Day 2 - Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Standing Committee: Meeting 2

Welcome everyone uh to part two of the standing committee um on marine carbon dioxide removal at the Nationalmies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Um this is our our series of um it's is meeting two. It's taking place over uh four different afternoons. Um trying to uh be kind to many time zones. Of course, you can't be kind to all the time zones, but we're we're trying. So, we're just having a few hours each afternoon. Um yesterday was our first day and we spent about 10 minutes going over um kind of the context for this work. Um we are not going to do that today. So if you are interested you can review the first 10 minutes of yesterday's um recording. Um you can also reach out to me anytime if you have questions. Um next slide. Uh actually before I get into the agenda, I do want to say if if you were with us yesterday, we were using a slido. Um there were about a hundred people online um and we thought that would be most effective for allowing people to comment. It really seemed very unnecessary to have that extra step. Um so today we've just got the chat open. If you have questions or comments, you can put them in the chat um directly rather than having to go to another platform. Um okay. So other than that um so yesterday we we had a really busy afternoon talking about the ocean's role in climate mitigation, the state of um monitoring, reporting and verification and then we got uh a snapshot or a series of lightning talks on some recent advances across many different approaches within marine carbon dioxide removal. Um today the focus is really on the state of MCDR policy and permitting and social perceptions of MCDR. Uh and then tomorrow we're going to talk about some u messacosm and field trials and then on the last day we're going to bring in some additional global perspectives on what's going on around the world. Um I do see something in the chat about a link for the Monday recording. Uh it should be up tomorrow but I can I will send um I'll put a link to the project page where it will be uploaded to. Um thanks for that question. Um so without further ado, I don't want to take up the time. I don't want to run out of time for Q&A. Um so we'll get into our first session. Um this is really meant to be a discussion of the current state of MCDR policy within the national and international spaces. So we're really interested in what progress has been made um what future research is needed to develop policy that will enable responsible MCDR research to take place. So today we're going to hear from Will Burns with American University, Jessica Stignat from um Solid Carbon and Ocean Networks Canada. I'm sorry if I said that wrong, Jessica. Um, Navage Gali from the University of Edinburgh and, uh, Kevin Travis um, from the California Ocean Science Trust. Um, so a lot of different perspectives, different um, levels of of involvement. Um, thank you all for joining us. Um, we'll let everyone present. Uh, and then we should have about 15 to 20 minutes for discussion afterwards. So, so thank you and will the floor is yours. >> Okay. All right. Thank you uh very much to themies and the committee for the opportunity to make some uh brief remarks today. The the purpose of my presentation is to focus on key provisions of the marine protection research and sanctuaries act uh the MPSA uh US statute in the context of marine carbon dioxide removal. The MPSA is one of the two statutes that were set forth by the US Environmental Protection Agency in its 2024 guidance document for regulating MCDR projects. My key objective here is to provide a few suggestions on how I think the MPSA might ultimately be amended to be more fit for purpose to facilitate future deployment of MCDR projects and programs if that ultimately uh proves to be uh appropriate. So, first of all, let's set the table a bit here. In April of 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a permit to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute for its Loch Ness project. This proposed ocean alkalinity enhancement experiment contemplated transport and release of sodium hydroxide and a water tracer die into ocean uh waters off the coast of Massachusetts. And this was the first permit issued for an MCDR project under the MPRSA. Now the permit for this experiment was issued under the MP RSA which functions as the domestic implementing legislation for US obligations under a treaty, the 1972 London Convention. Reflecting the London Convention's objectives, the MPRSA seeks to prevent harmful dumping into ocean waters where the Urus has jurisdiction. This includes for US-owned and flagged vessels, vessels that load materials in US ports, and dumping in US uh territorial waters. And by its terms, the MPSA's focus and orientation is clearly on waste disposal. You can see this uh through uh all of the language here. The central concern of the law is on the dumping of materials into ocean waters and the term dumping in the statute is defined flatly as disposition of material with few limited exclusions. The scope of the term material is also quite capacious and again focuses on materials that are generally categorized as waste that are acknowledged to need to be disposed of somewhere. Now, Woods Hole was issued what is termed a research a scientific research permit under the MPSA which requires regulators as you can see under uh the uh the implementing regulation here to balance the scientific merit of a proposed research project against the risks of the project. It also establishes strict time limits in in terms of the duration of the research projects that is only for 18 months. Now given the current state of the science in the context of ocean alkalinity enhancement and really all other marine carbon dioxide removal approaches, we should assume that for the immediate future any prospective projects should only be permitted in the United States uh under the rubric of of research permits in the context of the MPSA. However, a critical question in my mind is whether the MPSA is fit for purpose to potentially regulate largecale deployment of MCDR approaches at some point in the future if this would prove appropriate. Now, to do so, to allow uh large-scale deployment of any MCDR approach that involves depositing materials in the oceans would require the issuance of a general permit under the statute. And here things get problematic and a bit murky in terms of the application to marine carbon removal projects. If you look here by at the language of what's required to obtain a general permit for uh for ocean dumping under the MPSA, uh you see a couple of problems when it comes to uh marine carbon removal projects. First of all, unlike the criteria for the issuance of of research permits, uh, which calls for a comparative risk assessment, again, balancing the scientific merit of proposals versus the environmental and other risks that those uh uh uh research proposals might uh uh pose. General permits, by contrast, can only be granted when there's only potential for quote minimal environmental impact. However, given the extremely serious negative impacts of unchecked climate change, I'd argue that it would be salutary to accept more than deminimous environmental impacts from deployment of an MCDR approach if a compelling case could be made that the climatic benefits of this deployment would clearly outweigh their negative impacts in terms of climate and more specifically in terms of protecting the world's oceans, which is one of the overarching purposes in theory of the MPSA. If the MPSA is to be employed to regulate approaches where depositing materials in the oceans may actually prove salutary, incorporation of comparative risk assessment language in in terms of general permit provisions may be advised. Of course, this would not preclude regulators from requiring efforts to minimize such impacts, but it would acknowledge that we live in an era in which tradeoffs must be seriously considered. Another problematic aspect of this language in terms of how general permits are are are issued in the context of MCDR is that uh it calls for disposition of only materials that quote are generally disposed of in small quantities. However, this language might preclude applications for deposition of materials for MCDR projects, which by their terms will require the deposition of large quantities of uh of materials or at least relatively large quantity of materials in the case of ocean alkalinity enhancement, for example, uh macro or micronutrient fertilization projects or uh biomass. Thus, I would argue that there's a need for bespoke language for MCDR projects in the context of the potential granting of general permits in in the future. Assuming standalone legislation and regulations are not developed for MCDR in the future, it should also be emphasized that the MPSR could provide for a research program to assess the potential role of MCDR in addressing climatic impacts in the in the world's oceans. Um, if you look at this section for example, uh, there's plenty of language that that could be employed in that context, including uh, research programs that take into account economic considerations for both protection and use of the oceans, possible alternatives to existing programs, and perhaps most importantly, ways in which the health of the oceans may best be preserved for the benefit of succeeding generations of mankind. By those terms, it could justify an MCDR research project that looks at the potential role of these programs to affectuate these uh objectives. And then finally, I would argue that it might be advisable to push for redefining the term dumping in the MPA in a way that comports more with the spirit of the London Convention, which the MPS seeks to implement. While the MPA flatly defines dumping as the deposition of material into the ocean, no matter for what purpose, the London Convention and the London Protocol recognize the deposition can occur for purposes quote other than mere waste disposal and that these activities should not be lumped in with waste disposal projects and denominated to be dumping as long as those projects comport with the uh the rest of the provisions of the convention. Revising the MPs's definition of dumping in the same manner would both reduce the stigma that many MCDR uh project developers site in having their projects portrayed as dumping under all circumstances under the MPs and it would help to reorient EPA scrutiny of such projects away from the lens of waste disposal. It should be emphasized that regulations implementing the MPA already recognize one exception to the definition of dumping where the deposition can have positive impacts. And this is in the context of the deposition of oyster shells where it's recognized that because it can help foster the development of fisheries, it should not be deemed to be dumping. Similarly, MCDR projects that potentially could have salutary benefits for fisheries as well as other ocean uses uh similarly should be excluded from the definition of dumping. And this uh would of course require uh a uh an amendment. So in conclusion, in the best of all worlds, legislation fit for purpose for MCDR should be developed in the United States. But that may prove to be a heavy lift, especially under current political conditions. In the absence of this, efforts to make the MPSA more directly relevant to MCDR research and potential deployment would be the next alternative and it's something that I believe that we should pursue. Thank you very much. >> Thanks so much, Will. Um, and thank you for starting us off by um being on time. Um, great start. Thank you. Um, so we're continue this conversation with Jessica from Solid Carbon Next. Welcome Jessica. >> Thank you. Just going to share my slides, start my presentation here. Can everybody see that? Okay. Oh, continue to share. >> Yes. There's a little lag, but here it is. Yes. >> And there we go. Okay. So, thank you so much for allowing me to present today. Um, I'm focusing on a project that Ocean Networks Canada has been um involved in for eight years now called Solid Carbon. Uh, my role at Ocean Networks Canada is the director of external relations. So, my role is really to work with the government of Canada to help support move moving this project forward. Um, and I'll explain that through my presentation. So I always start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge and respect we are situated here at the University of Victoria on the unseated territories of the Musquam and Squamish. Um we also acknowledge the indigenous communities with whom we have the honor of to collaborate on coastal monitoring and data management. and solid carbon is is especially one of those projects where we will be folding in um indigenous uh experiences into this. So just to give you a background, solid carbon is a project that is eight years of research now. Uh we just received federal funding of $24 million um within uh it's a six-year project. Kate Moran here at Ocean Networks Canada is the lead of this project. Um we are doing research in social acceptance, the economic side of it and the regulatory and many of my colleagues are actually online today in this meeting. Um I'm focused at Ocean Networks Canada on the research demonstration which we are hoping to do in year five. Um so Ocean Networks Canada is actually leading this demonstration and the the idea behind solid carbon is sequestering CO2 into Ocean Basalt. So um taking sourced um CO2 and actually injecting it into Ocean Basalt where Ocean Networks Canada will be monitoring it um as it uh over time. And why this is of importance is because we know that when injecting CO2 into basaltt on land, it mineralizes and forms a solid. And so we would like to see if this same result happens in the ocean and there's a significant capacity there that could be um taken advantage of if it is. So Ocean Hours Canada is um from a federal government perspective a major research facility. So this was just announced last year and so I'm I'm highlighting this because these facilities are of particular interest to the federal government seeing them as largecale complex research um and with an international science focus. Solid carbon is a part of this plan um of our plan over the 15 years and so the government of Canada sees this as a critical component to national strategy for science and technology. And as you see, our footprint is really national in scope. We've got a lot of infrastructure on the west coast of Canada, but we've gone into the Arctic on the east coast, and we've just installed sensors and observatory in the Antarctica. All of the data from all of our observatories flow into oceans 3.0 and are accessible freely over the internet. So, anyone can go online and access these data. But the location that solid carbon is situated at. So as you see here, this is our Neptune Observatory on the west coast of Canada. The white line represents fiber optic cable um with power and on that loop there's thousands of sensors that we continually um retrieve data from in real time. Cascadia Basin is where solid carbon is going to be demonstrated. And so what this poses is that recently and as you can see in this um side diagram, the Cascadia Basin is now within a marine protected area that was announced in 2023 in Canada. So this this um provides us with a few more regulatory challenges. Um so we have to sort of navigate that. The MPA consists of the seabed, a thousand meter of subs soil and the water column. And right now the this um marine protected area is managed by fisheries and oceans Canada as well as four co-managing first nations. So what this means for us at Ocean Hours Canada is that we have to submit activity plans. So anytime we go into the marine protected area, we have to provide an activity plan that gives them detailed information as to what is happening and how it may affect um the MPA. This has to be provided 90 days before the activity and then it's ultimately the minister's decision whether we can proceed or not. Uh the T the THT as it is called in short form. Um these are some of the uh musthaves within the activity plan. So we must not likely to destroy the habitat obviously um increase the knowledge with when we put instruments or sensors in that area. We must assist the management of the marine protected area for fisheries and oceans who manage this marine protected area. And then there's also an educational component to this. So um increasing public awareness is also of interest to the marine protected area and we've built this all into the plan of um particularly on the social science side which you'll hear more about um later on in I think your second hour as far as o uh Canada's um regulatory environment with respect to uh the solid carbon. So Will's already discussed the London protocol. Canada also has amendments that they are currently processing of the lo London protocol which would then include the subseed sequestration of CO2. this has not happened yet and so we are working very closely with um environment climate change Canada on this front um to they have assured us that this is in process and they suggest that by the time we are interested in doing the demonstration um this will be enacted. So yet to to see if that comes to fruition but um we're hopeful. The fisheries act is also an area that um we pay attention to. So the pollution prevention provisions and the prohibit of dis of dis deposits of harmful substances frequented by fish. Um there's other research areas that environment climate change Canada have interest in which is to conduct science in support of pollution protection and climate change and the government of Canada has has an overall more broader mandate for scientific research and development in innovation and economic development. So it's really this sort of um how do you um as Will again said the trade-offs between driving innovation but also ensuring this protection of the of the ocean. Um and finally the legislation through Natural Resources Canada is looking into subseed carbon storage and um a lot we are also following along with how direct air capture offshore wind would also play into a lot of these um acts. One area that we are also interested in is this regulatory sandbox that our government of Canada has has um put in budget 2024. And this is sort of a a process where it's supposed to reduce regulatory barriers so that can the government can keep up with changing technology. It's a temporary set of rules. Um and our government is right now fasttracking major projects um where they're trying to enact one Canadian economy which is a bill C5 which would accelerate national projects. We think that this would help with these kinds of um research focused um examples that we could move these pro processes forward. uh the carbon management strategy in Canada is also um one that we're keeping an eye out. O basaltt uh sequestration and basalt is actually part of that carbon strategy. Um but they do note that as Canada does not yet have a comprehensive regulatory framework specific to offshore carbon management projects will require legislative changes and regulatory development. So this is the case today. And on a final note, I just am going to share that in Canada, we have sort of a new government that's just forming under Prime Minister Carney. These are just some of the areas that he has of particular interest in his mandate and his um the way he's talking about his government moving forward. Supporting in technologies and innovation and carbon removal is one of them. So, I think we're still at the beginning of understanding where this government will be moving forward on these kinds of projects. Thank you so much. That concludes my presentation. >> Thanks so much, Jessica. Um, and I I will say I'm a little jealous. That all sounds so great. Um, but moving on. Um, Navage Gali, and I'm sorry if I just said that wrong. Um, you are next. Um, >> yep. Okay. Um, no, your pronunciation was fine. I'm having difficulty accessing um my documents through uh Zoom. Could you load it from your end? You've got my slides. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you. And if it's okay, I'll just say next slide. Next slide. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh can you put in uh uh There you go. >> Okay. All right then. Well, thank you very much. Uh, thank you for the invitation and uh, thank you uh, and very nice to meet you all. Um, my name is Naj Gali from the University of Edinburgh from the law school. I'm very pleased that there are two lawyers on this panel. Generally, I find that this the more lawyers the higher the level of discussion. So, we're off to a good start already. Um so what I am going to be talking about uh MCDR from the perspective of stakeholders at the UK and substate level. Um this is uh a presentation which builds off research uh undertaken by myself and uh my researcher Marcley Vanly and I'll give you some of the context to that in a moment. Next slide please. So uh we are working Marcus and myself are working in a project called core which is the UK's national research hub on greenhouse gas removals as we call it here. I'm just putting the link into the chat um and there is um in the context of which we have we've very nearly completed a regulatory review across all CDRs at the UK level. Um in the chat I also put um a link to a second project called CO2 which is a European Union project um about MCDR specifically as opposed to ours which is more ecumenical. Um and I think you've got Chris Pierce from that project tomorrow. Um so he'll tell you all about that no doubt. Um in the UK there are two uh pilot schemes uh two uh MCDR pilots CQ which um you can Google and uh planetary which is currently inactive. I'll not say anything detailed about those two projects. Um next slide please. So um the other function of me being a lawyer is that of course I don't uh uh I was very very uh impressed that Will uses images. I use text uh and only text. Um and I've given you very detailed slides because uh for your reference but I'm going to not speak to every single word on the slide. So just uh in terms of planning law the first and most important basic point about planning law in the United Kingdom is that it's devolved. that is it operates at the level of the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom that is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course in broad terms they are roughly similar as in any federated or semifederated policy but there are differences um and this is um the case for uh MCDR projects but the basic planning law applies to the marine environment as well just for the avoidance of doubt. Uh, next slide please. And as in every other jurisdiction or every other advanced economy, of course, environmental impacts assessments are a central pillar of um assessments for planning purposes to facilitate information to allow decision makers to consider environmental impacts of the pro proposed project. Ordinarily, those words in red would be taken as red. um but in this case they're particularly significant because there are information gaps in this little universe of um MCDR planning. So next slide please. Okay. So for the purposes of GG where I say GGR I assume that you mean uh CDR. Um I think the United Kingdom is the only country to use the term GGR. Um but we're talking about GGR across um we rather in our regulatory review across all um GGR or CDR techniques. So as well as marine landbased uh biochar petlands aforestation etc. um and engineered removal stack specs etc. Um I'm sure this is the case in uh the US as well, but most of our in fact all of our uh GG projects bar one is a relatively small scale. So they're either pilots or demonstrators um operating at proof of concept or certainly research level. So there's a particular scale context in which they're operating. Next slide please. The key element of our project of this piece of research that we've done I should say that core is a large research project um within a 31.5 million pound research program uh multiddisciplinary undertaking a wide range of research activities. Um this particular piece of work is really looking at the regulatory review, the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom for all GGs primarily based off stakeholder interviews and we look at stakeholder and stakeholder interviews are our primary source because nobody knows what the law is. There are no practitioners, there are no textbooks, there is no um real legal practice, there are no cases. So um we found that the most reliable source of information was to speak to the people who were doing it and those people include project developers and regulators and others uh other stakeholders. What did we find specifically um around permitting that uh project developers find the landscape very difficult to navigate because they are tend to be pilots. they that are not operating that are operating um in that are uh not operating indefinitely. They're operating for a limited period of time because they're research academic research projects. Um generally that they have problems with uh timelmited permitting. Actually, it's interesting that our Canadian colleague said something similar about the necess the utility of um short-term permits. That's very much our experience as well. but we don't tend to have them. Um, and so what happens is that the projects that we have have to operate have to apply for full permits which is very cumbersome, very difficult for them to do. It's costly. They may not have the relevant um information to make those applications. They're finding it a challenge. What we don't have are regulatory sandboxes um for um uh CDR generally nor for um marine CDR. Um so again interesting to hear from our Canadian colleagues on that. Next slide please. Okay. So we have a problem of expertise and evidence um dual problems. Um and there's somewhat paradoxical relationship between them. So from the perspective of regulators, they have difficulty evaluating proposals or applications. They are unable to um dictate uh safety or risk levels in relation to emissions, water, land, air because they don't have those reference points. They don't have those reference points because the regulated community project developers have been unable to generate the relevant evidence because they don't have permissions and there is indeed um no more than a d a minimum level of um operational uh experience. So we're in this regulatory paradox, this sort of double bind in which regulators are struggling to regulate because there's no practice, there's no operational experience, and project developers are struggling to get permits because the regulators can't decide what the standards are. So this is a um uh an obvious uh difficulty. Um there are pre-application systems that um permit uh that permit um early engagement. So reg um uh developers project developers can speak to uh regulators on a informal basis and try to feel out a solution. Regulators are facing very high demand from industry um in these sorts of processes indicating that there's a real demand for these sorts of regulatory um uh solutions for in the novel technologies of CDR. Um so which in turn is of course creating a burden for regulators. Incidentally Kelly I don't have a clock on so if I'm going over time please do wave. Uh next slide please. Okay. Um, planning law has a wide number of well-known shortcomings in the United Kingdom. It, as I'm sure everywhere else, it's difficult to build things. It's big difficult to build big things. Um, and in particular, uh, net zero infrastructure has all sorts of challenges and bottlenecks and so on. One way that our interviewees identified of getting around that is by colllocating. that is collo colllocating their projects at existing facilities that already have permits. Um so uh colllocating at uh water company outfall uh water companies that have outfall permits can uh has proved to be one way in which um the labyrinth of the permitting process has been overcome in one instance. Next slide please. Specifically for MCDR, what we have found is, and this was already elaborated by Will, so I'll not say uh not get into the weeds here, but this is probably the one area of um CDR in which international law has an over role to play. Um it is uniquely in our experience the one area of uh CDR where industry and regulators are actually contemplating and considering the London Convention, the London Protocol, international law um as a way of um uh bringing their projects um into uh realization. So this is a particularity of the MCDR uh universe. Next slide please. So as I noted earlier for permitting processes we have very few marine projects. We have very limited insights from industry into the compatibility and accessibility of existing regulation. There is of course a world of um regulation uh permit uh relating to permitting and planning. Um none of it of course is designed for the purposes of um MCDR. So it has to both industry and regulators have to manage the fit um almost manually. Um 10 minutes. Okay, next slide please. That may be the last slide. Okay, good. Um, and what we found from our interviews, um, I should say we've done 30 plus interviews, um, are that MCDR has really not been regulated in, uh, contemplated in any detail at all by regulators. They may have considered other forms of CDR, um, but not MCDR. So, I'll leave it there. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. Um, and finishing us off, we have uh a state a US state perspective. Um, Kevin Travis from California Ocean Science Trust. And then after Kevin, we can take questions. Um, thanks everyone. >> Great. Thank you, Kelly. I'm just sharing my slides here. You should be able to see them. >> Perfect. >> Wonderful. Well, thank you again uh Kelly and to the Nationalmies as well as the committee members for the invitation to speak with you all today. Uh my name is Kevin Travis. I'm a senior science officer with California Ocean Science Trust. So, as Kelly mentioned, I'll be providing a state perspective, US state perspective on California MCDR policy and permitting, including some considerations for MCDR research. And so I'll touch on existing climate goals, laws, and programs as well as ocean laws and programs that are relevant for MCDR. But um my presentation will also provide a case study I would say on how our organization is uh building trust uh or excuse me building trusted science capacity uh between both science communities and policy communities on this emerging oceanbased climate solution. So very briefly um a little bit about Ocean Science Trust. OST is a nonpartisan organization that strengthens the bridge between scientific research and sound ocean management here in California. We were created by California statute uh 25 years ago to mobilize resources and capacity towards both policy relevant and solutionoriented science. So our team um you know brings this mission and mandate uh to life over the four core roles listed here on my slides where we really bring together scientific knowledge across different sectors build science capacity and then deliver science-based guidance to the the decisions b uh shaping the future of California's coast and ocean. So it's really through these roles, you know, as a trusted science adviser in the state that has informed and guided our work on marine carbon dioxide removal. And certainly in this rapidly evolving field, uh we we recognize the need to build this science capacity that's really informed by state decision-m uh needs. Uh and this is really to to responsibly consider and advance research around MCDR. So in general um OCC is our you know our role on on this topic through three main key initiatives as I've already discussed leveraging our role as a science adviser to policy makers and I should say this is both for the executive and legislative uh branches here in California and this is the has been the bulk of our work today and I'll speak more about um our learnings and and the landscape here in a moment. We also increased access to trusted science communication um through various webinar series and other forms of media. I would say this has continued to gain interest and and a need as MCDR becomes as we all know more familiar to the broader science community but also local communities um with on with increasing field trials. And then lastly looking forward um OST aims to strengthen research capacity and coordination along the Pacific coast of North America. So we are scoping the development of a science network or exchange along the US west coast, Alaska and British Columbia that will consist of a body of experts and um and dialogue to support uh future decisions and increase coordination and collaboration. So I want to just also mention the whole suite of partners that we all work closely with to advance this work and we really rely on um many of these West Coast entities as well to help uh accomplish and and and build collaboration. So I want to touch on a few um activities that we've been working across. So as I've mentioned our team has been working on marine carbon dioxide removal across this landscape for the past two to three years. uh really engaging scientific experts, academics, NOS's and policy makers. Um I want to mention a few of these activities and the outcomes from these engagements because I think they've really contributed to our efforts to steward this trusted productive dialogue between science and policy in California on this topic. So in 2023, we held a series of educational tours with the state legislature to visit California based projects. So there are a few field trials in California um at the time as and and as well as today that um allowed these policy makers to interact directly with experts and this was coming out of a need and really allowed us to increase both awareness, understanding and clarifying the purpose of MCDR with legislative offices, members and their staff. Um and this really emphasized the role of CDR as a complement and alongside rapid emissions reductions. In the summer of 2024, we held a state agency roundtable. Um and this was in close partnership with our state partners. Uh and this really kickstarted state level discussions on MCDR and supported early coordination among some of the agencies. Uh this was really you know despite some initial hesitancy uh due to just the nency of the field of the industry. Um, but to date, OST has interacted around with around six to seven different agencies both in our natural resources arm as well as the California EPA. Um, last uh next week kind of in fall of 2024, we held a a workshop with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. And I mentioned this because it really laid the groundwork for future assessments of MCDR activities in California coastal waters. We um focused this workshop on environmental effects. uh and this was really result because of being a top concern from many of our state decision makers uh in conversation with them about what questions they had or concerns they had around MCDR. So we began our you know cross dialogue convenings on environmental effects. Uh leading into this year we've held a series of engagements uh both with a state agencies and the legislature um to really understand and inform our science-based guidance on this topic. And that led to a forum actually just a couple or less than a couple weeks ago that brought together numerous state agencies with academics and MCDR experts um in Sacramento and California to explore the state of the science on emerging abiotic MCDR technologies. This also focused on um or this focused on the effectiveness of MCDR carbon removal through these different technologies. uh looking at the different monitor monitoring and modeling tools as well as co-identifying opportunities research opportunities in California and this focus of the workshop was directly informed by some of the state agencies we've been working with. All right. Um just moving into more of a broader understanding of California's ocean climate governance um and how its regulatory landscape might relate to MCDR. So I want to start by saying there's no single comprehensive legal framework specifically for MCDR at a state um or of course federal level. So for really therefore the question here in California is how existing policies and regulations that were not designed for MCDR could be explored or adapted for this emerging field. So uh a little bit about California's scientific uh landscape. Uh the California current system is a heavily studied marine system providing long-term oceanographic data sets um regional models intensive research into both the biology, climate, physical um systems of of our marine ecosystem. As I mentioned, there's been various startups that have branched out of California's academic and scientific instit institutions in recent years. Um and so due to this existing expertise and the resources, the state is really primed for research focused field trials. And then from a policy standpoint, there are a variety of both climate mitigation and ocean environmental protection goals and policies, most notably um a net carbon neutrality target by 2045. And then I'll touch on some of the accelerating leg state legislative interests on MCDR here in a moment. So just a snapshot of some of the executive branch, you know, relevant state agencies. Um multiple agencies would be involved in the overseeing and regulating of these activities. um just given the crossjurisdictional aspect of marine carbon dioxide removal. >> Most notably, this uh you know would really depend on the type of MCDR approach or project. Uh so to mention a few of these, the California Air Resources Board is our leading climate change uh mitigation agency regulating greenhouse gas emissions. uh they produce the scoping plan for achieving carbon neutrality which has carbon um which has uh sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions. Uh we also the California air resources board also manages our compliance markets which would be our tra uh cap and trade program. And then currently they're establishing a carbon capture removal utilization and storage program to evaluate demonstrate regulate CCUs and CDR projects and technology. This is also frequently referred to as SB905. Um so there are a suite of you know existing climate laws and programs that are uh being developed further in consideration of CDR. Um and uh in you know in recent years some additional interest on oceanbased CDR. Next we have ocean protection council. This is our primary ocean governance entity uh responsible for safeguarding ocean and coastal ecosystems. They set strategic priorities and fund research as well as coordinate with other agencies. Our state water resources control board would be our ent uh regulator that sets water water quality standards, policy and permits. Um and they also coordinate with and support the nine different regional water boards across California. Uh and then in a moment I'll touch on their ocean plan which sets the basis for quality water standards and permits and has some potential overlap with MCDR. Our California Coastal Commission is responsible for planning and regulating the development of our coastal land and uh coastal zone and they produce coastal development permits and would have some potential overlap. So just for time I'll briefly mention a few of these um and again and more getting into the spec specifics of how it overlaps with CDR. So um of course our net zero emissions by 2045 and the scoping plan identifies um CDR as necessary to achieve those goals including a specific target. Um as I mentioned the CCUs program is exploring ways to adopt uh regulations that will evaluate demonstrate and regulate CCUs and CDR. um our compliance uh markets or the cap and trade program uh they have definitions of how of of offsets to ensure that they are real, quantifiable, enforceable, uh permanent, additional, and verified. And so there's further conversations on how those may apply to CDR. And looking at our ocean policies and programs, uh, our strategic plan for California's ocean coast is a 5-year plan set by the Ocean Protection Council to guide and protect California's ocean and co coastal resources and it directs policy and investment priorities. Um, as I previously mentioned, the state water resources control board has an ocean plan and this really sets up water quality objectives and implements provisions to protect uh, beneficial use. And then I want to spend a little bit moment talking about exist uh the legislative branch as well. Um there has been increasing legislative action um on marine carbon dioxide removal in recent years. Um this has been uh demonstrated from a few different specific MCDR bills. So AB 1086, which was held in suspense earlier this year, would have established a marine carbon initiative requiring a California Air Resources Board to advance the scientific understanding of MCDR. And then most notably, SB 643 is a CDR purchase program that's currently been passed by the state legislature. Um, and it would establish a comprehensive GR grant program with 50 million in funding and and for uh competitive grants to CDR. I should also mention this bill explicitly calls out marine carbon dioxide removal of one of the four eligible categories. All right. And lastly, I would just want to leave um this this presentation with a few different California governance challenges and questions that have been um that have come up over in our work with different entities and and agencies both from policy and legal uncertainty. So, how do various MCDR approaches fit or not within existing agencies? Many of these have been um described by previous uh speakers. How are climate benefits considered or not within environmental regulations. Um and then on the scientific side um you know what pathways are most feasible or applicable to California's coastal waters. There's a need to evaluate uh you know the entire California coastline for understanding e uh efficiencies and local co- benefits within marine ecosystems. And then also what are the sight specific potential impacts um and what uh you know what how can California um leverage our existing resources and expertise to continue to explore uh responsible MCDR research within the state. So these are some just final questions that are come up through our work and um I'm happy to take any further questions on our efforts. Thank you. >> Thank you so much um Travis and to the whole panel. Um I know there's going to be a lot of questions. Um, I would like to kind of take the next 15 minutes um to to to allow you to to ask your questions. Um, we do try to prioritize um the committee questions, but anyone is allowed to ask a question as long as we have time. Um, I don't see any hands up um committee members. So, um, I'll go to uh Oh, okay. Romany, and then I'll go to Jamie's question. Romany, >> thank you. Kelly, um I had a couple of questions, but I'll start with just one. Um for Will, actually. Will, you talked about um a lot of sort of flaws in or um challenges associated with the applying the MPSA to MCDR activities and sort of reforms that may be needed to um address those challenges. you didn't talk at all about um sort of public engagement and public participation in decision-m under the MPRSA and I wonder if you could say a few words about um sort of how you see the adequacy of the existing frameworks in the legislation and whether that is another place where reform may be needed here. >> Yeah, thanks. It's a good question. Uh I I think some of the discussion that will ensue in the next panel on public engagement will probably be helpful in informing that. So I I don't want to step on it too much, but what I would say is that in my opinion, the public engagement process uh for these kind of projects for the most part is I think is really inadequate. It's it's often a it's often a traveling road show, right? We they they swoop in and and uh make a presentation for a couple of hours and uh and then ask the public what they think. Um and given how uh nent and complicated uh this uh these technologies are, we need more than that. We need we need realistic public deliberation. And there are ways to strugg uh structure deliberative forums that would allow at least a small cross-section of these communities to engage in a more protracted sort of discussion with with uh uh robust sort of presentations and the ability to to discuss uh some of the things I've talked about tradeoffs risks and things of that nature. And then uh hopefully that knowledge would be diffused uh into the broader community and would make uh the public's uh uh input into this process uh more informed and more more robust. But that's that requires some funding and and and some structuring of those kind of deliberative activities as opposed to uh the the the twohour what do you think um things that we often do now. Thank you. Well, um Helen, >> yeah, thank you. Sorry, this is a slight delay from pressing the button until the camera and microphone's actually on. Um a very interesting um discussion so far. So, thank you for your presentations. I was just curious about um regulatory sandbox as a tool. It seems useful for um when you're developing and trying to understand new technologies for instance like marine carbon dioxide removal. But what could be the risks or or drawbacks if you like for for enabling um such sandboxes? >> Sure. I'm happy to to speak to the Canadian perspective perhaps. Um so I think when we started having these conversations with a senator here in Canada, um his interests were really around marine carbon dioxide removal and his struggle was that there are so many departments that have a say in moving this kind of project forward. So what he was seeing is that it ended up being this red tape of regulations that then didn't move projects forward. Um the committee that he was chairing were highly sensitive to the environmental aspects of these kinds of projects. Um but he also understood that moving them forward is the is the research needed. So the regulatory sandbox in from what our conversations were is really um being able to go to one body and and getting through the process through one entity rather than going to multiple. That's what his perspective was in Canada. And um I think for MCDR projects that's the way I would view it as being really helpful to move some of these projects forward. I see that one of my other colleagues has their hand up. could I come in on this issue and also respond to Romany's question in the chat. So um we don't have regulatory sandboxes specifically for this purpose. Um but some of the conversation around sandboxes in other contexts I think may be pertinent and you know the some of the routine concerns that people have about regulatory capture often obtain in this context so that sandbox participants may gain you know an undue influence over regulators um to the disbenefit of non-participants um that there are those are you know basically uneven playing field concerns um that sandboxes rely on temporary waiverss and so on. So although you know for this you know we're we're advocating for regulatory sandboxing um I think it's um important to recognize that there's you know far from a panacea and need very careful structuring to ensure that they don't fall into some of those pitfalls that we see in particular in the uh financial services area where they've been most used. Um Remy asked a question about legislative reform. No, there is um this is I'm not not even sure it's a micro issue for the legislature. It's really a nano issue for the regulator if it's even on operating at that level. Moreover, I would say I'm not even sure that there is a need for legislative change here. I mean, this is very much an issue which permitting public enga public participation and so on. These are issues which are very very well regulated in the sense of quantitative regulation. I think what's required really is engagement by the regulators to adapt existing rules to what is a novel nent um technological landscape. So I I don't think legislative action is what's needed for our purposes here. >> Thank you. Uh Libby. Yeah, I just have a um follow-up question about the regulatory sandbox. I'm um intrigued. I don't know exactly how that works, but my question for you, Jessica, is it sounds like you're thinking it's a good idea, but it doesn't actually exist yet in Canada. And if it were to exist in Canada, who would be which would be the lead agency? Like, have you thought through the logistics there yet? It's unclear as to who the lead agency would be at this point and and um so my understanding is the Canadian government is looking at regulatory sandboxes to be able to accelerate these big national projects and the big national projects are uh have are are are much larger in scope than a MCDR um research um initiative. So when we were talking with the government of Canada regarding the regulatory sandbox currently um it falls under environment, climate change Canada, um Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Natural Resources Canada. And there's probably others, but those are the three um departments that sort of each have a piece to play in the ocean space. And so being able to fully educate and understand and and explain a a whole um project and an experiment would require going to these individual departments. And so what they were saying is that to be able to move something like this forward would allow us to just go to one regulatory body and then they would be able to have all of the pieces of information to check off the boxes or not. So, it's unclear at this point who would hold that. >> Thank you, Jessica. Uh, Terry, >> thanks very much. And great talks, everyone. Um, really clear, really useful. Uh, I was just going to, you know, as my head is listening to this, if I'm a hammer and my nail is public perception, I'm thinking with every one of these questions that it's a perception problem, not a regulatory problem. in that the conflict between MPA legislation, waste in oceans legislation and so on is itself going to be highly linked to those perceptions and our farthest ahead technology has the lowest p the highest perceived risk which is ocean alkalinity enhancement of its kind. So I'm wondering if the people working in the regulatory space have direction or have previous case studies where there was a big asymmetry between what was regulatable, doable, provable as effective versus an absence of public support that was significant. And if you could speak to that juncture, maybe I'll put that out to Will first. Uh and if others want to answer chime in that's great. >> Yeah. I mean I think we've had instances of that kind of uh asymmetry. We haven't necessarily handled them very well in that context. I I think probably one example would be in terms of uh nuclear waste disposal. uh and that was a process that ultimately did not have a lot of meaningful sort of public engagement and and really a discussion about some of the issues that we were talking about like risk risk uh tradeoffs. That's just what I think of offhand. >> So yeah, I would just kind of if other people want to answer, great. that I think may be on our list of mandates is to really think about what the best way to move forward under those circumstances or not move forward. >> I would the only thing I would say to that is that um comp comparable cases tend to be significantly larger. Nuclear is a great example. This isn't a niche issue. Nuclear is you know obviously operates at a different scale. So does um genetically modified foods which is the other big one in the European context. These tend to be large industries or potential industries which are very well backed have high public salience, high policy salience. MCDR isn't operating at that level. And so what we're finding is that regulators don't have the direction, as you were indicating, don't have the direction to devote scarce resources to this particular problem. I think I would just agree with with that comment and um what we found as productive dialogue between regulators um institutions that are helping with public perceptions and engagement is focusing I think at where the majority of the field is at which is research uh you know scaled field trials and um and under you know an effort to improve our understanding um and engaging communities through that and there's a lot local institutions, science institutions that are um built to do this kind of local engagement through their research activities. Um here in California, the port of the Altacy Port of Los Angeles has been um instrumental, I think, in um stewarding and helping these MCDR startups advance their research projects in the local LA, you know, area and engaging communities on on the science, but also just general education and perception. All right. Many thanks. Um, sorry Kristen, you have the final question here before we segue into the next session, which we're already getting a bit of a sneak peek on. >> Okay, I'll make it quick. And I think partially some of this was addressed, but just a question. You know, I I come from the science side. So my take for what I understand is that there's multiple permitting frameworks across different jurisdictions that you know could be used to apply to different methods and I think that contributes to uncertainty. Um and so I was just wondering you know the recommendation from this group um you know in these uh presentations that were really helpful is the is the recommendation of this group that the frameworks that we have now um like I wouldn't think so that they're adequate or do we need something more fit for purpose and I think all of you touched on this in different ways um in different places where you're working but yeah you could speak to that I guess anybody who wants Yeah, I just very quickly reiterate. I I think once we get beyond the realm of research, the MPSA is kind of a good example of of a of a regime that really was created to minimize pollution in in the oceans and the perception that if you're putting anything in the ocean, it's it it's an intrinsic risk and we should try to to absolutely minimize what what we what we put in, right? and all the language revolves around that, right? But we now have approaches that potentially are beneficial in putting things in the ocean, right? And and that language just doesn't track and it doesn't allow for the kind of ri comparative risk assessment that I think is necessary in the in the 21st century. So yeah, I I think we need we need either standalone regimes or subsections within the MPSA that would specifically regulate um these kind of approaches. I guess I would just also, you know, plus one Jamie Palter's question in the chat too. Um, which is something that I I think is really important like thinking about then um what we would need to do to you know right set the language that's in these um like NPR say for dumping that is you know quote beneficial and to understand the risk risk there. Um what kind of can of worms does that open up? And I know Kelly, I'm probably in trouble because I I shouldn't ask another question. >> No, you're okay. >> Yeah, I think that's an important question there. >> Uh, one thing I'd quickly say there is I think the London Convention provides us some guidance in that context that could help with the MPR say, right? When it when it talks about the dumping exception, it says, "Yeah, we won't classify this as dumping uh as long as it comports with all the other provisions of the treaty, right?" which means protecting the ocean environment. And what that would do in this case is still, I think, ensure protection of of of the ocean environment, but just uh acknowledge that we shouldn't be looking at this through the lens of waste disposal because it's a very different sort of approach and and and it requires a different sort of uh regulatory orientation in my opinion. But we absolutely have to be careful about that and the fact that that companies with financial motives, right, um may may try to bend this in every way they can. Maybe I'll just quickly add to that that um at Ocean Out Networks Canada we always the monitoring is a key aspect of what we do and so I would say any regulations would have to also include rigorous monitoring of before during and after and then being transparent um with that information. So what are what is it that you're looking at? What what is the results um and having it openly accessible? That's what we're sort of pushing for. >> Yeah. I think I would just add to this too is you know the question between existing regulatory regimes or a bespoke one for MCDR also is taking into consideration timeline and and the timeline of of activities that would fit under these different regimes. Um and that timeline could look different for whatever activity whether it be you know industryleled research or an academic project. um and what the field at large would like to accomplish in five years versus what it looks like in 15 years. So um um I think it's just an interesting question and consideration when thinking about um you know what existing regime should be equipped to now versus thinking about uh you know a more fitfor-purpose one like you mentioned Kristen. >> Okay. Um thank you all. Um we if if our panelists can stay on if there's extra time at the end um you could uh finish up some questions here. Um otherwise we can you know communicate via email. Um we just we really appreciate you being here with us um Will and Jessica and Navaj and Kevin. Um this was a great discussion and again you're welcome to stay and if we have time at the end we could finish up some of those questions. Um and also feel free to to answer in the chat if that u makes sense for you. Okay, so moving on. Um, thank you Christine and Sarah for your patience. Um, we are we're getting to the to the next discussion now. Um, Sarah Noaz and Christine Murk are joining us for a discussion on where things stand with public perceptions of MCDR. So, what are some lessons learned over the past few years and what are the most urgent research needs um over the next few years as field trials and research um continue to move forward? So Christine um with the Keel Institute for the World Economy will start us off. Thank you Christine. >> Um sharing my slides. Hello. Um thank you for the opportunity um to speak today. I assume you can see my slides. And um I'm Christine Mack. I work on different EU projects on ocean nets for example or on CO2 CDR on public perceptions of marine CDR specifically and um I coord coordinated a bit with Sarah so we split it up a bit into um I do cover a bit more of the basics so I hope uh we won't bore anyone who's totally deep into the field but we wanted to take everyone along um and I start just by reminding what probably many in the call know that um the reason why we are talking about public perceptions of marine CDR. One of the reasons is that there's been quite some controversy in the past starting off even as early as 2002 but also going down with the trials of planetary in Cornwall or you could also talk about um running tight in Iceland where um publics and and local people but also NOS's and other actors have protested against trials might that be scientific trials but also projects um and prototypes and so One of the reasons to think about public perceptions is to avoid um protests, but it might also be the reason to because it's a good thing to do to talk to people who might be affected and to broadly talk to people, but also another reason of maybe talking to people will help making a project better and uh respect the context of the project. So for the bigger context, this is here. And then when we think about public perceptions, um it's not just one monolithic um public that thinks one thing. It's obviously a lot of different actors and they had different roles um in society. So we're all voters, we are customers, we are a local community that lives somewhere. So when we think about the public acceptability of, for example, infrastructure developments and renewable energies, but also for marine CDR, um we normally think about a sociopolitical dimension where it's about what politicians take up from a public. What's the relationship between public and other key stakeholders and how's the overall societal debate discussed about or or discourse or discourses happen about different technologies like MCDR then there's a market and with CDR there's always a question is there a market is there a voluntary market is compulsory market um how is that regulated is it regulated what's an MRV and there you can also see the linkage between the social political system and then we also um at least on the voluntary market. Regular people are also consumers and buyers. And then there's a local perspective of those people who are affected by projects that are implemented. And this is not just the people at the shore, but that might also be the person living at the road with a big truck going by or um someone living next to the new mine that um is actually opened up to produce alkaline materials. And they're often aspects of procedural justice. So how are things done? And it was just mentioned in the session before. So public engagement and information did people have a say and also questions of distributional justice are just outsiders coming into community and earning money and they just bearing the burden or are benefits distributed are their compensations and this is also important to say these MCDR projects are not um happening or would not happen in a vacuum where nothing has happened before. communities have a history of other processes happening of trust or mistrust things going wrong and is this all happening in a broader context of climate policy infrastructure policy and local local community policies so this just as a broad overview and what's the state of marine CDR public perceptions research on the right hand side you see um an extract of the state of CDR our report from 2024 it's the num or it's the share of publications on public perceptions on the different marine uh CDR options and only the small box on there with the light blue and the dark blue are actually on ocean oceanbased methods. Um but this is misrepresenting because only just in the last two years a lot has happened especially on OA perceptions and a lot of this has been done by Sarah some of it also by me and my colleagues but also other colleagues in the UK that looked at public perceptions of OA but overall in the entire literature it's more a dominance of terrestrial CDR and also especially with studies looking at um more psychological factors and more social political acceptance um it's mostly a focus in global north studies the exception the note worthy exceptions is blue carbon ecosystem. So, so there there found about 45 studies that started cropping up together or in the wake of the term coining the term blue carbon around 2017. And these studies are also often coll-located with actual projects in global south countries that were about the restoration or conservation of marine e carbon ecosystems such as mangro forest. And there is a lot about distribution of benefits, how local communities perceive it and what is important to them. So um going over to the findings, this is mostly findings from our own studies on ocean nets where we did a broad array of both qualitative and also quantitative studies that looked at publics in Norway, in Germany, in Canada, and France, but also in Taiwan, uh Taiwan and China. And an overall broad finding that we have is people don't jump to the conclusion that marine CDR is a great option that we follow and we should forget about cutting emissions. It's still that they think we should cut emissions and it's more important and we should focus more on um reducing emissions instead of removing them. But still they want to keep that door open but mostly we find that they prefer land-based methods. Um so when we compare for example enhanced weathering on land compared to ocean alkalinity enhancement which in theory use similar um pro chemical processes in the same reservoir. It's still that people um prefer enhanced weathering on land over ocean alkaline enhancement. And this is to do um with um the perception that options within the ocean are mostly perceived as not controllable and also their concerns about the feasibility of scale of these options and it's also concerned about environmental side effects. Um what has to be said most of these approaches are not known to the people. So we have around up to 80% who've never heard about alkalin enhancement. That means that people will recur to experiences they had in the past with other technologies with other issues like marine pollution or aquaculture when thinking out about different methods. And what we find is that just like on land, it's the macrofa that is perceived as as most favorable. So blue carbon management is what people really like and what they think is a good idea because it can redo past harm. It's a bit similar to aforestation on land. Even though compared to aphforestation for example, seaggrass restoration is still um not well known and they would still prefer aphforestation on land compared to seaggrass restoration. And then all the other methods feel to people often a lot more dangerous and uncontrollable like alkaline enhancement but also dumping of macrology. And we also did a bit of experimentation on deliberation on a broader level. So not on a local level. And there we find in a deliberation where people could discuss among each other for four hours and ask experts um questions about both climate policy but also of the role of carbon dioxide removal within climate policy. Um and we ask them before and after how they perceive different methods. And what we find is that the before and after is in content not different but so they don't perceive a technology or a method more positive or less positive after deliberation and after knowing more about it and the context but what changes is their level of uncertainty. So they feel more comfortable with stating an opinion in saying what they think about different um different options. And this is playing to the general finding that just telling people more doesn't necessarily convince them to to accept something. And it's alo something we have to accept. It's not shaking people as long as we can to just believe and do what we think is good or someone thinks it's good. And also another finding in discussions is that often people feel a bit unable in to have a say in these topics. So they feel for example with secretress restoration that it's very complicated. they want don't want to make mistakes and they rather have experts make decisions um than themselves participate in engagement or have politicians make um the decisions because they think it's a complicated issue and other people should do it. Um so summarizing from my perspective which is mainly one of social political perceptions and psychological research on public perceptions is that we should in this realm move to more realistic deployment scenarios. So moving away from we'll add something to the ocean to how would it be added? What would be the context? Is that coastal? Is that um open ocean just probably wouldn't be but like examples like sinking sargasm or wastewater treatment in combination with OA. So being more realistic there. Then the other thing is we should shift more towards local acceptability. This is something we're already seeing in the literature to begin. But that should not only be projects that have um economic interest but also social science-based uh research on what openended engagement might look like. So going into different communities and not saying we want to convince that one community but going to different communities and gauge a bit what would work, what wouldn't work and how they feel about it and also integrate that more strongly in the broader picture of for example climate change mitigation. And the other thing is that we should integrate this very often survey based or focus group based work of social um perceptions into a broader story of political feasibility. What are the interactions with other actors and society overall and and stakeholders and the and the public and their perceptions. So this is what I think would be future research needs in this realm. And I just want to briefly acknowledge the projects um that have funded part of this work um ocean nets and CO2 CDR. And just um we had a new um synthesis report came out from Oceanet that also summaries the public perceptions work but also other work. Thank you. >> Thank you so much Christine. Um and following or building on what Christine just said um Sarah um Sarah Nawas is next. She's with American University and University of British Columbia. Um Sarah, the floor is yours. >> Excellent. Thanks so much. I'm just going to share my slides. All good. >> Perfect. >> Great. Yeah. Thanks, Kelly. And thanks to themies and the committee um for the invitation to speak today and also to Christine for laying such a great foundation. and I'll try to try to build on it a bit. Um yeah, so I'm the director of research at the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal at American University, also associated with the University of British Columbia. Um I'm going to try to speak about a few different things. So first is a sort of recap I hope of some of the what I think are highlevel things we've learned in the past few years about what publiclix and coastal communities think about MCDR. um also about what we've learned about how to talk to people about these topics, where I think social science on this subject should go from here, and also some kind of key findings or perhaps um proposals for what I think this all indicates for building out a robust and responsible MCDR sector. So, the first point is really just an underscoring of what Christine has already mentioned. I think it's worth emphasizing this kind of uncontrollability piece is really key to people's uh mild to moderate discomfort with some of these technologies. So on the spectrum of things like ocean alkalinity enhancement and ocean uh ocean fertilization. Um we also have long known in in the kind of world of folks who study governance of novel technologies um that governance matters to people's perceptions. But we've also seen some really interesting research by Emily Cox and colleagues um and others that governance may particularly matter for some of these uh approaches that are kind of I would argue less controllable and um so a comparison being people really caring a lot more about ownership structures for something like ocean alkalinity enhancement as opposed to direct air capture. We've also seen I would say a surprising preference for uh repurposing of infrastructure and materials. So people actually preferring in some instances uh the use of min materials or minerals um for ocean alkalinity enhancement as opposed to new materials or sort of uh approaches that would involve new mining activities. And I say this is surprising because it runs actually quite counter to what we know about uh scholarship has shown on concern about toxicity and contamination in the past. We've also seen evidence that onshore impacts, so it's not just marine or coastal impacts, but also sort of onshore terrestrial impacts associated for example with mining and other activities um shipping and transport also being those really matter to people and matter for their perceptions. The kind of broader life cycle of impacts uh is something we've seen uh informs overall perception. We've also seen evidence of concern about fossil industry involvement. So that from an ownership perspective um and also from a sort of broader mitigation deterrence moral hazard concern and a last point I'll say is also came up in Christine's remarks but the the scholarship on global south public views and public perceptions has is is very small um but has indicated that there may be more receptivity to benefits but also potentially some additional concern level of concern around mitigation deterrence. And I've got a couple uh photos from work that I've been involved in on engagement. But I will say really that this is a tricky thing to talk to people about. Uh it's tricky to talk to people about some of these technologies. Um particularly the more sort of open system ones and a few learnings. Um, one is that discussing the social arrangements of these, so not just the kind of technical details is really mandatory here to fully capture people's views. Um, it's also really helpful and important uh to talk about the full set or at least a somewhat of a full set of kind of different social and policy scenarios. And we've found in some some work that uh Terry Sadderfield and and colleagues and I have in in the works that that can really open up quite new perspectives and and new perceptions. So if you don't kind of talk to people about the different ways that things could go that can um skew your view or your understanding of of their thinking. And also that thinking at scale really getting folks or sort of offering people the opportunity to think about these technologies at larger scale. So not just field trial scale but perhaps megat ton scale or beyond uh generate some shifts in views that might not otherwise have been anticipated. Ocean carbon cycles and storage are not particularly intuitive to people. um sort of in the process of trying to put together ways of talking to people about this. Colleagues and I, natural science colleagues and I have really struggled to find visualizations, graphics, um ways of using words to explain these things uh in ways that that easily translate for folks. So that uh that could use some support and definitely bears further consideration. Um we have known for a long time that people prefer what is natural. This extends far beyond the field of CDR or even environmental social science. Um, but what we've observed as well recently is that there may be something of a what I might call a betrayal effect. So the idea that if you talk to people and present it something as natural, but then if you keep talking to them about it and they start to understand the full really truly what is involved, they might feel a sort of opposition that is larger than what they might have felt if you had sort of not used that terminology to begin with or if you had not perhaps given them an impression of something being more natural to begin with. All to say that talking about something as natural can be can be tricky. So a few thoughts on where social science research I think could go and should go from here. one is perceptions research is great and very important but I think we need to be shifting um towards not just deliberating with people and kind of getting more in depth and sort of more full discussions of these technologies and what they could look like but really trying to shift towards a kind of co-design where different groups and communities and publics are in conversation with policy makers in conversation with developers to really structure this sector that all Being said, I also really want to acknowledge that a key challenge here is that minimum that engagement is burdensome for groups who are involved in it. And we need to find ways to kind of structure engagement systematically and at a sector level that also can kind of minimize the fatigue and the burden on particularly um underresourced groups. we need to be doing approaches to engagement that really explore folks views on deployment at scale. So as I mentioned earlier beyond sort of just the field trial scale. Um and I think we need to be exploring some of these kind of as I mentioned as well diverse ways that this kind of a sector could be structured different ways that it could look and and think very creatively um and in sort of forward uh forward yeah forward creative ways. Um, I would say that this piece on extractive legacies is perhaps feels intuitively or at first glance less relevant to folks in the MCDR space than to perhaps a kind of if this were a call about direct air capture technologies, but I think that it's still very relevant for a few different reasons. um which perhaps we can get into in the in the discussion, but one of which is around mining impacts for some of the OA approaches we are talking about and another is sort of the opening up of ocean spaces to potentially deep sea mining activities. I think we also really need a lot more research on global south perspectives, but I would say crucially with global south colleagues and decision makers. Um, and the last point is one that I'm particularly interested in, which is really we talk to people a lot about what they think about specific approaches, but I to MCDR or CDR. And I think we also really need to be uh discussing what we're doing CDR for with people. What kind of emissions are we attempting to offset? Um, and what kind of sectors are people wanting to see CDR really done to deal with? A couple last points on where I think we should go from here. Uh the first is we need to be creating institutions and systems for people to actually shape and inform design and decision-m of this sector. I think we need to be exploring policy options that manage some of these extractive sector dependencies, moral hazard or mitigation deterrence risks and also exploring policy approaches for incentivizing removals that um in ways that aren't market based or not nec uh not necessarily sort of market uh market oriented and I think we also need to be prioritizing policy approaches that can incentivize um not just technically defined residual emissions but also kind of socially publicly defined residuals and probably a lot more we could talk about on that point, but I'll I'll stop for there. Thanks so much. >> All right. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Christine. Um, and thank you both for staying on time. Um, we have uh 30 minutes um for Q&A, which is fantastic. Um, let's see. Let me pull up my um David, do you have a question? David Snyder >> had to get off mute there. Uh, yes, please. Uh, you know, I'm an environmental engineer, background in engineering and public policy, and it occurs to me that, you know, we were all trained in in doing social science research with uh interviews and polls and and so forth. But uh the world has changed on us and and we're now immersed in a world of social media, podcasts, national media that often uh skews uh biased one way or another. And I'm wondering uh if the social scientists on the call have some thought about how to look at how marine carbon dioxide removal may be getting mentioned or even if it's mentioned at all in social media and podcasts and what uh impact that may have or what opportunities there may be there to help both uh offset uh misperceptions and uh advance understanding. Does anyone want to take that? >> Well, I can begin by saying I think this is a this is a really great point and I am not sure I can link the citations right now, but I could follow up. There's been some interesting computational studies of sort of all of this kind of different data that exists via Twitter, via social media. Um, as you mentioned, I believe it's focused mostly on CDR generally. I think this could be a useful direction for kind of gauging interest um or sentiment I should say. >> So I this is definitely not my area of expertise so I can't say much more than that. >> It's mine neither. And I think it's an um a question that's more important well extending to all kinds of fields. It's all climate science. It's it's health information. So it's not just MCDR specific. I think there there are other experts out there who do a lot more on this. Um I can speak a bit to the Twitter study and I will warn against to taking that um so this has been done uh pre uh it being X and um I warn about that taking as being a public sentiment because I felt that was mostly um experts who tweeted about marine CDR and then it's a question what's the sentiment there if someone's happy now new public publication or some project is tweeting because they have to outreach via social media. So um on the one hand it's important to see what actors are we actually observing there. If for example we go on LinkedIn or in Twitter and then I'm not sure I did a study on Facebook which is really a long time ago on SRM and CDR and we had a really hard time on getting any engagement at all. So, um I fear it's even harder uh getting engagement just via social media to um to set things right. But there it needs communicators who do good science communication and that's just true for all fields I would say. But I'm also not the massive expert in this. >> Thank you both. Um Libby, >> uh yeah, thank you. Thank you too so much for those talks. Um either of you could take this. I'm sort of thinking Sarah might be the one. You had recommended um in terms of research gaps somehow um figuring out how to minimize engagement fatigue. And as someone who's um thought a lot about working with the fisheries communities um and kind of local commu coastal communities, I'm just wondering if you have any I may have asked you this question before on a different webinar, but maybe you've had some new ideas on um what are good approaches for doing that and are there examples that you might be able to yeah maybe even from other topics. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, minimizing engagement fatigue, I think. Well, a couple of things. I mean, one is I've written about this sort of what's problematic about the kind of way that a lot of a lot of engagement tends to happen, not not an attack on MCDR as a sector or the way it's happening here, but more just broadly in environmental management is this kind of project by project approach. So sort of you know a developer wants to do something and they go and talk to the the folks in the place where they want to do the thing and I think that that is is not going to be the the best path forward for for kind of engagement fatigue reasons and a host of other reasons as well. Um I mean I think Jess Jessica Cross has made a comment or a question about this earlier on the call, but this idea of of test bed sites and sort of um hub engagement models perhaps being associated with them. So you're saying let's really, you know, in the Pacific Northwest or British Columbia and Washington State, we want to think about what MCDR could look like across all the different kind of components that need to be in place from regula regulatory perspective to the MRV and beyond. um could we think about doing engagement at that kind of a a regional level and and also could we talk about it in conjunction with the other technologies and sectors that really need to be considered. So whether that's marine renewable energy um other types of renewable energy uh sort of could be talking about um you know just fisheries management we could be talking about uh shipping and and so forth. So, I think I think that those maybe partially answer the question, but I don't I don't think that there's an easy answer. I don't think that solves the problem either. So, I just want to acknowledge that. >> Thanks, Sarah. Um, Adam, >> thanks. Hold on, let me just close my door here. Um yeah, thanks both for for great talks. I'm um I'm also wondering Sarah, you you you talked a little bit about um how this is a difficult sort of concept and and set of you know processes to to even start explaining to people to then get to the heart of the matter right about what what these technologies are and and what people are proposing to do. So I'm just wondering if you could speak a little bit about in terms of public perception like the role of sort of broader education and whether you know whose responsibility that should be. I mean obviously there are some federal projects that are getting going like do you see agencies playing a role in providing information um at the national level right about um what these approaches are and the sort of basic science and oceanography um and you know societal implications behind them. Um, I'm wondering if you could speak like at the higher level about um just the education piece and how that might fit into some of these public perception um conversations. >> Yeah, thanks Adam. And >> maybe maybe Christine will have some thoughts on this as well. Um I I think that you know we could probably think about education age educational gaps here across the spectrum from a very early age. I mean I certainly this was all new to me like I don't have a I don't have a background in in marine I didn't have a background in marine carbon cycles and learned through webinars and trying to make sense of papers that I would find. So I think there's probably a broad um need for education of high schoolers of undergraduates uh that could that could be important. I don't think that solves the problem either. And I really like your kind of suggestion in your question around perhaps government or philanthropy potentially or other kind of uh sector building entities really coming in to support the development of materials to contribute to this kind of education that you know other folks can come in and other researchers and engagement practitioners can come in and and make use of. Um I think that that that kind of educational work at bear saying that it's going to take time and resources and so making sure that that is well funded I think will support the sector and support all the folks that then want to to use those and and build upon the knowledge that people already have. Um I also think it's worth saying that education really only gets us so far. like I don't think that that it's it's it's critical communication engagement involves education and yet also I think Christine sort of brought this up on in her remarks that it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of you know it's I think that it's tempting to think we just tell people how it works and they'll get it and then and then it'll all be okay. Um I don't think that that happens in practice unfortunately although it is still a critical thing that has to happen. I would also say um it's interesting for public um agencies to do that. Um I've got know one example that does a very good job of communicating MCVR and this is a research cluster in Germany um which is called CD Mara. they do different levels of complexity of explaining both to stakeholders but also to the public what marine CDR is and engaging in what the research is doing is on the one hand and on the other hand um I fear I'm a bit pessimistic so if you go into engagement there's so many things people want to know about or are not informed about so there's many a lot of misinformation about climate change about what to do against climate change and there's if we're still looking at the veggies we have to fulfill there's so much to do and cutting emissions. It's always a bit the question of what where where do we want to put our efforts into and I know CDR is important and it's important to provide information on marine CDR and other CDR approaches and we have to be transparent but at the same time it's still lacking a lot of effort in the realm of the transition away from fossil fuels. So, it's always a bit seeing this this major massive task and then there's MCDR just to put that a bit into perspective. It's also some something that comes out of engagement and talking to people. >> Thank you. Um Terry, >> thank thanks again two terrific sessions. Really appreciate it. Um on education I would say one thing is that when things become controversial education is almost counterproductive when the space is open in a learning and more malleable sense it can be more effective. So it depends on context really too. Um I wondered if either of you could speak to any observations about um what you could call benefit tenacity. I mean we are very focused on risk and perceived risk in a lot of ways but there's some evidence of also people who are almost stubborn about their their perceived benefits and don't change much with regard to you know prompts or other questions in small groups or in survey research. So any any reflections on that and what that means for the field because I haven't seen that with other technologies. >> Should I point to somebody who who wants to take that up? >> I admit I've been Can you briefly rephrase the question? I I was just wondering about any observations in small group or surveyed work about what you could call benefit tenacity in that we're mostly focused on perceived risk. There is also a group that that sees um quite stubbornly even the the benefits of these technologies which is sort of new in the technology studies field or it is new to me. Um so any any observations on that? So that someone stubbornly says that it's only benefit. I haven't observed that. But we saw narratives counter or opposite narratives of one group or one line of arguments being uh the n nature is fragile and we should care for it and the oceans are fragile as such. And then another one which is specifically a result from Norway is more about this is an innovation. We could help the world um solve climate change if we develop the or solve part of climate change if we develop this technologies. we as Norway we have the capacities to do that and that's a narrative that comes from CCS and other technologies and is extended to marine CDR especially if it's coupled with any offshore uh engagements. So but I hardly find anyone who says that's super and let's just do it and we don't I only focus on the benefits. So, and that's also a bit of a finding uh I think you had together with Sara that adding to already existing processes. So, repurposing infrastructure makes it more more easy to digest for people and it seems like it's it's easier. It's not an additional intervention. It doesn't seem like we're doing additional harm to your environment then. So, that's stuff that >> makes it easier for people. But we're on Well, yeah, I think that's good point. Thank you. Um Mhammmed. >> Yeah. Hi. Uh thank you. That was very excellent and stimulating uh presentations. Uh so I have uh I'm going to uh I have two part question. So first part I'm going to say three observation from all that we've been hearing for the last two days whether you know your reaction to that and the second is some idea you know about possibly addressing that. So first of all you know what we're saying between 22 and 25 right now there's been tremendous amount of fielded trials and experiments our knowledge on the technology side has grown up quite substantially from where we were in 22 you know a lot of theoretical stuff now we actually have data to uh answer that but on the social science side I think there's a serious imbalance if you look at the volume of work that has been done do you agree that it's u it's not enough or not adequate or not keeping up with the pace of knowledge that is being generated which brings me to my to my second point which you both have talked about co-production or co-design. Now there's you what you do is you run into a scale problem because when you're actually working with a project let's uh at a let's say a field trial or demonstration stage you are limited about of degrees of freedom you can actually have the societal element design process. So you're talking about a scale that has to preede the project level. Right? So and the third proh issue that you know is that the the challenge of anticipation because we're doing this but we are at a very early stage of where we ultimately want to go and anticipating the impact the scale impact the societal impact is actually important to do beforehand and not after the fact. So I really like Jessica's idea of a regulatory sandbox. So what do you all think if you first of all what do you feel about those three observations whether they're correct or not and we actually need more like a public engagement or social science sandbox where we can actually you know try out all of these things at a different scale and not really be married to just co-designing when a project is happening. Thank you. As a researcher, I really would like that sandbox because every of my studies have the has the caveat of saying this is a control study in a very short setting. It's like been only a focus group. It's been only a survey or it's been only one deliberation. And we've no idea how that develops if other actors in the society takes it up like what happens if um Bill Gate t Bill Gates takes it up or funds it or or has or Donald Trump talks about it. or whoever you want to say and this so much depends on who propagates it who takes it up or who doesn't take it up. So if there's no actor coalition to do it, we don't know how it will develop in society. And I can run a thousand surveys and I won't know that if until it happens. So that's also a bit the limitation of of the work that we do. And it might work differently for local studies where we have an actual implementation. But then we still as you mentioned have the scale issue. We will not know what happens if we do it at a lot larger scale. and and want to at least take up the first question again whether it's not enough social science work coming after and I think but that's something we always saw that there's some technology and some research on it it's a bit also the funding structure for example in the EU you have these natural science projects that led and that also a social science part so the technology research leads a bit and then we follow because we don't do it before them because we don't know about the technologies I don't know about the carbon cycle either prior to that. Um, so I'm not sure we need more research because if you ask a researcher, it will always answer we need more research. But the question is how much and how much is useful at one set at a time. So maybe there now will be an uptake more people doing OA research then there's bit of loss of interest again and then it comes up again after some time where different developments or different discourses or we're doing more local studies or different kinds of studies. So I wouldn't say we need an exponential growth in social science research on it but a steady flow of stuff and then it's also it's a question how much new qu how many new questions can we ask in this setting versus three years down the road. So I'm not entirely sure I'm fully answering your question but that these were my thoughts on it and about the scale it's um nobody can I can't imagine the scale of future deployment. How can I expect participants to do that? And then it's it's about visualizing and building scenarios of the future and scenario exercises. So Miranda is also on your committee. She is a lot better person to talk about this. And this is then a very different realm we're looking at in different kinds of studies. Yeah, I think I think Christine said a lot there. Um I a couple things I can try to add. Uh, one is that Holly Buck and I uh, wrote a piece that came out this summer about a sort of a proposal for embedding basically structuring social impact assessment in a very different way than it currently is structured where you're trying to kind of put put engagement in conversation with quantitative assessment of impacts and sort of different policy scenarios and all of the kind of technical natural science modeling and other work that's happening and so there's sort of a sort of iterative flow there where you're not just doing them in the wrong order as we perhaps currently do. Um, another thing is around cumulative impacts. I'm not sure if this has come up on other days of or yesterday I wasn't able to join but cumul the cumulative impact piece strikes me as a sort of question that seems important to think through not just on the social side because of course people will have perhaps a different view about one OE trial versus a very very large OA project versus multiple OA projects in a given area and so of course it's relevant socially but I would say also not just socially um so curious I guess a question to everyone if that's come up or if folks are thinking about that. But yeah, also Mahmud, maybe we can chat offline about this social science sandbox idea. I'd love to hear your your thoughts on it. >> Thank you. Um Kina, >> yeah, thank you. Um yeah, I was just wondering um if you could speculate a bit about at what point or under what conditions, if any, that social perception could be a showstopper for marine CDR. Uh whether it's for projects, specific projects or a specific method within a country or region or what have you. uh or or you know what will be then the main aspects of the marine CDR that would become the main showstopper whether it would be the scale of the project or the type of the marine CDR used or perhaps a perceived lack of transparency. Um so yeah and if like this kind of social permit would be um perhaps a tricky part of of uh marine. Yeah. I I mean I would say absolutely. I think this is where I think some of us social scientists on in in this area kind of get pushed back sometimes that we're talking about this and it's a bit of a distraction or you know we it's it's kind of we just need to we just need to proceed. We need to not worry what people think because this just needs to happen. And I think the risk there is that um the risk there is really that it this is is a showstopper in in my view. And I think what also concerns me is that problematic cases in certain subsectors can influence the the sector as a whole. And so everything is kind of tied together. Um, and that is that's unfortunate and I think that's why it's good to have uh sort of a sectoral approach of kind of best practice and moving this forward collectively because the it's sort of like a situation where the weakest link or a rogue project can kind of bring things down for unfortunately potentially everyone. >> Yeah, thank you Sarah. Um, Kina and then Jessica. >> Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Um, I really appreciate all of your wonderful work. Uh, I'm really curious Sarah, you mentioned briefly in your presentation about the conversation of the term like nature-based solutions. And I know this has come up quite a bit at least in circles that I have been in. And I am curious how to approach this dichotomy because it does seem like communities and um you know the broader public have really latched on to this terminology. And um I appreciate you talking about the idea of like betrayal if you kind of like start with that. And so I'm curious like how you think the MCR sector should approach this and if there's like a need for wider communication with other sectors as well. Um and and kind of I guess how to approach this with communities. >> Yeah, thanks Kina. I'm not sure about the wider wide other sectors but perhaps I would say one thing is I'm pretty you know pretty wary of using the term basically talking to people say you're going and engaging with a set of public participants sort of saying this is a this is a sort of a natural thing that we're doing here. So in in materials that I put together with colleagues we generally try to avoid saying things like that. Um, that doesn't mean you can't sort of say there's an analogy with this other thing that already currently happens. Um, but we're talking about doing this at a much larger scale than that or something to that effect. Uh, so I think that's one thing, but I don't know, Christine, if you have other or other other all the other social scientists on the call, Terry and Miranda and others have thoughts on this as well. >> I'm I try never to use naturebased. they will perceive things if you say we're replanting or seaggrass meadows they will perceive that as as natural but um I would still shy away from using the term nature-based and it's it's used in so many context um agriculture whatever and it's it's just a distraction and they will have these associations but we shouldn't fuel them further and make clear um that this is something different and this is biological but not necessarily benign and good and healthy and and wholesome. >> I don't have a better solution. Sorry. >> Thank you. Um Jessica, >> I'm impressed that we got all the way down to my question. You guys are giving concise answers and I'm going to ask an open-ended one that I just dropped in the chat uh as well. Um, we've done a lot of talking about scale here, but not necessarily about time. Uh, and so as we talk about all of these different pressures on our community, um, both in terms of policy, in terms of economics, and in terms of social acceptance, I notice that these sectors run on timelines that conflict with each other or run counter to each other. you know, doing the work of really building trust in a new industry. That that's relational work that takes time and consistency. Um, and that's not how the research and the work gets done. It it operates on a different time scale than that. Uh, you know, short-term permits run counter to that even though they have their uses, right? Research grants run counter to that. The pressure, the financial pressure that startups are on runs counter to that. Um ha h have you talked at all sort of about how to handle this this challenge of discussing not just scale but time. You know test beds can help by aggregating lots of projects together. You have one coordinator that coordinating body can sort of help talk um through some of these issues or or sort of like absorb some of that long-term perspective. But I even test beds aren't aren't perfect, right? theoretically people should graduate from using a test bed. It covers a really short period in the technology development cycle. So I'm just curious to know if you've talked about these challenges of timelines at all and sort of how people perceive those or or how you communicate those effectively. >> I can say I haven't. It's a very good point. I haven't. So maybe Sarah has a good answer. >> No, I mean this is this is such a great point, Jessica, and I I think that I don't want to keep kind of saying the same thing, but I do think that that relational Yeah, just to echo you, the relational work, it's well said, takes a lot of time and there's a lot of front-end work that needs to happen that isn't that isn't um necessarily understood by folks who are looking to fund this or get this stuff off the ground. So I'm not sure other than venues like this to kind of communicate that this takes time but I think there needs to be a sort of broader uh awareness building process around that front-end work being very very time inensive on the kind of relational um you know getting in touch with the right folks being in conversation with the right groups like all of that work just takes so so long Like it's the difference between like meeting somebody at a meeting and then being neighbors with that person for a year, right? Or like or going to see, right? And there's a difference between going to see with someone on opposite shifts and sharing a cabin with somebody, right? Like there's there's differences in in that, you know, front end relational work. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts >> to close us out on an unanswerable question. >> Sorry, Kelly. Way to go. No, this has been fantastic. Um, thank you so much for joining us. Um, you gave us a lot a lot to to think about and and you know, a lot has happened in the last few years and we appreciate you pointing that out too. Um, and what those remaining gaps are. Um, I'm so I know there's some questions in the chat. I think we got to most of the questions through you all communicating via chat. So, thank you for doing that. Um and thanks for all the great questions. Um we never have enough time. So um with that um we're going to adjourn the public session. Um tomorrow you can come back and join us for a discussion on methacos in the field trials. Um and um if you are a committee member you get a 14minut break and then log back into our private uh link. Um so thank you all. Um this concludes the the public session. Really appreciate you.