Periodic Reporting for period 2 - OceanNETs (Ocean-based Negative Emission Technologies - analyzing the feasibility, risks, and cobenefits of ocean-based negative emission technologies for stabilizing the climate)
Reporting period: 2022-01-01 to 2022-12-31
To limit climate change and meet the Paris Agreement goals, governments have recognized that Negative Emission Technologies (NETs) are needed in addition to rapidly reducing CO2 emissions. OceanNETs responds to the societal need to rapidly provide a scientifically rigorous & comprehensive assessment of NET options. OceanNETs focuses on analyzing and quantifying the environmental, social, and political feasibility and impacts of ocean NETs. The project will close fundamental knowledge gaps on specific ocean NETs and provide more in-depth investigations of NETs that have already been suggested to have a high CDR potential, levels of sustainability, or potential co-benefits. The project will identify how and to what extent ocean NETs can play a role in mitigating climate change. One key motivation is to provide knowledge that can directly be translated into political and societal action. OceanNETs has a coherent transdisciplinary approach to fill fundamental NET knowledge gaps with disciplinary, inter-, and transdisciplinary research and develop and explore pathways of NET deployment for comprehensive case studies. The approaches (Fig. 1) center on three main themes: 1) Society and NETs and 2) The Earth system response to NETs that are combined for 3) Cross-cutting activities. To do this, the project brings together economists, political and social scientists, legal scholars, marine ecologists and biogeochemists, climate scientists, Earth system modelers, and geochemists from 14 institutes in Europe and Australia.
WP1 assessed & improved limitations of existing integrated assessments models (IAMs) to allow for a more realistic investigation of ocean NETs & derived cost-estimates for ocean NETs in exchange with stakeholders & experts in workshops.
WP2 characterized the governance framework applicable to ocean NETs & assessed the potential future international regulation of ocean NETs. WP3 conducted a series of surveys to explore laypersons’ perceptions of & attitudes toward ocean NETs. WP4 continued to run & analyze multiple Earth system models to assess uncertainties related to the response & efficacy of ocean NETs. WP5 has performed a second mesocosm experiment & related side-experiments on ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE). WP6 explored two case-studies to compare different OAE approaches qualitatively & quantitatively. WP7 acted as a hub for the provision of knowledge, as well as a center for cross-cutting activities. WP8 continued to be responsible for data management. WP9 ensured that project communication & administration progressed smoothly.
WP2 characterized the governance framework applicable to ocean NETs & assessed the potential future international regulation of ocean NETs. WP3 conducted a series of surveys to explore laypersons’ perceptions of & attitudes toward ocean NETs. WP4 continued to run & analyze multiple Earth system models to assess uncertainties related to the response & efficacy of ocean NETs. WP5 has performed a second mesocosm experiment & related side-experiments on ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE). WP6 explored two case-studies to compare different OAE approaches qualitatively & quantitatively. WP7 acted as a hub for the provision of knowledge, as well as a center for cross-cutting activities. WP8 continued to be responsible for data management. WP9 ensured that project communication & administration progressed smoothly.
One of the main premises of OceanNETs is to assess the potential, effectiveness, efficiency, risks & costs of ocean NETs. To this end, WP1 determined and improved limitations of existing integrated assessments models (IAMs), to allow for a more realistic assessment of ocean NETs, derived cost-estimates for ocean NETs in exchange with stakeholders, and analyzed the market development of ocean NETs startup companies. WP4 improved our understanding of alkalinity biases in existing models and how these may impact efficiency estimates in OAE model simulations. CO2 dependencies of phytoplankton growth and calcification were also implemented and tested in a global ocean biogeochemistry model. This allows the direct impacts of OAE on pelagic primary production to be assessed in a state-of-the-art earth system model (ESM). WP4 also provided the first ESM simulations of macroalgae farming and sinking. In another WP4 task, a novel framework for assessing the efficacy of OAE using a simulation design from carbon cycle feedback studies has been developed and applied, which will improve estimates of efficacy with possible implications for accounting.
The two mesocosm OAE studies conducted within WP5 provide the first comprehensive data sets on possible environmental and ecological risks and co-benefits of OAE in terms of biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and biogeochemical cycling. These data will form the basis for an in-depth assessment of the safe operating space for OAE applications. In addition, geochemical side experiments provide first data on the loss of alkalinity due to critical oversaturation.
OceanNETs also aims to cover the issue of public acceptance and explores the international governance requirements associated with the large-scale deployment of ocean NETs. Towards this, WP2 provided a first-order assessment of the current global governance framework that regulates ocean NETs. By examining the different actors involved, synergies and trade-offs have been identified with the aim of advancing the currently fragmented international governance system. By increasing understanding of regional and global ocean governance frameworks, including their possible interaction, WP2 has provided comprehensive information on what planning, prioritizing and implementing ocean NETs might look like in the near future. This information will be crucial in facilitating the capacity of stakeholders to pre-emptively consider ocean NETs within their regulations and work programs.
The deliberative survey run in OceanNETs WP3 is the first implementation of this method in Europe and the first time it is used to deliberate net-zero and net negative climate policy. While the literature is full of calls for public deliberation of CDR, the deliberative survey shows that it is relatively difficult to recruit volunteers to deliberate such abstract topics. However, participants at the events were curious and willing to engage and the collected data will be an early benchmark whenever the development of discussions about marine CDR is traced back in the future.
Another aim of OceanNETs is to support major international, national, and EU scientific assessments and to develop a comprehensive medium-to-long term vision and analytical framework on pathways to achieve climate neutrality. In support of scientific assessments, several project scientists are members of the UN GESAMP Working Group on marine geoengineering and others were contributing authors to the IPCC AR6 WGIII report. Several OceanNETs scientists are co-authors on an international initiative to produce a code of conduct on ocean CDR. In regards to developing a medium-to-long term vision and Paris Agreement compliant pathways, WP6 has brought together various aspects of OAE for a collaborative deliberation of ‘realistic’ deployment. A life-cycle assessment (LCA) informed by engagement with a wider stakeholder network was used as a key component of this process. Ultimately, this is leading to the development of unique case studies of NET deployment that go far beyond what has been previously assumed, by including not only interdisciplinary academic expertise but also input from key stakeholders, e.g. industrial experts. The above-mentioned LCA is the first of its kind on an OAE approach (and possibly any other ocean CDR).
To enhance our international cooperation, OceanNETs continues to hold a dialogue with stakeholders on the topic of ocean CDR. The WP7 deliberative workshops that accompanied the mesocosm experimentation are unique and valuable in that they have made sure that local stakeholders are aware of the project's activities and raised awareness of future possibilities concerning NETs. OceanNETs also co-coordinated a successful science-policy event at the EU parliament in Brussels that, as far as we are aware, was the first to focus on the topic of ocean NETs.
The two mesocosm OAE studies conducted within WP5 provide the first comprehensive data sets on possible environmental and ecological risks and co-benefits of OAE in terms of biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and biogeochemical cycling. These data will form the basis for an in-depth assessment of the safe operating space for OAE applications. In addition, geochemical side experiments provide first data on the loss of alkalinity due to critical oversaturation.
OceanNETs also aims to cover the issue of public acceptance and explores the international governance requirements associated with the large-scale deployment of ocean NETs. Towards this, WP2 provided a first-order assessment of the current global governance framework that regulates ocean NETs. By examining the different actors involved, synergies and trade-offs have been identified with the aim of advancing the currently fragmented international governance system. By increasing understanding of regional and global ocean governance frameworks, including their possible interaction, WP2 has provided comprehensive information on what planning, prioritizing and implementing ocean NETs might look like in the near future. This information will be crucial in facilitating the capacity of stakeholders to pre-emptively consider ocean NETs within their regulations and work programs.
The deliberative survey run in OceanNETs WP3 is the first implementation of this method in Europe and the first time it is used to deliberate net-zero and net negative climate policy. While the literature is full of calls for public deliberation of CDR, the deliberative survey shows that it is relatively difficult to recruit volunteers to deliberate such abstract topics. However, participants at the events were curious and willing to engage and the collected data will be an early benchmark whenever the development of discussions about marine CDR is traced back in the future.
Another aim of OceanNETs is to support major international, national, and EU scientific assessments and to develop a comprehensive medium-to-long term vision and analytical framework on pathways to achieve climate neutrality. In support of scientific assessments, several project scientists are members of the UN GESAMP Working Group on marine geoengineering and others were contributing authors to the IPCC AR6 WGIII report. Several OceanNETs scientists are co-authors on an international initiative to produce a code of conduct on ocean CDR. In regards to developing a medium-to-long term vision and Paris Agreement compliant pathways, WP6 has brought together various aspects of OAE for a collaborative deliberation of ‘realistic’ deployment. A life-cycle assessment (LCA) informed by engagement with a wider stakeholder network was used as a key component of this process. Ultimately, this is leading to the development of unique case studies of NET deployment that go far beyond what has been previously assumed, by including not only interdisciplinary academic expertise but also input from key stakeholders, e.g. industrial experts. The above-mentioned LCA is the first of its kind on an OAE approach (and possibly any other ocean CDR).
To enhance our international cooperation, OceanNETs continues to hold a dialogue with stakeholders on the topic of ocean CDR. The WP7 deliberative workshops that accompanied the mesocosm experimentation are unique and valuable in that they have made sure that local stakeholders are aware of the project's activities and raised awareness of future possibilities concerning NETs. OceanNETs also co-coordinated a successful science-policy event at the EU parliament in Brussels that, as far as we are aware, was the first to focus on the topic of ocean NETs.