocean liming and atmospheric CO2 removal. Front. Clim. 3:575900
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Casillas CE, Kammen DM. 2012. Quantifying the social equity of carbon mitigation strategies. Clim. Policy 12:690–703
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Castro P. 2012. Does the CDM discourage emission reduction targets in advanced developing countries?. Clim. Policy 12:198–218
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Coffman D, Lockley A. 2017. Carbon dioxide removal and the futures market. Environ. Res. Lett. 12:015003
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cook SL, Ma Z. 2014. The interconnectedness between landowner knowledge, value, belief, attitude, and willingness to act: policy implications for carbon sequestration on private rangelands. J. Environ. Manag. 134:90–99
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Cooley SR, Schoeman DS, Bopp L, Boyd PW, Donner SD et al. 2022. Ocean and coastal ecosystems and their services. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change H-O Pörtner, DC Roberts, M Tignor, ES Poloczanska, K Mintenbeck et al. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan NE. 2013. Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob. Environ. Change 23:938–47
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Corner A, Pidgeon N. 2015. Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Clim. Change 130:425–38
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Corrocher N, Cappa E. 2020. The role of public interventions in inducing private climate finance: an empirical analysis of the solar energy sector. Energy Policy 147:111787
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Cox E, Boettcher M, Spence E, Bellamy R 2021. Casting a wider net on ocean NETs. Front. Clim. 3:576294
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Cox E, Pidgeon N, Spence E. 2022. But they told us it was safe! Carbon dioxide removal, fracking, and ripple effects in risk perceptions. Risk Anal 42:147287
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cox E, Spence E, Pidgeon N 2020. Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nat. Clim. Change 10:744–49Investigates perceptions of CDR, identifying characteristics and conditions important for public acceptance.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Cvetkovich G, Siegrist M, Murray R, Tragesser S. 2002. New information and social trust: asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers. Risk Anal. 22:359–67
    [Google Scholar]
  40. de Coninck H, Benson SM. 2014. Carbon dioxide capture and storage: issues and prospects. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39:243–70
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Devine-Wright P, Howes Y. 2010. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 30:271–80
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Doney SC, Busch DS, Cooley SR, Kroeker KJ. 2020. The impacts of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and reliant human communities. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45:83–112
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Dooley K, Harrould-Kolieb E, Talberg A. 2021. Carbon-dioxide removal and biodiversity: a threat identification framework. Glob. Policy 12:S134–44
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Dorband II, Jakob M, Kalkuhl M, Steckel JC. 2019. Poverty and distributional effects of carbon pricing in low- and middle-income countries – a global comparative analysis. World Dev. 115:246–57
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Elliott K. 2010. Geoengineering and the precautionary principle. Int. J. Appl. Philos. 24:237–53Analyzes precautionary principles applied to CDR and solar geoengineering.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Filbee-Dexter K, Feehan C, Smale D, Krumhansl K, Augustine S et al. 2022. Ocean temperature controls kelp decomposition and carbon sink potential. Res. Square 38503: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-38503/v1
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Flynn R, Bellaby P, Ricci M 2015. The limits of upstream engagement in an emergent technology: lay perceptions of hydrogen energy technologies. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation P Devine-Wright 245–60 London: Earthscan
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Friedlingstein P, Jones MW, O'Sullivan M, Andrew RM, Bakker DCE et al. 2022. Global Carbon Budget 2021. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14:19172005
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Froehlich HE, Afflerbach JC, Frazier M, Halpern BS. 2019. Blue growth potential to mitigate climate change through seaweed offsetting. Curr. Biol. 29:3087–93.e3
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Fyson CL, Baur S, Gidden M, Schleussner C-F. 2020. Fair-share carbon dioxide removal increases major emitter responsibility. Nat. Clim. Change 10:836–41
    [Google Scholar]
  51. GAO (Gov. Account. Off.) 2010. Superfund: EPA's estimated costs to remediate existing sites exceed current funding levels, and more sites are expected to be added to the national priorities list Rep. GAO-10-380, GAO Washington, DC:
  52. Giles J. 2002. Norway sinks ocean carbon study. Nature 419:6
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, Press CU. 2002. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  54. Girardin CAJ, Jenkins S, Seddon N, Allen M, Lewis SL et al. 2021. Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet—if we act now. Nature 593:191–94
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Godden L, Tehan M. 2016. REDD+: climate justice and indigenous and local community rights in an era of climate disruption. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 34:95–108
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Grover D, Daniels B. 2017. Social equity issues in the distribution of feed-in tariff policy benefits: a cross sectional analysis from England and Wales using spatial census and policy data. Energy Policy 106:255–65
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hansen J, Holm L, Frewer L, Robinson P, Sandøe P. 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41:111–21
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hartzell-Nichols L. 2017. A Climate of Risk: Precautionary Principles, Catastrophes, and Climate Change New York: Routledge
  59. Haščič I, Rodríguez MC, Jachnik R, Silva J, Johnstone N. 2015. Public interventions and private climate finance flows: empirical evidence from renewable energy financing Environ. Work. Pap. 80, Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. Paris:
  60. Hawkins E, Smith RS, Gregory JM, Stainforth DA. 2016. Irreducible uncertainty in near-term climate projections. Clim. Dyn. 46:3807–19
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hester TD. 2018. The paradox of regulating negative emissions technologies under US environmental laws. Glob. Sustain. 1:E1
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Honegger M, Michaelowa A, Roy J. 2021. Potential implications of carbon dioxide removal for the sustainable development goals. Clim. Policy 21:678–98Reviews gaps in understanding of CDR's co-benefits and risks to sustainable development.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hourcade J-C, Dasgupta D, Ghersi F. 2021. Accelerating the speed and scale of climate finance in the post-pandemic context. Clim. Policy 21:1383–97
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Howard J, Sutton-Grier A, Herr D, Kleypas J, Landis E et al. 2017. Clarifying the role of coastal and marine systems in climate mitigation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15:42–50
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hurd CL, Law CS, Bach LT, Britton D, Hovenden M et al. 2022. Forensic carbon accounting: assessing the role of seaweeds for carbon sequestration. J. Phycol. 58:347–63
    [Google Scholar]
  66. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2018. Summary for policymakers. Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, H-O Pörtner, D Roberts, J Skea 1–24 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  67. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2019. 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories Rep., IPCC Geneva:
  68. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2022. Summary for policymakers. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change H-O Pörtner, DC Roberts, M Tignor, ES Poloczanska, K Mintenbeck, et al Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Jagiello RD, Hills TT. 2018. Bad news has wings: dread risk mediates social amplification in risk communication. Risk Anal. 38:2193–207
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Jebari J, Táíwò OO, Andrews TM, Aquila V, Beckage B et al. 2021. From moral hazard to risk-response feedback. Clim. Risk Manag 33:100324Critically discusses the concept of moral hazard with respect to CDR.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Jeffery L, Höhne N, Moisio M, Day T, Lawless B. 2020. Options for supporting carbon dioxide removal Discuss. Pap., New Clim. Inst. Cologne, Ger:.
  72. Jensen T, Dowlatabadi H. 2018. Challenges in financing public sector low-carbon initiatives: lessons from private finance for a school district in British Columbia, Canada. Clim. Policy 18:878–88
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T, Silva CL, Braman D. 2015. Geoengineering and climate change polarization: testing a two-channel model of science communication. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 658:192–222
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
  75. Kama K. 2020. Resource-making controversies: knowledge, anticipatory politics and economization of unconventional fossil fuels. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 44:333–56
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Karg ST, Wiener-Blotner A, Schnall S. 2019. Disgust sensitivity is associated with heightened risk perception. J. Risk Res. 22:627–42
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Karlsson M, Alfredsson E, Westling N 2020. Climate policy co-benefits: a review. Clim. Policy 20:292–316
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Kelemen P, Benson SM, Pilorgé H, Psarras P, Wilcox J. 2019. An overview of the status and challenges of CO2 storage in minerals and geological formations. Front. Clim. 1:9
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Kitt S, Axsen J, Long Z, Rhodes E. 2021. The role of trust in citizen acceptance of climate policy: comparing perceptions of government competence, integrity and value similarity. Ecol. Econ. 183:106958
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Klass AB, Wilson EJ. 2008. Climate change and carbon sequestration: assessing a liability regime for long-term storage of carbon dioxide. Emory Law J 58:103–80
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Kornek U, Klenert D, Edenhofer O, Fleurbaey M. 2021. The social cost of carbon and inequality: when local redistribution shapes global carbon prices. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 107:102450
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Krupa J. 2013. Realizing truly sustainable development: a proposal to expand Aboriginal ‘price adders’ beyond Ontario electricity generation projects. Util. Policy 26:85–87
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Lamb WF, Antal M, Bohnenberger K, Brand-Correa LI, Müller-Hansen F et al. 2020. What are the social outcomes of climate policies? A systematic map and review of the ex-post literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:113006
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Lamont J, Favor C. 2017. Distributive justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy EN Zalta Stanford, CA: Metaphys. Res. Lab., Stanford Univ. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/justice-distributive
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Laufkötter C, John JG, Stock CA, Dunne JP. 2017. Temperature and oxygen dependence of the remineralization of organic matter. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31:1038–50
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Leiserowitz A. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim. Change 77:45–72
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Lezaun J. 2021. Hugging the shore: tackling marine carbon dioxide removal as a local governance problem. Front. Clim. 3:684063
    [Google Scholar]
  88. L'Orange Seigo S, Arvai J, Dohle S, Siegrist M 2014. Predictors of risk and benefit perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in regions with different stages of deployment. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 25:23–32
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Lovell HC. 2010. Governing the carbon offset market. WIREs Clim. Change 1:353–62
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Lovelock CE, Duarte CM. 2019. Dimensions of blue carbon and emerging perspectives. Biol. Lett. 15:20180781Reviews the ability of different marine systems to durably store large quantities of blue carbon.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Low S, Buck HJ. 2020. The practice of responsible research and innovation in “climate engineering. .” WIREs Clim. Change 11:e644
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Mabon L, Shackley S, Bower-Bir N. 2014. Perceptions of sub-seabed carbon dioxide storage in Scotland and implications for policy: a qualitative study. Mar. Policy 45:9–15
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Markusson N, McLaren D, Szerszynski B, Tyfield D, Willis R. 2022. Life in the hole: practices and emotions in the cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence. Eur. J. Futures Res. 10:2
    [Google Scholar]
  94. McLaren DP, Tyfield DP, Willis R, Szerszynski B, Markusson NO. 2019. Beyond “net-zero”: a case for separate targets for emissions reduction and negative emissions. Front. Clim. 1:4
    [Google Scholar]
  95. McShane K. 2016. Anthropocentrism in climate ethics and policy. Midwest Stud. Philos. 40:189–204
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Merk C, Pönitzsch G, Rehdanz K. 2019. Do climate engineering experts display moral-hazard behaviour?. Clim. Policy 19:231–43
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Meyer L. 2021. Intergenerational justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy EN Zalta Stanford, CA: Metaphys. Res. Lab., Stanford Univ. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/justice-intergenerational
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Meysman FJR, Montserrat F. 2017. Negative CO2 emissions via enhanced silicate weathering in coastal environments. Biol. Lett. 13:20160905
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Míguez JL, Porteiro J, Pérez-Orozco R, Patiño D, Rodríguez S. 2018. Evolution of CO2 capture technology between 2007 and 2017 through the study of patent activity. Appl. Energy 211:1282–96
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Milne S, Mahanty S, To P, Dressler W, Kanowski P, Thavat M. 2019. Learning from ‘actually existing’ REDD+: a synthesis of ethnographic findings. Conserv. Soc. 17:84–95
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Minx JC, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Fuss S, Hilaire J et al. 2018. Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:063001
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Moellendorf D. 2009. Justice and the assignment of the intergenerational costs of climate change. J. Soc. Philos. 40:204–24
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Montserrat F, Renforth P, Hartmann J, Leermakers M, Knops P, Meysman FJR. 2017. Olivine dissolution in seawater: implications for CO2 sequestration through enhanced weathering in coastal environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:3960–72
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Morrow D, Nicholson S. 2021. Sustainable carbon removal Rep., Inst. Carbon Remov. Law Policy, Am. Univ. Washington, DC:
  105. Mumpower JL, Liu X, Vedlitz A. 2016. Predictors of the perceived risk of climate change and preferred resource levels for climate change management programs. J. Risk Res. 19:798–809
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Munthe C. 2011. The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
  107. Naidoo CP. 2020. Relating financial systems to sustainability transitions: challenges, demands and design features. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 36:270–90
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Narain U, van 't Veld K. 2008. The Clean Development Mechanism's low-hanging fruit problem: When might it arise, and how might it be solved?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 40:445–65
    [Google Scholar]
  109. NASEM (Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med.) 2021. A research strategy for ocean-based carbon dioxide removal and sequestration Rep., NASEM Washington, DC:Provides an authoritative overview of OCDR that identifies key unanswered questions about science, technologies, and governance.
  110. Needelman BA, Emmer IM, Emmett-Mattox S, Crooks S, Megonigal JP et al. 2018. The science and policy of the verified carbon standard methodology for tidal wetland and seagrass restoration. Estuaries Coasts 41:2159–71
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N. 2006. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–27
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Nilsson M, Persson Å. 2012. Can Earth system interactions be governed? Governance functions for linking climate change mitigation with land use, freshwater and biodiversity protection. Ecol. Econ. 75:61–71
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Ozkan M. 2021. Direct air capture of CO2: a response to meet the global climate targets. MRS Energy Sustain 8:51–56
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Partridge T, Thomas M, Pidgeon N, Harthorn B. 2019. Disturbed Earth: conceptions of the deep underground in shale extraction deliberations in the US and UK. Environ. Values 28:641–63
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Pollard JA, Rose DC. 2019. Lightning rods, earthquakes, and regional identities: towards a multi-scale framework of assessing fracking risk perception. Risk Anal. 39:473–87
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Poudyal M, Ramamonjisoa BS, Hockley N, Rakotonarivo OS, Gibbons JM et al. 2016. Can REDD+ social safeguards reach the ‘right’ people? Lessons from Madagascar. Glob. Environ. Change 37:31–42
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Renforth P, Campbell JS. 2021. The role of soils in the regulation of ocean acidification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 376:20200174
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Rozin P, Royzman EB. 2001. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5:296–320
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Sarnoff JD. 2020. Negative-emission technologies and patent rights after COVID-19. Clim. Law 10:225–65
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Sartzetakis ES. 2021. Green bonds as an instrument to finance low carbon transition. Econ. Change Restruct. 54:755–79
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Satterfield T, Collins M, Harthorn B. 2018. Perceiving resilience: understanding people's intuitions about the qualities of air, water, and soil. Ecol. Soc. 23:47
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Satterfield T, Mertz CK, Slovic P. 2004. Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Anal. 24:115–29
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Schmidt TS. 2014. Low-carbon investment risks and de-risking. Nat. Clim. Change 4:237–39
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Schumann D, Duetschke E, Pietzner K. 2014. Public perception of CO2 offshore storage in Germany: regional differences and determinants. Energy Proc. 63:7096–112
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin CAJ, Smith A, Turner B. 2020. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375:20190120
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Shue H. 2015. Historical responsibility, harm prohibition, and preservation requirement: core practical convergence on climate change. Moral Philos. Politics 2:7–31
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Siegel DA, DeVries T, Doney SC, Bell T. 2021. Assessing the sequestration time scales of some ocean-based carbon dioxide reduction strategies. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:104003
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Siegmeier J, Mattauch L, Franks M, Klenert D, Schultes A, Edenhofer O. 2018. The fiscal benefits of stringent climate change mitigation: an overview. Clim. Policy 18:352–67
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Siegrist M, Hartmann C. 2020. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat. Food 1:343–50
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Skotnes RO, Hansen K, Krovel AV. 2021. Risk and crisis communication about invisible hazards. J. Int. Crisis Risk Commun. Res. 4:413–38
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Slovic P. 2000. The Perception of Risk London: Earthscan
  132. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG 2010. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception P Slovic 21–36 London: Earthscan
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Slovic P, Västfjäll D 2019. The arithmetic of compassion and the future of risk management. The Future of Risk Management H Kunreuther, RJ Meyer, EO Michel-Kerjan 13–29 Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Smessaert J, Missemer A, Levrel H. 2020. The commodification of nature, a review in social sciences. Ecol. Econ. 172:106624
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Snæbjörnsdóttir , Sigfússon B, Marieni C, Goldberg D, Gislason SR, Oelkers EH. 2020. Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1:90–102
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Stahlke T. 2020. The impact of the Clean Development Mechanism on developing countries’ commitment to mitigate climate change and its implications for the future. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 25:107–25
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Tcvetkov P, Cherepovitsyn A, Fedoseev S 2019. Public perception of carbon capture and storage: a state-of-the-art overview. Heliyon 5:e02845
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Thomas G, Pidgeon N, Roberts E. 2018. Ambivalence, naturalness and normality in public perceptions of carbon capture and storage in biomass, fossil energy, and industrial applications in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  139. UN 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Doc. FCCC/INFORMAL/84/Rev.1, GE.14-20841 (E), UN New York: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/convention_text_with_annexes_english_for_posting.pdf
  140. UN 1993. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Vol. 1: Resolutions Adopted by the Conference New York: UN https://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/Agenda%2021.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  141. UN 2015. Paris Agreement Treaty Doc., UN New York: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
  142. UN Environ. Programme 2021. The heat is on: a world of climate promises not yet delivered Emiss. Gap Rep. 2021, UN Environ. Programme Nairobi, Kenya: https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021
  143. UNESCO-IOC (UN Educ. Sci. Cult. Organ. Intergov. Oceanogr. Comm.) 2021. Climate change and marine spatial planning IOC Policy Brief 3, UNESCO Paris: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375721
  144. Ürge-Vorsatz D, Herrero ST, Dubash NK, Lecocq F. 2014. Measuring the co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39:549–82
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Wallquist L, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. 2010. Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44:6557–62
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Waygood EOD, Avineri E. 2016. Communicating transportation carbon dioxide emissions information: Does gender impact behavioral response?. Transp. Res. D 48:187–202
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Webb R. 2020. The law of enhanced weathering for carbon dioxide removal Rep., Sabin Cent. Clim. Change Law, Columbia Law Sch. New York:
  148. Webb R, Gerrard M. 2017. Policy readiness for offshore carbon dioxide storage in the northeast Rep., Sabin Cent. Clim. Change Law, Columbia Law Sch. New York:
  149. Webb R, Silverman-Roati K, Proelss A, Zhang L, Zou K. 2021. Domestic legal frameworks for ocean CDR Roundtable, Annual Conference on Carbon Removal Law and Policy, virtual Sept. 21
  150. Williams R, Ashe E, Broadhurst G, Jasny M, Tuytel D et al. 2021. Destroying and restoring critical habitats of endangered killer whales. Bioscience 71:1117–20
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Wilson RS, Zwickle A, Walpole H. 2019. Developing a broadly applicable measure of risk perception. Risk Anal. 39:777–91
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Winkelman AG, Moore MR. 2011. Explaining the differential distribution of Clean Development Mechanism projects across host countries. Energy Policy 39:1132–43
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Wolske KS, Raimi KT, Campbell-Arvai V, Hart PS. 2019. Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions. Clim. Change 152:345–61
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Wright L, Pessarrodona A, Foggo A. 2022. Climate-driven shifts in kelp forest composition reduce carbon sequestration potential. Res. Square 957301: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-957301/v1
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  155. Wu J, Keller DP, Oschlies A. 2022. Carbon dioxide removal via macroalgae open-ocean mariculture and sinking: an Earth system modeling study. Earth Syst. Dyn. Discuss In review. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-104
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  156. Wynes S, Zhao J, Donner SD. 2020. How well do people understand the climate impact of individual actions?. Clim. Change 162:1521–34
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Yoon J-E, Yoo K-C, Macdonald AM, Yoon H-I, Park K-T et al. 2018. Reviews and syntheses: ocean iron fertilization experiments – past, present, and future looking to a future Korean Iron Fertilization Experiment in the Southern Ocean (KIFES) project. Biogeosciences 15:5847–89
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Zickfeld K, MacDougall AH, Matthews HD. 2016. On the proportionality between global temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions during periods of net negative CO2 emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 11:055006
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-032122-113850
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-032122-113850
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error