{"id":161961,"date":"2025-04-23T07:29:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-23T05:29:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/?p=161961"},"modified":"2025-04-15T14:40:59","modified_gmt":"2025-04-15T12:40:59","slug":"co%e2%82%82-removal-and-storage-which-options-are-feasible-and-desirable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/co%e2%82%82-removal-and-storage-which-options-are-feasible-and-desirable\/","title":{"rendered":"CO\u2082 removal and storage: Which options are feasible and desirable?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\"If
If Germany is to achieve its goal of greenhouse gas neutrality by 2045, it will need to drastically reduce its emissions and remove additional CO2<\/sub> from the atmosphere. However, decisions on the use of ocean-based CO2<\/sub> removal methods must not only focus on their technical, legal and political feasibility. The potential consequences for humans and nature also need to be assessed in a structured and standardised way. \u00a9 Rita Erven, CDRmare<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

As climate change increases, so does the pressure on humanity to remove carbon dioxide (CO2<\/sub>) from the atmosphere – possibly with the help of the oceans. But which of the proposed marine CO2<\/sub>\u00a0removal and storage options should be used? Scientists from the CDRmare research mission, among them researchers from Kiel University, have developed a new assessment framework to help decision-makers make evidence-based decisions about whether marine CO2<\/sub>removal methods or projects are feasible and whether their consequences for humans and nature are desirable. The researchers emphasise that decisions on using such methods must not only focus on their technical, legal and political feasibility but should also assess the potential consequences of their implementation for humans and nature in a structured and transparent way.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experts develop and use assessment frameworks for climate response options to collect, structure and prioritise all relevant information in a technology assessment. However, existing assessment schemes for climate change response options such as CO2<\/sub> capture and storage, do not adequately fulfil this task, experts from the CDRmare research mission conclude in two new peer-reviewed publications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"Christian
Christian Baatz is a junior professor at Kiel University with a focus on climate ethics, sustainability and global justice. As part of the CDRmare Mission of the German Marine Research Alliance, he is investigating new assessment criteria for marine CO2<\/sub> removal methods and projects. \u00a9 Christian Thiel, German Ethics Council<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

\u201cAnswering whether and how a CO2<\/sub>\u00a0removal option should be implemented should take its effectiveness, economic viability and its impact on people and the environment into account. However, existing assessment frameworks do not allow doing so. Our framework solves this problem by offering a structured guide for evaluating marine CO2<\/sub>\u00a0removal projects. Stakeholders can use it to analyse all the key issues and make evidence-based decisions,’ says JProf Dr Christian Baatz, a climate and environmental ethicist at the University of Kiel and co-author of both new articles<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

29 criteria for a comprehensive assessment of marine CO\u2082 removal methods<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The new framework includes 29 criteria that help to analyse seven key issues. These include questions about the technical, legal and political feasibility of the methods to be assessed, as well as questions about economic efficiency, equity and environmental ethics. Due to this complexity, the researchers recommend that experts from academia, industry, public administration, interest groups and affected populations be involved in the evaluation process.\u00a0 In line with this principle, the researchers tested the practical suitability of the new evaluation guidelines in a series of transdisciplinary workshops attended by numerous representatives from public administration and interest groups.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"Lukas
Lukas Tank is a postdoc in the working group on climate ethics, sustainability and global justice at Kiel University and a scientist in the DAM project ASMASYS. \u00a9 Michael Swat, CDRMare<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

\u201cOur experience in testing the assessment framework shows that no one should attempt to assess a marine CO2<\/sub>\u00a0removal method or a specific project on their own. Due to the high complexity of the issue, an assessment requires the expertise of many people,\u201d says co-author Dr Lukas Tank, also a climate and environmental ethicist at Kiel University<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Ideally feasible and desirable<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In addition to the list of criteria, the researchers defined five guiding principles to help ensure that the best possible information is collected during the evaluation process. These guiding principles aim to ensure that the evaluation process is transparent and involves all potentially affected parties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cUltimately, it is up to political and societal decision-makers to decide whether a particular marine CO2<\/sub>\u00a0removal project should go ahead. At best, they will choose options that are effective, technically, legally and politically feasible, as well as economically, equitably and environmentally sound. Our assessment framework can help them do this,” says Prof Dr Gregor Rehder, a chemist at the Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnem\u00fcnde (IOW)<\/strong>. He was also an author on both papers and led the CDRmare research network ASMASYS, under which the research for both papers took place.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n

\n
\"This
This illustration provides an overview of the topics and assessment criteria provided by the new framework for evaluating marine CO2<\/sub> removal methods. There is a clear distinction between the feasibility of a given method and its potential desirability. An important note: each of the indicators shown here can be relevant for more than one assessment criterion. In this way, the assessment guidelines successfully transcend the borders between disciplines. Further, the circular format conveys the equality of the respective aspects; no single aspect is more important than its counterparts. \u00a9 Rita Erven, CDRMare<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Original publications<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Tank, Lukas; Lieske Voget-Kleschin, Matthias Garschagen, Miranda Boettcher, Nadine Mengis, Antonia Holland-Cunz, Gregor Rehder & Christian Baatz (2025): Distinguish Between Feasibility and Desirability When Assessing Climate Response Options,\u00a0NPJ Climate Action<\/em>, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s44168-025-00237-2<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Christian Baatz, Lukas Tank, Lena-Katharina Bednarz, Miranda Boettcher, Teresa Maria Morganti, Lieske Voget- Kleschin, Tony Cabus, Erik van Doorn, Tabea Dorndorf, Felix Havermann, Wanda Holzh\u00fcter, David Peter Keller, Matthias Kreuzburg, Nele Matz-L\u00fcck, Nadine Mengis, Christine Merk, Yiannis Moustakis, Julia Pongratz, Hendrikje Wehnert, Wanxuan Yao and Gregor Rehder (2025): A holistic assessment framework for marine carbon dioxide removal options. Environmental Research Letters<\/em>, DOI: 10.1088\/1748-9326\/adc93f,
https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1748-9326\/adc93f<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Scientific Contacts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

JProf. Dr. Christian Baatz
Climate Ethics, Sustainability and Global Justice
Philosophisches Seminar
Kiel University
E-Mail: baatz@philsem.uni-kiel.de<\/a>
Phone: 0431\/880-2823<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Lukas Tank
Climate Ethics, Sustainability and Global Justice
Philosophisches Seminar
Kiel University
E-Mail: etank@philsem.uni-kiel.de<\/a>
Phone: 0431\/880-2823<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Background information on the CDRmare research mission<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

CDRmare is a research mission of the German Marine Research Alliance (DAM). The mission started in summer 2021 with six research consortia investigating promising methods for marine CO2<\/sub>\u00a0removal and storage (alkalinisation, expansion of vegetation-rich coastal ecosystems, artificial upwelling, CCS) with regard to their potential, risks and interactions, and bringing them together in a transdisciplinary assessment framework.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In August 2024, CDRmare entered its second three-year funding phase with five research consortia. CDRmare is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the science ministries of the northern German states of Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As climate change increases, so does the pressure on humanity to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere – possibly with the help of the oceans. But which of the proposed marine CO2\u00a0removal and storage options should be used? Scientists from the CDRmare research mission, among them researchers from Kiel University, have developed a new […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":59,"featured_media":162009,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","nova_meta_subtitle":"A new framework helps to evaluate the feasibility of ocean-based CO2 removal processes and assesses their impact on humans and nature","footnotes":""},"categories":[5571],"tags":[10744,21452,10416,15311,10743],"supplier":[26161,276,3093],"class_list":["post-161961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-co2-based","tag-carboncapture","tag-carbonstorage","tag-circulareconomy","tag-emissions","tag-useco2","supplier-cdrmare","supplier-christian-albrechts-universitaet-zu-kiel","supplier-leibniz-institut-fuer-ostseeforschung-warnemuende-iow"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161961","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/59"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161961\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/162009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161961"},{"taxonomy":"supplier","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supplier?post=161961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}