Analysing policy signals from the US, EU and UN regulations for the deployment of marine carbon dioxide removal

[Geoengineering News]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2026.2678303

Authors: Coline Seralta, Emma Jagu Schippers, Yannick Perez & Pascal Da Costa

28 May 2026

Abstract

The Paris Agreement set a goal to keep global warming to well below 2°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the rise in global surface temperature to 1.5°C. Achieving these targets hinges on reaching net-zero emissions, where residual anthropogenic emissions are counterbalanced by carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Using oceans for CDR holds great potential but also poses scientific challenges and societal concerns around the risks involved in marine geoengineering interventions. Furthermore, the regulatory context framing ocean interventions is hard to navigate as it involves complex and variable international law. The question of whether to deploy marine CDR (mCDR) therefore requires clear signals from regulatory frameworks worldwide. This paper reviews mCDR-related regulatory texts and policy documents from the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations. We categorize the texts based on whether they provide incentives or restrictions to deployment, and which stage of technology development they target, i.e. research, innovation, pilots, demand, or market instruments. The controversies surrounding mCDR are reflected in the stark contrasts between regulatory approaches: the US mostly provides regulatory incentives whereas the EU creates regulatory frameworks that do not send clear signals, and most UN treaties work to restrict the deployment of mCDR. These contrasting policy approaches are rooted in scientific uncertainty, but the issue of whether or not to deploy these controversial interventions is also a political one. A policy approach necessarily involves societal decisions, particularly when addressing risks and uncertainties of mCDR and climate change.

Key policy insights

Contrasting policy signals between the UN, the US and the EU policies show that mCDR is highly controversial.

Research is key to reducing uncertainty and informing decisions on mCDR deployment, and almost all regulatory texts in our corpus advocate deep research.

The precautionary principle calls for robust mechanisms to guide decisions under uncertainty that have not yet been implemented.

Policymakers could provide clearer signals about the level of certainty required to make a decision on whether or not to deploy mCDR.

Source: Taylor & Francis