Before Scaling Marine Carbon Removal, Strengthen the Science, Community Voice, and Governance

A recent opinion piece argued that coastal and Indigenous communities should have a central voice in any plans to intervene in the ocean. That perspective is vital. The ocean is not an inexhaustible resource — it is home to communities whose livelihoods, cultures and food security are already being reshaped by climate change.

Alaska and the front lines of a changing ocean

Alaska is on the front lines: shrinking Arctic sea ice, more frequent harmful algal blooms, and storm damage illustrate how quickly sea‑dependent lives are changing. Local and Indigenous knowledge from coastal communities provides essential context for judging whether marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) approaches that leverage natural ocean processes are practicable, safe and socially acceptable.

The scientific case — and its uncertainties

The ocean already absorbs roughly one‑third of human‑emitted carbon dioxide and more than 90% of excess heat from greenhouse gases. Microscopic phytoplankton take up a large share of that CO2, produce about half of Earth’s oxygen through photosynthesis, and form the base of marine food webs; a portion of the organic carbon they produce sinks into the deep ocean where it can persist for centuries.

In many regions, phytoplankton growth is limited by iron availability. Researchers — including the Exploring Ocean Iron Studies consortium (ExOIS) — are studying whether adding small, carefully measured amounts of iron can trigger blooms that capture and export carbon to the deep sea. Early experiments suggested promising carbon-to-iron ratios, sometimes hundreds of tons of organic carbon per ton of iron added, but critical questions remain: How long will the carbon stay sequestered? What are the downstream ecological effects, both harmful and beneficial?

Better tools enable better science — but not by themselves

New observational and modeling tools — robotic floats, autonomous vehicles, satellites and sophisticated biogeochemical models — let scientists observe and simulate ocean processes with unprecedented precision. Those advances make careful, transparent testing possible. However, technology and data cannot substitute for meaningful community involvement and clear governance systems.

Science, community engagement and governance must advance together. Each is necessary but none alone is sufficient to ensure that mCDR is safe, equitable and durable.

Community leadership and governance

The Community Leaders and mCDR (CLaM) project provides a timely model by creating a framework for local and Indigenous governments to participate directly in ocean‑climate research. Treating community involvement as foundational rather than a procedural checkbox builds trust and produces more relevant, ethical research outcomes.

ExOIS and other researchers are adopting principles rooted in the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies — emphasizing openness, public oversight and the willingness to pause or stop if risks outweigh benefits. These norms show that scientific rigor and social responsibility can reinforce each other.

Why governance matters now

Commercial interest in ocean‑based carbon removal is accelerating: credit sales reached about 795,000 tons by mid‑2025. As private ventures scale toward billion‑ton ambitions, financial incentives will favor speed. Without robust transparency, accountability, sustainability requirements and meaningful community consent, it will be difficult to rebuild trust once markets move faster than governance.

The role of fishing communities and regional institutions

Fishing communities and marine scientists in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest carry special authority: they helped develop globally respected models of careful marine‑resource management and are direct witnesses to ocean change. Their voices — and the deliberative regional institutions that include those who depend on and steward these waters — should guide national and international governance for this emerging industry.

In short, mCDR research should proceed, but only under a three‑legged approach: rigorous, transparent science; direct and sustained community engagement; and durable governance mechanisms that prioritize ecological integrity, social equity and the precautionary principle. Building that foundation now will make it possible to evaluate marine carbon removal responsibly — before markets and industrial scale push the field past the point of meaningful oversight.