Climate 411

Why EDF is exploring marine carbon dioxide removal


The oceans are a massive carbon sink. Researchers, companies and governments are exploring whether we can engineer coastal and ocean systems to store even more carbon. But while the ocean presents us with great possibilities, it’s also a complex system where human interventions can impact everything from the ecological (species’ interactions or the habitats they depend on) to the socio-economic (food systems or economic livelihoods).  

EDF has a track record of coordinating collaborative research on natural carbon storage systems in the ocean to understand both their role in carbon sequestration and their potential to generate ecological and socio-economic benefits, as well as any associated risks.  

We’re now taking a similarly holistic approach to exploring the potential of technical approaches to marine carbon dioxide removal (or, mCDR). Our aim: to identify the areas with the greatest potential to accelerate innovation with minimal risks to people and nature.  

mCDR: different methods to increase carbon sinks 

Marine CDR is a manmade intervention in the marine environment that changes the biology, chemistry or physics of the surface ocean resulting in the net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A few ideas have been suggested based on existing knowledge of ocean science. For example:  

  • Using fertilizers like iron sprinkled in the water in large quantities could encourage the growth of phytoplankton, microscopic marine plants, that, by sinking or being consumed, could facilitate the movement of carbon to the deep sea.  
  • Releasing minerals into surface waters that amplifies the slow natural weathering of rocks like limestone or basalt could help boost ocean’s alkalinity and increase carbon sequestration rates in the ocean.  
  • Pumping surface water to deeper depths could take carbon dioxide the ocean has absorbed from the atmosphere and mimic the natural process of phytoplankton sinking when they die.  

While these innovations seem promising, changing natural processes can result in a host of hard-to-determine impacts. For example, scientists don’t yet know whether artificial fertilization and growth could result in carbon export to the deep ocean. Therefore, we need to be cautious and examine not only the efficacy of carbon removal, but also impacts on marine life and human health. There are also complex ethical considerations associated with undertaking many of these approaches, from economic costs to impacts on livelihoods and food security across both short and long timescales. It’s critical to understand the risks as well as who will benefit, and who will bear the costs as decisions to continue research or deployment are being made.   

Why it’s time to examine mCDR’s efficacy and impacts 

It’s clear that holding warming below 2 degrees Celsius through emissions reductions and the energy transition alone will be difficult. We see a potential role for mCDR in contributing to stabilizing the climate and reaching net zero goals in the long term, which requires gaining a better understanding of benefits and risks in the short term. More and more organizations are working on mCDR, in large part driven by significant interest in the voluntary carbon market. And while funding is currently focused on evaluating the efficacy of carbon removal, we lack a solid scientific basis upon which to make reasonable decisions.  

A strong scientific foundation is critical to speeding and scaling CDR solutions. But speeding and scaling down the wrong path can ultimately reduce confidence in entire solution pathways, as well as lead to environmental harms. EDF wants to help to establish, guardrails, governance and policies to help develop a responsible research program that would allow thoughtful consideration of the full scope of both climate and ecological and socio-economic implications of mCDR development.   

EDF applies a systems perspective in examining climate solutions, with mCDR fitting within our existing and complementary efforts related to natural climate solutions, emissions reductions, carbon markets and solar geoengineering methods. We also have a long track record of working with academe, industry, governments, other NGOs, community groups and other civil society organizations to provide society with the understandings required to make science-based decisions.   

While EDF is not supporting widespread deployment of mCDR methods at this time, we are engaging in the following ways: 

  • Assessing research needs, contributing to research, advocating for research code of conduct, and supporting the development of rigorous standards for assessing the safety of any research in this space.  
  • Examining permitting and regulatory needs to help inform recommendations and policies.  
  • Developing effective engagement strategies with communities and interested parties around mCDR research. 
  • Creating a holistic framework to evaluate different benefits, risks and tradeoffs of different types of mCDR.  
  • Advocating for the developing of a robust federal research initiative on marine CDR 

Emissions reduction remains EDF’s number one priority and primary focus. However, as we work to address near term warming and with it limit some of the most worrisome impacts of climate change that we’re already experiencing, we need to research new technologies that show promise. Instead of jumping into mCDR with a Gold Rush mentality, it’s critical to develop an evaluative framework for looking at the impacts of these new technologies across the multiple dimensions that affect the environment and people’s wellbeing and engage civil society in the process. 

Also posted in Geoengineering, News, Oceans / Authors: , / Comments are closed

Why it’s time to explore the potential impacts of Solar Radiation Modification

Photo: Pezibear

The impacts from climate change will continue to escalate in the years ahead, and a growing number of scientists, philanthropies and companies have become interested in strategies to lower global temperatures more quickly. One of the options is reflecting some sunlight back into space.  

Because the consequences of Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), as it’s called, are hard to project, further study is critical before any action is seriously considered.  

While driving the transition to clean energy sources and rapidly reducing climate pollution remain EDF’s major foci, we also need to understand the implications of trying to directly influence earth’s temperature through this technology. That’s why EDF is embarking on an ambitious research program to learn more about SRM and its potential impacts. It is critical that decision makers and the public have a better understanding of the potential implications of deploying SRM before it is seriously considered.  

This work does not mean EDF supports deployment of SRM or other geoengineering strategies. However, these ideas may be increasingly considered in the next few decades, so it’s essential we understand the potential impacts. We need solid scientific information that’s accessible to decision makers in all countries to form the basis of future decisions about the use of this technology. 

Read More »

Also posted in Geoengineering, News / Comments are closed

How to improve soil modeling to maximize climate and farm benefits

Credit: Zoran Zeremski/iStock

Efforts to curb agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and increase soil carbon storage are picking up steam to help mitigate the impacts of climate change. To have maximum impact, we need ways to reliably quantify their outcomes. 

Direct measurement of the impacts of climate smart agricultural practices are imperative to instill confidence, but they aren’t forward-looking and can’t be done everywhere. Enter the use of process-based models (e.g., DNDC, DayCent) to estimate these changes more rapidly and across broader areas.  

Process-based models are useful tools, but they have limitations, and many researchers and practitioners remain uncertain about how to use them most effectively. Yet, while skepticism in their accuracy remains a challenge, interest in them is skyrocketing, making it even more important that the community work together on their improvement.  

A new report led by Environmental Defense Fund digs into how carbon project developers and companies are using process-based models across projects to explore current challenges, identify knowledge gaps and recommend improvements.  

Read More »

Also posted in Agriculture, Innovation, News / Read 1 Response

Strong scientific foundations, as well as strong science-based markets, make successful nature-based climate solutions possible

Forester examines trees

Daniel Balakov, iStock

This post is authored by Brian Buma, Senior Climate Scienist, Environmental Defense Fund.

Nature is vital to our success in fighting climate change and its real-world impacts. To unlock nature’s climate potential, we need investments to go to impactful nature-based climate solutions (NbCS), which refer to strategies to conserve, restore or improve the management of natural and working ecosystems for their climate benefits.

However, in a research paper recently published by myself and others, we found markets for NbCS were getting ahead of the science. In particular, we found many NbCS where carbon crediting was proposed or implemented had questionable scientific foundations.

We need NbCS to work, and we’re spending tens of millions in the hopes they do. Yet as our study shows, questions remain on how we can achieve the best ground-level outcomes and maximize the enormous potential of these solutions to lower greenhouse gas concentrations.

To illustrate how NbCS can work successfully, we need to look at science and implementation and understand how these two key components are different, but also interconnected.

Let’s start by thinking about your car.

Read More »

Also posted in Carbon Markets, Forest protection / Comments are closed

Cherry blossoms: a microcosm of the global climate crisis

Cherry blossoms in Washington, D.C. reached peak bloom extremely early this year. Photo by Ilissa Ocko

(This blog was co-authored by EDF Climate Scientist Fiona Lo)

Washington D.C.’s famous cherry blossoms are once again blooming earlier than expected.  

In fact, this year’s peak bloom occurred two and a half weeks earlier than the average over the past 100 years, due to near-record warm temperatures in March. 

This ranks as the second earliest peak bloom on record. Even the cherry blossom bud cycle occurred faster than any other year in the last two decades.  

So what is happening and why is this significant?  

Here we break down what you need to know about cherry blossoms and climate change. 

Read More »

Also posted in Agriculture, Basic Science of Global Warming, Extreme Weather, News / Comments are closed

How to act fast and smart (and where to move more cautiously) on nature-based climate solutions

Aerial photo of the Ecuadorian Amazon

Aerial photo of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Leslie Von Pless/EDF

This post is authored by Mark Moroge, Vice President of Natural Climate Solutions at Environmental Defense Fund.

We know that nature-based climate solutions are among our greatest assets when it comes to tackling climate change. Conserving, restoring and improving the management of nature – alongside reductions in new fossil fuel use – can provide at least 20% of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C.

We also know that we need much greater investment in nature to achieve its climate change mitigation potential: the world must close a $4.1 trillion financing gap in nature by 2050 to achieve climate goals.

But with a wide variety of potential solutions on offer, and with carbon markets for financing these solutions under intense scrutiny, it is essential that credit purchases prioritize those solutions that have strong scientific backing. Otherwise, we risk undermining trust in the potential of these markets to deliver climate results.

That’s why a new scientific paper published this week in Nature Climate Change is so important. Here we explain the findings and provide two key lessons for advancing nature-based climate solutions.

Scientific confidence in different solutions varies

The study, carried out by 27 experts from 11 institutions, including the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy and Columbia University, brings a deep scientific assessment of 43 nature-based climate solutions that have been implemented or proposed for use in carbon markets.

Through an extensive literature review and expert elicitation process, it found a wide range in scientific confidence across, and within, the different solutions.

Read More »

Also posted in Carbon Markets, Forest protection / Comments are closed