[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NAVIGATING THE BLUE FRONTIER:
EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL OF MARINE
CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL APPROACHES
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-701PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
RANDY WEBER, Texas Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida MAXWELL FROST, Florida
DALE STRONG, Alabama YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
MAX MILLER, Ohio SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia GABE AMO, Rhode Island
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York SEAN CASTEN, Illinois,
TOM KEAN, New Jersey Vice Ranking Member
VINCE FONG, California PAUL TONKO, New York
GREG LOPEZ, Colorado
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. MAX MILLER, Ohio, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina,
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas Ranking Member
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
VINCE FONG, California MAXWELL FROST, Florida
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York, Chairman
RANDY WEBER, Texas JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
JIM BAIRD, Indiana Ranking Member
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
MAX MILLER, Ohio ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TOM KEAN, New Jersey VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
September 19, 2024
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Max Miller, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Deborah Ross, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Brandon Williams, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Written statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 67
Witnesses:
Mr. Noah Deich, Senior Advisor, Office of Fossil Energy and
Carbon Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. Sarah Kapnick, Chief Scientist, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Mr. Ben Tarbell, CEO and Co-Founder, Ebb Carbon
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Dr. Scott Doney, Joe D. and Helen J. Kington Professor in
Environmental Change, The University of Virginia
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Discussion....................................................... 60
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Noah Deich, Senior Advisor, Office of Fossil Energy and
Carbon Management, U.S. Department of Energy................... 84
Dr. Sarah Kapnick, Chief Scientist, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce........ 99
Mr. Ben Tarbell, CEO and Co-Founder, Ebb Carbon.................. 115
Dr. Scott Doney, Joe D. and Helen J. Kington Professor in
Environmental Change, The University of Virginia............... 119
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Representative Max Miller, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
American University, Institute for Responsible Carbon
Removal, et al............................................. 128
Dr. Julie Pullen, Science Advisory Board Member, Carbon to
Sea Initiative............................................. 130
Discussion Draft--Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal R&D Act of 2024.. 136
NAVIGATING THE BLUE FRONTIER:
EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL OF MARINE
CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL APPROACHES
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on
Environment, joint with Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m.,
in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Max
Miller [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Miller. The joint hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess of the Subcommittees at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``Navigating the Blue
Frontier: Evaluating the Potential of Marine Carbon Dioxide
Removal Approaches.'' I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for being with
us here today. Today's hearing is on a topic that stands to
increase in relevance as technology develops. Marine carbon
dioxide removal, otherwise known as mCDR, it is also a special
hearing because I am co-chairing it with my friend Mr.
Williams, the Chair of the Energy Subcommittee, as we are
conducting this as a joint Environment and Energy Subcommittee
hearing.
The field of mCDR presents a unique opportunity, not only
because of its immense potential benefits, but also because it
builds off existing knowledge and research for land-based
carbon removal that is already delivering results. Yet, at this
very early stage of research, it is important to encourage
involvement from a blend of Federal agencies, private sector
companies, and academia.
In order for the field to grow, we must ensure that public-
private partnerships work together to prevent duplicative
efforts. In a step toward that, the Department of Energy (DOE)
and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
signed a memorandum of agreement that will establish a joint
effort to enhance coordination, research, and technology
development to advance the state of mCDR science. This is
crucial to combating wasteful government spending.
Combining NOAA's ocean science expertise with DOE's
research and infrastructure will allow the Federal Government
to operate efficiently and have the greatest possible impact.
We cannot rely solely on Federal agencies. However, as a robust
private sector exploring all different types of removal
techniques, it is critical to practical advancements.
One of our witnesses today is representing Ebb Carbon, a
private company that is pioneering one of the largest-scale and
lowest-cost approaches to carbon removal by accelerating the
ocean's natural ability to capture and store carbon. As a
native Ohioan representing the 7th District of the Buckeye
State, I recognize the potential of mCDR holds to the State's
economy.
The Great Lakes are the largest freshwater system on Earth,
holding 95 percent of the United States' freshwater supply.
They are some of the largest carbon sinks in the world, second
only to the oceans. NOAA has established a constant presence in
the Great Lakes with their acidification research and the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative. This work has been crucial to
ensuring a successful future for significant fisheries and
recreational tourism that create income and jobs for the
region. It is my belief that studying how to remove and
sequester that carbon will also prove critical to the long-term
viability of the Great Lakes region.
As we continue to innovate, it is important that the
investments that we are making have the best path to
commercialization. By having the Federal and commercial sector
utilize the research academia is producing, we will lay the
groundwork for successful implementation of it. Through
conservations like today's--excuse me, conservation--through
conversations like today, as we're talking about conservation,
we can ensure that everyone is moving in the right direction
together. I look forward to working with Chairman Williams and
Members of the Committee to establish a commonsense legislation
that will create a well-rounded approach into this
underutilized market.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today,
and I look forward to each of your testimonies.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller follows:]
Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for being with
us today. Today's hearing is on a topic that stands to increase
in relevance as technology develops: marine carbon dioxide
removal, otherwise known as mCDR. It is also a special hearing
because I am co-chairing it with my friend, Mr. Williams, the
chair of the Energy Subcommittee, as we are conducting this as
a joint Environment and Energy Subcommittee hearing.
The field of mCDR presents a unique opportunity not only
because of its immense potential benefits, but also because it
builds off existing knowledge and research for land-based
carbon removal that is already delivering results.
Yet, at this very early stage of research, it is important
to encourage involvement from a blend of federal agencies,
private sector companies, and academia. In order for the field
to grow, we must ensure that public-private partnerships work
together to prevent duplicative efforts.
In a step towards that, the Department of Energy and NOAA
signed a memorandum of agreement that will establish a joint
effort to enhance coordination, research, and technology
development to advance the state of mCDR science. This is
crucial to combatting wasteful government spending. Combining
NOAA's ocean science expertise with DOE's research and
infrastructure will allow the federal government to operate
efficiently and have the greatest possible impact.
We cannot rely solely on federal agencies, however, as a
robust private sector exploring all different types of removal
techniques is critical to practical advancements.
One of our witnesses today is representing Ebb Carbon, a
private company that is pioneering one of the largest scale and
lowest cost approaches to carbon removal by accelerating the
ocean's natural ability to capture and store carbon.
As a native Ohioan representing the 7th district of the
Buckeye State, I recognize the potential mCDR holds to the
state's economy. The Great Lakes are the largest freshwater
system on Earth, holding 95% of the U.S.'s freshwater supply.
They are some of the largest carbon sinks in the world, second
only to the oceans.
NOAA has established a constant presence in the Great Lakes
with their acidification research and the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative. This work has been crucial to ensuring
a successful future for the significant fisheries and
recreational tourism that create income and jobs for the
region. It is my belief that studying how to remove and
sequester that carbon will also prove critical to the long-term
viability of the Great Lakes region.
As we continue to innovate, it is important that the
investments we are making have the best path to
commercialization. By having the federal and commercial sector
utilize the research academia is producing, we will lay the
groundwork for successful implementation.
Through conversations like today's, we can ensure that
everyone is moving in the right direction, together.
I look forward to working with Chairman Williams and
members of the committee to establish common sense legislation
that will create a well-rounded approach into this under-
utilized market. I want to thank all our witnesses for being
here today, and I look forward to each of your testimonies.
Chairman Miller. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into
the record a letter from the mCDR community in support of this
hearing and future legislation, as well as a letter with
additional background material from Dr. Julie Pullen of the
Carbon to Sea Initiative. Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from
North Carolina, for an opening statement.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Chairman Miller--and Chairman Williams
when he joins us--for holding this important hearing on an
emerging field of science that could help mitigate the ongoing
climate crisis. And thank you to our expert witnesses, some of
whom I've met, for sharing your testimony and insights on this
topic.
Global--the global climate is changing at an alarming and
unprecedented rate due to ever-increasing atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases. This year alone, the United
States has experienced the earliest category 5 Atlantic
hurricane on record, massive tornado outbreaks, torrential
floods, some of which we saw in my home State of North Carolina
just this week, widespread wildfires, severe heat waves, and
more. Around the world, extreme weather has become more
frequent and more dangerous, and it's only expected to worsen.
The longer we wait to aggressively combat climate change, the
more we can expect devastating impacts to humans and the
environment.
The ocean is a natural sink of atmospheric carbon. In fact,
in the more than 200 years since the Industrial Revolution,
scientists estimate that the ocean has taken up one-quarter of
the carbon dioxide that humans have emitted into the
atmosphere. Marine carbon dioxide, or mCDR, aims to enhance the
ocean's natural ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
This developing field holds great promise as a strategy to
reverse some of the harm caused by a century of greenhouse gas
emissions.
However, there are still many uncertainties surrounding
mCDR, including its effectiveness and some of its environmental
impacts. By design, mCDR has the potential to significantly
alter the marine environment. While we hope to use this to our
advantage and sequester carbon dioxide, we must ensure that
mCDR does not create yet another stressor for marine ecosystems
and the human communities that are reliant on them, including
along the coast of my home State of North Carolina.
Dedicated and responsible research is necessary to grapple
with these uncertainties and ensure that the field develops
ethically and effectively. This research must be carried out in
collaboration with communities that may be impacted, while
leveraging partnerships across levels of government and with
the academic and private sectors. In North Carolina, a form of
mCDR using coastal olivine weathering is being explored by the
company Vesta, and I look forward to seeing how the results of
that work can inform the path forward.
The potential for meaningful climate change mitigation
through mCDR is exciting, but we must recognize the value of
the ocean as a cultural and economic resource and do our best
to ensure that mCDR approaches do not jeopardize our treasured
coastline and marine environments. In today's hearing, we will
explore the state of the science and discuss a responsible path
forward.
While mCDR and other emerging climate solutions may be
critical to our endeavor to mitigate climate change, we must
remember that the most straightforward path to keeping carbon
dioxide out of the atmosphere is to reduce emissions. Carbon
dioxide removal can be viewed just as one tool in our toolbox
to combat climate change but should not be relied upon as an
excuse to avoid acting right now. We can and should act to
decarbonize our economy today and as quickly as we can and look
to novel and innovative climate solutions, including mCDR, to
help us remove legacy carbon emissions in the future.
I look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses about
the status of mCDR science and what Congress can do to support
its responsible advancement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ross follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Miller and Chairman Williams, for
holding this important hearing on an emerging field of science
that could help mitigate the ongoing climate crisis. And thank
you to our expert witnesses for sharing your testimony and
insights on this topic. Global climate is changing at an
alarming and unprecedented rate due to ever-increasing
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
This year alone, the U.S. has experienced the earliest
Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record, massive tornado
outbreaks, torrential floods, widespread wildfires, severe
heatwaves, and more. Around the world, extreme weather has
become more frequent and more dangerous, and is only expected
to worsen. The longer we wait to aggressively combat climate
change, the more we can expect devastating impacts to humans
and the environment.
The ocean is a natural sink of atmospheric carbon. In fact,
in the more than 200 years since the Industrial Revolution,
scientists estimate that the ocean has taken up one-quarter of
the carbon dioxide that humans have emitted into the
atmosphere. Marine carbon dioxide removal--or mCDR--aims to
enhance the ocean's natural ability to absorb carbon from the
atmosphere. This developing field holds great promise as a
strategy to reverse some of the harm caused by centuries of
greenhouse gas emissions.
However, there are still many uncertainties surrounding
mCDR--including its effectiveness and environmental impacts. By
design, mCDR has the potential to significantly alter the
marine environment. While we hope to use this to our advantage
and sequester carbon dioxide, we must ensure that mCDR does not
create yet another stressor for marine ecosystems and the human
communities that are reliant on them, including along the coast
in my home state of North Carolina.
Dedicated and responsible research is necessary to grapple
with these uncertainties and ensure the field develops
ethically and effectively. This research must be carried out in
collaboration with the communities that may be impacted, while
leveraging partnerships across levels of government and with
the academic and private sectors.
In North Carolina, a form of mCDR using coastal olivine
weathering is being explored by the company Vesta--and I look
forward to seeing how the results of that work can inform the
path forward. The potential for meaningful climate change
mitigation through mCDR is exciting--but we must recognize the
value of the ocean as a cultural and economic resource and do
our best to ensure that mCDR approaches do not jeopardize our
treasured coastal and marine environments.
In today's hearing, we will explore the state of the
science and discuss a responsible path forward for mCDR. While
mCDR and other emerging climate solutions may be critical to
our endeavor to mitigate climate change, we must remember that
the most straightforward path to keeping carbon dioxide out of
the atmosphere is to reduce emissions.
Carbon dioxide removal can be viewed as just one tool in
our toolbox to combat climate change--but should not be relied
upon as an excuse to avoid acting in the present. We can and
should act to decarbonize our economy today--as quickly as we
can--and look to novel and innovative climate solutions
including mCDR to help us remove legacy carbon emissions in the
future.
I look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses about
the status of mCDR science and what Congress can do to support
its responsible advancement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Ms. Ross.
I now recognize the Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee,
the gentleman from New York, for an opening statement.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here.
There's an extraordinary amount of innovation happening
and, at the same time, an extraordinary amount of research
happening to discover and measure the effect of the oceans on
our climate and particularly around carbon dioxide and carbon
storage. And so that's what the focus of today is. The Marine--
as has been said, these--the mCDR is an up and coming solution,
and we're here to talk about it today.
We've seen development and progress in direct air capture
technologies, certainly around--the oil and gas industry have
embraced these. People might overlook the fact that the ocean
has the potential to hold up as much as 50 times more carbon
dioxide than the atmosphere, and this potential could provide
another avenue to regain United States' energy independence,
while also being conscious stewards of the environment.
Like most early stage science topics, the Federal research
ecosystem is critically important and has started to build an
understanding of the nuances associated with mCDR. Last year,
the Department of Energy Advanced Research Project Agency, or
ARPA, funded 11 high-risk, high-reward projects to support
novel efforts to measure, report, and validate mCDR and
identify cost-effective and energy-effective carbon removal
solutions. This is the excellent work that the DOE ARPA program
does.
And in June of this year, NOAA announced a memorandum of
agreement with the Department of Energy to ensure that ocean
science expertise is combined with and utilized by Department
of Energy research efforts. Separate from these public sector
efforts, the private industry has been and will continue to be
a crucial partner in facilitating the commercialization of
these approaches and creating valuable byproducts that can
thrive in the free market.
Academia has also conducted crucial research that provides
the foundation for advancement in the public and private
sectors. In order for mCDR technologies to compete--sorry, to
complete the path to commercialization, public-private
partnerships synchronizing all of these efforts will be
paramount.
So thank you to our witnesses today. They are well suited
to discuss this and to bring this not only to the attention of
Congress, but also to the attention of the public. We're going
to cover such exciting topics as nutrient fertilization, ocean
alkalinity enhancement, and direct ocean capture. I feel like
I'm back in nuclear power school.
All right. The approaches vary in the amount of carbon
dioxide they can sequester, as well as the duration of storage.
Different approaches are at different readiness levels in terms
of their technology and different stages of commercialization.
All of these are fraught with risk, and I'm very happy that the
Department of Energy is derisking some of these strategies so
that we can move on.
Therefore, I hope today's hearing is a chance for us to
learn how we in Congress can enable and accelerate the most
promising innovations associated with mCDR. And, as the
Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, I want to ensure that the
Department of Energy's world-leading resources serve as
productive counterparts to NOAA's expertise in ocean science.
And that is what government can do best, is to use our
incredible investments in science and partner across agencies
to keep the United States as a leader in these important
endeavors.
So thank you. I look forward to our conversation. And, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Good morning and thank you to all our witnesses for taking
the time to join us. Today, the Environment and Energy
Subcommittees will jointly examine the status of marine carbon
dioxide removal approaches, the costs and benefits they provide
for reducing emissions, and potential legislative efforts to
support this fledgling industry.
Marine carbon dioxide removal, or mCDR for short, is an up-
and-coming solution for long-term carbon dioxide storage.
While we have seen progress in the development of direct
air capture technologies over the last two decades, people
might overlook the fact that the ocean has the potential to
hold up to 50 times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere.
This potential could provide another avenue to regain United
States energy independence while also being conscious stewards
of the environment.
Like most early-stage science topics, the federal research
ecosystem has started to build an understanding of the nuances
associated with mCDR. Last year, the Department of Energy's
Advanced Research Project Agency funded 11 high-risk, high-
reward projects to support novel efforts to measure, report,
and validate mCDR and identify cost-effective and energy
efficient carbon removal solutions.
And in June of this year, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration announced a memorandum of agreement
with DOE to ensure their ocean science expertise is combined
with and utilized by DOE's research efforts.
Separate from these public sector efforts, private industry
has been and will be crucial to facilitating the
commercialization of these approaches and creating valuable by-
products that can thrive in the free market. Academia has also
conducted crucial research that provides the foundation for
advancements in the public and private sectors.
In order for mCDR technologies to complete the path to
commercialization, public-private partnerships synchronizing
all of these efforts will be paramount.
Our witnesses today are well suited to discuss this, as
they represent a diverse range of expertise and sectors. Our
panel will discuss several different types of mCDR approaches,
such as nutrient fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement,
or direct ocean capture.
These approaches vary in the amount of carbon dioxide they
can sequester, as well as the duration of storage. Different
approaches are at different technology readiness levels and
different stages of commercialization. But there is one
commonality amongst them: collectively, they have the potential
to mitigate and remove hundreds of millions of tons of carbon
dioxide emissions.
Therefore, I hope today's hearing is a chance for us to
learn how we in Congress can enable and accelerate the most
promising innovations associated with mCDR. As the Chairman of
the Energy Subcommittee, I want to ensure that the Department
of Energy's world-leading resources serve as a productive
counterpart to NOAA's expertise in ocean science. Together with
the private sector, these advancements can usher in a new era
of United States energy dominance and a clean environment.
With that, I look forward to our conversation, and I yield
back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Energy
Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Bowman. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Williams
and Chairman Miller, for convening this hearing today. And
thank you to our panel of witnesses for appearing before the
Committee to discuss the importance of conducting well-
coordinated research into marine carbon dioxide removal.
My name is Congressman Jamaal Bowman, by the way. The
Chairman didn't mention that, so I want to mention it.
This research is critical not only to advancing
technologies and methods that may significantly reduce
greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, but also to inform us of
any risk and potential unintended impacts of these approaches
early on so that we can ensure that they have proper guardrails
and to better determine if any of these methods should ever be
deployed at all.
First, let's talk about why this is important. If we look
back to DOE's 2023 carbon management liftoff report, DOE's
modeling study suggests that reaching our energy transition
goals could require capturing and permanently storing 400 to
1,800 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2050. Marine
carbon dioxide removal seeks to enhance the already large role
that the ocean plays as a naturally large carbon sink, and
several of these approaches have a substantial potential to
help our planet meet these targets.
However, many of these emerging technologies and methods
are far from ready to be deployed, and some may pose risks that
are greater than we should be willing to accept. These
technologies continue to require extensive research to
understand their efficacy in storing carbon and any ecological
impacts they may have.
We all understand the vast importance of the ocean to our
ecosystem and communities, so we want to make sure that
Congress and the Federal Government have all the data they need
to make informed decisions on these technologies before they
are used on the widespread basis. That is why this Committee is
developing legislation to better coordinate our research and
develop (R&D) efforts between the Department of Energy and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Coupling DOE's
incredible network of national labs and research infrastructure
with NOAA's world-class expertise in ocean science will ensure
that our academic institutions, local communities, industry,
and ultimately U.S. policymakers have all the tools needed to
fully understand the benefits and risks associated with this
carbon removal pathway.
With that, I want to thank our excellent panel of witnesses
for being here today, and I look forward to hearing your
testimony. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowman follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Williams and Chairman
Miller, for convening this hearing today. And thank you to our
panel of witnesses for appearing before the Committee to
discuss the importance of conducting well-coordinated research
into marine carbon dioxide removal. This research is critical
not only to advancing technologies and methods that may
significantly reduce greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, but
also to informing us of any risks and potential unintended
impacts of these approaches early on so that we can ensure that
they have proper guardrails. And to better determine if any of
these methods should ever be deployed at all.
First let's talk about why this is important. If we look
back to DOE's 2023 Carbon Management Liftoff report, DOE's
modeling studies suggest that reaching our energy transition
goals could require capturing and permanently storing 400 to
1,800 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2050. Marine
carbon dioxide removal seeks to enhance the already large role
that the ocean plays as a naturally large carbon sink, and
several of these approaches have a substantial potential to
help our planet meet these targets.
However, many of these emerging technologies and methods
are far from ready to be deployed. They continue to require
extensive research to understand their efficacy in storing
carbon and any ecological impacts they may have. We all
understand the vast importance of the ocean to our ecosystem
and communities, so we want to make sure that Congress and the
federal government have all the data they need to make informed
decisions on these technologies before they are used on a
widespread basis.
That is why this Committee is developing legislation to
better coordinate our research and development efforts between
the Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Coupling DOE's incredible network
of national labs and research infrastructure with NOAA's world-
class expertise in ocean science will ensure that our academic
institutions, local communities, industry, and ultimately us
policymakers have all the tools needed to fully understand the
benefits and risks associated with this carbon removal pathway.
With that, I want to again thank our excellent panel of
witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to hearing
your testimony. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Bowman.
Let me now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today
is Mr. Noah--I'm going to struggle--Deich. Is that correct? All
right. Thank you both. Noah Deich, Senior Advisor at the Office
of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management of the United States
Department of Energy. Our next witness is Dr. Sarah Kapnick,
Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Next, we have Mr. Ben Tarbell, CEO (Chief
Executive Officer) and co-founder of Ebb Carbon. Finally, we
have Mr. Scott Doney, the Joe D. and Helen J. Kington Professor
in Environmental Change at the University of Virginia.
With that, I now recognize Mr. Noah Deich for 5 minutes to
present his testimony. Deich, my apologies again.
TESTIMONY OF MR. NOAH DEICH, SENIOR ADVISOR,
OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY AND CARBON MANAGEMENT,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Deich. No, thank you, Chairmen Williams and Miller, for
welcoming me here. Thank you, Ranking Member Bowman and Ross
and all the Members of the Subcommittee. I'm very grateful to
be able to testify here today and to speak about the Department
of Energy's work on marine carbon removal.
I also want to acknowledge the Committee's long-standing
work on carbon removal overall. Some of the hearings over a
decade in this Committee helped inform me about the potential
and the need for carbon removal. And I co-founded a nonprofit
dedicated to carbon removal back in 2015. Most of the time when
I talked about CDR, nobody had any clue what those three
letters stood for back then, but this Committee and the staff
were always incredibly knowledgeable and leaders on this topic,
and I'm very grateful for the continued support.
We've also seen the carbon removal conversation mature
massively in the past decade, and marine CDR, I think, is one
of the maybe late starters, but very important pieces of that
equation. Academic studies and independent engineering
assessments have shown just immense potential for this suite of
solutions, not just to tackle the climate crisis, but to create
jobs for coastal communities and to protect our vital marine
resources.
Yet many challenges remain, as have been noted already,
from understanding how ocean biogeochemistry responds to
various marine CDR interventions, to developing the nascent
policies and markets needed to bring solutions to scale in a
responsible manner. That's why I'm really proud to work on the
Department of Energy's Carbon Negative Shot initiative. This is
one of the Department's many innovation moonshots. The Carbon
Negative Shot specifically is focused on a broad range of
carbon removal solutions. It's an all-hands-on-deck call for
innovation to bring the cost of carbon removal down below $100
a ton, inclusive of really robust measurement, reporting, and
verification.
And marine CDR is one of the core pillars of this work. DOE
is leveraging its deep expertise in novel technology innovation
and commercialization to help the mCDR portfolio flourish as
part of the Carbon Negative Shot. We have funded modeling work,
sensor development, small pilots, and research on ecosystem
impacts and community benefits to make sure that the mCDR field
can catch up and be a key piece of this Carbon Negative Shot
ecosystem that we see as critical for all of our climate and
economic work going forward.
I also want to recognize that DOE alone won't be able to
achieve the Carbon Negative Shot goals. Only by collaborating
across agencies, including our highly impactful collaboration
with our colleague NOAA. Despite the occasional confusion of
Noah the person versus NOAA the agency, it's been very
impactful, and we're very grateful for our partners across the
U.S. Government and with industry and civil society to really
chart a path forward in this space that we all see as
incredibly important, but still facing many uncertainties that
we all must tackle. Congressional support for these efforts is
clearly critical, and we're very grateful for you all convening
this hearing and for us to be able to participate.
So with that, I will say thank you and look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Deich follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Dr. Sarah Kapnick for 5 minutes to present
her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SARAH KAPNICK, CHIEF SCIENTIST,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Kapnick. Chairmen Miller and Williams, Ranking Members
Bowman and Ross, and Members of the Subcommittees, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today regarding NOAA's work on
marine carbon dioxide removal and providing comments regarding
the Committee's draft marine carbon dioxide removal
legislation. I am Dr. Sarah Kapnick, the Chief Scientist of
NOAA. I appreciate the Committee's interest in learning more
about this critical emerging field and NOAA's position as the
lead agency in the Federal Government on mCDR foundational
research.
As the leader in the ocean observations and modeling with
an emphasis on long-term monitoring and research, NOAA is
ideally suited to analyze the potential of mCDR efforts. mCDR
is projected to be a major economic sector with the Earth
system impacts that transcend national borders. NOAA views mCDR
engagement with the mCDR field as necessary to ensure safe,
accountable development of potential future deployment, as well
as continued U.S. leadership of the field.
mCDR approaches enhanced natural ocean processes that draw
down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. NOAA stands at the
forefront of supporting this foundational research that is a
critical tool for decisionmakers to assess if, how, and when
this industry can safely upscale. The field has tremendous
potential to make a positive climate impact and spur economic
growth. However, fundamental questions remain about the safety,
efficacy, and sustainability of mCDR pathways. We cannot afford
to remain on the sidelines of the field of research for the
climate, for economic potential of the sector, and for our
national security. Due to growing interest in the voluntary
carbon market, some companies are already pursuing small-scale
mCDR pilot studies, both in the United States and abroad.
As a Department of Commerce agency, NOAA recognizes the
importance of enabling markets while minimizing risk to our
ocean communities and ecosystems. To ensure accountable growth
in this fast-paced sector, NOAA must improve our mCDR knowledge
base and global observing capabilities, while continuing to
ramp up our efforts to engage invested communities.
NOAA has four main functions in the Federal approach to
mCDR. One, providing foundational ocean and atmospheric
research and leading research in the efficacy of and potential
ecological responses to mCDR pathways. Two, coordinating
Federal, academic, and nongovernmental mCDR research to inform
decisions about potential future deployment. Three, addressing
ecological considerations through regulatory authority and by
providing guidance and research to inform the mCDR permitting
process in Federal waters, in collaboration with the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) and U.S. Army Corps. Four,
managing mCDR research data archives to ensure the data are
publicly findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.
NOAA's 2023 strategy for mCDR research lays out our vision
for how the agency can work with its partners to act in these
roles. Over the past year, NOAA, as a co-chair of the
interagency Fast Track Action Committee on mCDR, together with
OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy), also led the
development of a Federal mCDR research strategy, a process
which included multiple listening sessions to gather public
comment for consideration. The strategy, expected to be
released imminently, outlines research, permitting, and
partnerships needed to inform decisionmaking about the
potential future mCDR scaling.
NOAA's mCDR research is anchored by the investments in
leveraging the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, or
NOPP, and funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. In 2023,
the NOAA-led NOPP portfolio funded the first large-scale public
multi-partner research specifically focused on mCDR approaches.
These projects required applicants to provide education and
outreach plans to ensure that the researchers open a dialog
with the invested communities. The initiative is primarily made
possible by funding provided by Congress through the Inflation
Reduction Act.
NOAA is building the knowledge necessary to understand the
effectiveness and ecosystem responses to mCDR and to keep the
United States positioned as a responsible leader in the field
and in climate mitigation more broadly. NOAA cannot do this
alone. Partnerships within and outside of government, such as
our highly successful collaboration with DOE, enables a
comprehensive response to the scientific, technical, and
economic questions and opportunities raised by mCDR. Support
for this work will greatly advance the Federal Government's
ability to meet these challenges and threats to our national
security.
NOAA appreciates the Committee's dedication work on this
legislation to guide marine carbon dioxide removal work,
although we note the bill is not--does not provide additional
appropriations, which would require NOAA to reduce other
activities to fund additional mCDR work. We look forward to
continuing the work with the Committee and are happy to provide
technical drafting assistance to the Committee as they further
consider this bill.
Thank you, Chairmen and Ranking Members and Members of the
Subcommittees, and I look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kapnick follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. I now recognize Mr.
Ben Tarbell for 5 minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. BEN TARBELL,
CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, EBB CARBON
Mr. Tarbell. Thank you. Chairman Williams, Chairman Miller,
Ranking Member Bowman, Ranking Member Ross, and Members of the
Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Ben Tarbell, and I'm co-founder and CEO of Ebb
Carbon, a U.S.-based marine carbon removal and ocean health
company. Ebb Carbon's mission is to remove billions of tons of
excess CO2 from the atmosphere. To achieve this,
we're pioneering an approach called ocean alkalinity
enhancement, which boosts the ocean's natural ability to safely
capture and store carbon by removing excess acid from seawater.
According to reports by both NOAA and the National Academy
of Sciences, our approach offers one of the most scalable and
cost-effective solutions of any durable carbon removal pathway.
Since 2023, Ebb Carbon has been demonstrating our technology in
partnership with DOE and NOAA at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL) in Sequim, Washington. This work is designed
to ensure that every step we take from research to deployment
is grounded in rigorous science. At Ebb we say that how we
remove the first 1,000 tons of CO2 will determine
how we remove the next billion.
We're following our demonstration at Sequim with a pilot-
scale project right down the road in Port Angeles, Washington,
so we can translate what we've learned in the lab to real-world
operations. We're the first company to apply for a permit to
operate a project like this under the Clean Water Act, and
we're working closely with State and Federal agencies and local
communities as part of that process.
We founded Ebb because we saw the immense potential of
marine CDR to mitigate climate change. Oceans cover over 70
percent of the Earth's surface and play a vital role in
regulating our climate. The ocean has already removed billions
of tons of excess atmospheric CO2. And yet, despite
this potential, marine CDR has yet to receive investment
proportionate to its potential.
As such, our ability to advance the science and the
industry is limited in the United States, but this can change.
I know this because I've seen it from my previous work helping
grow the solar energy industry. In the early years, solar
technology was promising, but not widespread. By the 1970's,
solar panels were available but cost over $100 per watt, way
too expensive for most practical uses.
Despite its promise, the industry struggled to gain
traction, and it was decades before its recent dramatic hockey
stick growth. The breakthrough came from two key factors.
First, public-private partnerships; and second, smart policy
enablement. While DOE labs like NREL (National Renewable Energy
Laboratory) were critical to enabling the foundational science,
the cost trajectory was driven down by commercial
demonstrations and deployments, which allowed the promise of
solar to be realized beyond the lab and into the real world.
While the national labs provided answers that helped unlock
the market, smart Federal policies accelerated the private
capital investments required to deploy at scale. Key
initiatives such as the investment tax credit provided
financial incentives and market derisking, making solar
investments more attractive. As a result, the industry
flourished, and the cost of solar panels plummeted to less than
50 cents per watt. What was once a niche technology has now
become a cornerstone of global energy production.
Today, DOE's PNNL and NOAA's PMEL (Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory), alongside academic labs, continue to
lead the research so critical to advancing the field of marine
CDR. But as with solar, industry partnerships are critical to
demonstrating in the real world and advancing the science
required to deliver a planetary-scale solution. Unlike with
solar, we don't have decades to get this right.
It is with this context that I'd like to suggest three
areas of priority for consideration. First, direct innovation
and deployment funding to marine CDR proportionate to its
potential as a climate solution. This can and should include
Federal funding for research and development, as well as the
expansion of incentives and enablements for industry
deployments.
Second, enable public-private partnerships to advance the
field safely, effectively, and responsibly, including
accounting for the role of the private sector in creating
business models and deployments that can scale climate impact.
Third, modernize permitting pathways. The basic science
around ocean alkalinity enhancement is well established. Moving
the field forward requires permits for in-water pilots to
advance our collective understanding and ultimately to reach
scale safely.
We're at an inflection point where we have a narrow moment
to move from possibility to reality from R&D to a scale where
we can have a substantive positive impact on the climate.
Congress has a unique opportunity to enable the burgeoning
marine CDR industry at this critical time. We know marine CDR
has a huge role to play in stemming the worst impacts of
climate change, and we're excited to work with the Federal
Government to move the field forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tarbell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Dr. Scott Doney for 5 minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SCOTT DONEY,
JOE D. AND HELEN J. KINGTON
PROFESSOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE,
THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Dr. Doney. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Chairman
Williams, Ranking Member Ross, and Ranking Member Bowman,
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Scott Doney. I'm a the
Kington Professor of Environmental Change at the University of
Virginia. Thank you for the opportunity today to talk about the
challenges, potential risks, and also benefits of marine carbon
dioxide removal. While some of these approaches show great
promise, none is ready yet for deployment at scale because of
gaps in our knowledge, knowledge of science and engineering, of
intended and unintended environmental consequences, and of
social impacts.
At present, we emit about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere every year, primarily from fossil fuel
combustion. In order to stabilize climate, we need rapid
decarbonization of the global economy, and eventually we need
to reach a net-zero human emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. A portfolio of land-based and ocean-based
carbon dioxide removal could contribute to that effort by
balancing hard-to-abate emissions, but only if these carbon
dioxide removal approaches can scale safely and economically to
the tens to hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide per
year scale.
Numerous approaches have been put forward to enhance carbon
dioxide uptake of the ocean. As already mentioned, the ocean
naturally takes up about a quarter of human emissions through
geochemical pathways. These geochemical approaches, such as
ocean alkalinity enhancement, would extend that uptake by
adding alkalinity and increasing the solubility of carbon
dioxide in seawater and enhancing the flux of gas across from
the atmosphere into the ocean.
Direct ocean capture would actually remove carbon dioxide
from the ocean and either use it or store it in geologic
reservoirs. Biological approaches have been put forward that
would enhance either the biomass of carbon in organisms or in
detrital material in marine sediments and coastal regions. It
could also act by enhancing the biological pump. This is an
action by marine organisms, particularly phytoplankton, that
removes carbon from the surface ocean and transports it to the
deep sea. These range from approaches such as ocean
fertilization and marine aquaculture to artificial upwelling.
Demonstration of safe and effective marine carbon dioxide
removal requires targeted research on efficacy, additionality,
and durability of these different approaches. Research and
development are also needed on engineering constraints, energy
demands, resource demands, scalability, and technical
readiness.
Progress also depends on robust and transparent validation
methods--measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification
(MRV)--that incorporate field observations, autonomous
platforms, remote sensing, and numerical modeling in an
integrated fashion. This is particularly challenging in the
turbulent ocean, where ocean mixing and stirring transports any
perturbation to the ocean that's been added by humans away from
the original site and dilutes it over time.
We need targeted efforts to measure the effect of any
marine CDR on air-sea gas exchange because none of these
approaches actually removes carbon directly from the
atmosphere. They change conditions in the ocean and implicitly
expect that that will enhance air CO2 flux into the
ocean. We also need assessment of environmental and social
impacts, better stakeholder engagement, and agreed-upon
research codes and government structures in order to move
forward with field testing.
A Federal program is essential in determining whether some
form of green carbon dioxide removal can serve in the future as
a safe and effective scalable climate solution. Federal
investments provide the unique framework for rigorous and
independent and transparent research, including both validation
and environmental impact assessment. Without a substantial
ramp-up in Federal research, the rapid technology development
and ongoing pressures to address mounting climate change
damages may outpace our scientific understanding. That
scientific understanding is critical if we are to make informed
decisions on deployment of marine CDR.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Doney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank all
the witnesses for their testimony this morning,
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of
questions.
Dr. Kapnick, most of the conversation around mCDR is in the
context of oceans, but as I mentioned in my opening statement,
the district that I represent borders Lake Erie, the 10th
largest freshwater lake in the world. So I'm interested to
know, is there potential for mCDR approaches to be utilized and
scaled up in freshwater environments, including the Great
Lakes? And can you walk us through any challenges that might
exist when talking about ocean-based approaches versus
freshwater approaches?
Dr. Kapnick. Chairman Miller, I love this question as a
Midwesterner myself who grew up in the Great Lakes.
Chairman Miller. Nice.
Dr. Kapnick. We do not have sufficient observational data
to be able to constrain the amounts of mCDR capable in the
Great Lakes right now, and so there is a need for additional
observations and modelings for us to better understand what
that is. It does hold potential. And a lot of the research
outlined and the research that is necessary to develop mCDR
could be applied in the Great Lakes region.
Chairman Miller. Yes. Can you just touch on, if any at all,
maybe some of the bigger challenges that we may face while
moving into this?
Dr. Kapnick. The challenges are ensuring that we have the
observations to know how much is being sequestered. It's the
importance of measurement, monitoring, reporting, and
verification. And so that sensor technology, the automated
technology that we can put into the Great Lakes would allow us
to be able to create that information to know how much is
sequestered, but then also use it in the models to model how
it's moving around, predicting it months in advance, years in
advance of how it may evolve in time. We need to build that
robust program to be able to understand it and quantify what
the value will be there.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much for the detail. It's
very helpful for me, as I don't know everything, and it's
impossible to and probably helpful for the Members on the
Committee as well, so thank you very much.
Mr. Doney, you previously served in the White House's
Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, I'm familiar
with it, where you oversaw the establishment of the mCDR Fast
Track Action Committee. I too served in the White House, so I
know how frustrating it can be to try to push interagency
coordination with Committees. It's basically like herding cats.
It's not that much fun. But can you tell us the general level
of interest and engagement there is regarding marine carbon
removal across the Federal Government? We obviously have DOE
and NOAA sitting here today, so if you could maybe speak to
anyone else who might be interested or isn't interested but
probably should be.
Dr. Doney. Yes, and I--of course, I'm back at a university,
so I don't want to overstep from my Federal colleagues. I mean,
there was a lot of interest when we developed the Ocean Climate
Action Plan across agencies in climate solutions that were
ocean-based, and that included marine carbon dioxide removal.
So I think in addition to NOAA, there are a number of agencies
that have a strong ocean science portfolio, so NSF (National
Science Foundation), NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration). The Smithsonian has done a lot of work in
coastal regions, but also there was interest from EPA, Army
Corps. So I think there's a pretty wide space. Now,
coordinating that, of course, is my colleagues' job.
But from the research perspective, I think one of the
important things is how we would move forward in marine carbon
dioxide removal in a way that complements the ongoing
investments that we make in ocean science, and particularly
documenting and quantifying the uptake of anthropogenic
CO2 that's already happening by the ocean. So we
need to understand, is that continuing, would that be affected
by other activities by climate change, and how do we integrate
that across--how do we--would we integrate marine CDR into that
existing framework?
Chairman Miller. Yes, thank you very much. And just once
again, thank you to all the witnesses.
You know, like I mentioned earlier, we have Lake Erie, one
of the Great Lakes, right in our district. And moving into the
subject matter of expertise, an area in which you all have a
great depth of knowledge on, is exciting because we can
actually help our area in the 7th District get a little bit
better. So thank you for your time this morning.
I now would like to recognize Ms. Ross, the Ranking Member,
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
While marine carbon dioxide removal seems promising as a
climate solution, the integrity of voluntary--of the voluntary
carbon market must be carefully monitored. This will require
thoughtful development of monitoring, reporting, and
verification. I know Dr. Kapnick just alluded to this, MRV, and
we need strategies to ensure that the claims of carbon uptake
are trustworthy.
Dr. Doney, can you describe the current status of MRV
approaches for marine CDR and also tell us what's challenging
about quantifying ocean carbon uptake from the atmosphere.
Dr. Doney. I think we're at a pretty good state in terms of
understanding if we were to perturb the ocean to add alkalinity
or ocean iron fertilization, which has been--there are multiple
decades of experiments--we're able to quantify what happens on
short time scales of weeks to maybe a couple of months. I think
one of the real challenges is, as those signals get mixed and
diluted away in the ocean, how do we monitor that on long time
scales?
And it's going to be some combination of autonomous
platforms. You know, NOAA has an excellent depth of expertise
in autonomous platforms that can measure aspects of the carbon
system, combined with numerical modeling. Because once we're
gone, most of our work has been you go out on a ship, you do
something for a few weeks, and you watch the perturbation.
Months later, years later, this carbon needs to stay away from
the atmosphere for many, many years. And one of the big
challenges right now is, how long does water stay at the
surface? Because I said what we're trying to do is modify the
gas exchange. If that water gets subducted away from the
surface, it's no longer in connection with the atmosphere. So
that's a key area that a lot of both observationalists and
modelers are working on.
Ms. Ross. Great, thank you. And that's perfect--a perfect
segue to my question for Dr. Kapnick. How would ocean
observations need to be expanded to support mCDR MRV
activities?
Dr. Kapnick. We would need to be able to better model and
constrain what is happening with the carbon in the ocean
system, as was just mentioned by Dr. Doney. With this, it is--
it depends on the scale of the activities and where we plan to
do them. But to create a really robust system of understanding,
we need more ocean observations, particularly our autonomous
observations, to be able to know where carbon is moving through
the system.
The goals of it are at least 100 years of sequestration
into the ocean system, so we need to be able to model that out
with the observations that we have as they go in, but also our
observing system over--our modeling system over time,
predicting where that is going to go, where in the currents,
where in the column of the ocean. But then, to do that, and to
do our--to do types of pilot studies and modeling and
understanding the ocean, we need to have observations at those
different depths of the oceans to be able to track it and
understand it and also give predictive capabilities of where
things will go into the future.
Ms. Ross. And that costs money.
Dr. Kapnick. Yes.
Ms. Ross. Just pointing that out. We--you might need some
more money because we talked about the bill, and I know that
there's no additional funding in the bill, so--great.
So my final question is for Dr. Kapnick and Mr. Deich. I
had the good fortune last year of going to Norway to visit
Equinor's Northern Lights carbon storage terrestrial carbon
capture project. And I know from my previous conversation with
Dr. Kapnick that there are demonstration projects that deal
with mCDR in Singapore and Canada and the U.K. So how can the
Federal Government responsibly collaborate with other nations
to advance mCDR research and development?
Dr. Kapnick. Importantly, on the science side, we have our
scientists' collaboration and working across the world on these
types of problems. Part of the reason we're seeing these
projects go overseas is they are providing incentives to
companies to go there. And so here in the United States,
important parts of the protection of that and--of the field and
the development of technology, we've been working with U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office to make sure that there is patent
protection for these things, so if they are also going
overseas, that they have that protection.
Mr. Deich. And I'll add, from the DOE's perspective, we
enjoy great bilateral collaboration on the R&D side with many
of those nations that you mentioned, but also through the
mission innovation platform, there is a dedicated carbon
removal working group, and they are exploring how we can
harmonize the standards for measurement, reporting, and
verification across that system. And so I think there are
opportunities internationally to work both bilaterally and
multilaterally to advance this field responsibly.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Ms. Ross.
I now recognize Mr. Bowman. Excuse me. I now recognize Mr.
Williams. My apologies. Rough morning for me, huh?
Mr. Williams. It's New York either way.
Chairman Miller. That's true.
Mr. Williams. Good morning. Thank you for your testimony.
Dr. Kapnick, one of the effects of the increasing levels of
CO2 in our atmosphere is said to be increasing the
acidity of the ocean. Can you talk about that, the effect of
increasing acidity in the ocean?
Dr. Kapnick. Yes, increasing acidification in the ocean, so
that is, as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed
into the ocean, the sea water becomes more acid. This has
documented negative impacts on ecosystems and marine life. One
of the most well-known examples of that that's very visual is
the change in shell formation, the ability of shells to form.
And so we see these effects on small plankton and small
animals, but we also are seeing it in larger and larger
animals, in Dungeness crab and different types of shellfish.
And that can affect the entire ecosystem as it continues, which
is why marine carbon dioxide removal also can play an important
role because one of the co-benefits of it is that, particularly
ocean alkalinity enhancement can have a local impact that
reduces that local acidification.
Mr. Williams. Isn't the purpose--and forgive, this is an
honest question--isn't the purpose to actually sequester
CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean, isn't that
the purpose of mCDR?
Dr. Kapnick. MCDR's primary purpose and the reason we're
talking we're talking about it is the removal of carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere and sequestration. But one of the----
Mr. Williams. Into the ocean.
Dr. Kapnick. Into the ocean.
Mr. Williams. OK.
Dr. Kapnick. But one of the co-benefits of that would be
you can have local reduction in acidification. So you add
crushed limestone and impacts into the ocean or through
electrochemical processes, you actually reduce the local
CO2 in the ocean, which then can also counter those
effects of the rising acidification due to the natural
processes. So this is actually----
Mr. Williams. I actually know a lot about cementitious
chemistry and materials. So, again, just to make sure I
understand--excuse me--that we are looking at ways of affecting
the ocean to absorb more CO2, and then we're going
to treat the ocean with things to raise the pH, the calcium
oxides to actually mitigate the effect of having just increased
the acidity of the ocean. Is that correct?
Dr. Kapnick. The----
Mr. Williams. I'm pretty sure that's just what you said. I
think--if I mischaracterized that, I'd like to know.
Dr. Kapnick. It's not--so also with the biological
capabilities of mCDR, it is taking that into storing in
biology, so in seaweed, in nutrient fertilization, into biology
that then sinks to the ocean floor. And so it's removing it
from the surface ocean and from the atmosphere, storing it away
in a biological sense that then sinks to the bottom.
Mr. Williams. But not necessarily transferring it directly
to the water?
Dr. Kapnick. Correct.
Mr. Williams. You said it's bound, perhaps, in seaweed, et
cetera?
Dr. Kapnick. Yes.
Mr. Williams. OK. You know, it's interesting. You brought
up Dungeness because the Dungeness Spit, which is right next to
Sequim Bay, which is right next to Port Angeles, is also right
next to Admiralty Inlet and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where
my submarine operated. And I have a lot of time going in and
out of those waters and have spent a lot of time even in Sequim
Bay in particular. And that was actually Dr.--or, Mr. Tarbell,
the--can you describe a little bit more about how calcium oxide
is added to the ocean to counteract these--the effects of mCDR?
Mr. Tarbell. Yes. So in Ebb's process, we have an
electrochemical system that removes acid from the ocean, so
we're not adding calcium oxides. Instead, we're removing acid.
And, as we do, it enables the ocean chemistry to shift to
convert CO2 to bicarbonate.
Mr. Williams. So you're binding acids basically in the
oceanwater, but it's an additive product that you're adding
to----
Mr. Tarbell. We're returning deacidified ocean--so
oceanwater back to the ocean. We separate acid from the
oceanwater, and then we remove----
Mr. Williams. If I may, just for the last few minutes,
either Mr. Deich or Dr. Kapnick, can you talk about the
national security--I'm sorry to cut you off--but the national
security implications that you mentioned just in the last few
seconds? What specifically are you concerned about for national
security and the role that mCDR can play for that?
Dr. Kapnick. With so much interest in what--the investments
that we're seeing overseas, particularly in China with over
$300 million over the next 15 years to develop this technology,
we will--we need to continue to advance our technologies and
ability in the United States to both have this technology
ourselves, but also with the observing system and information
around the ocean to be able to know if other actors are able to
sequester when they start making claims about this. If we don't
have the observing and modeling systems, we will not be able to
know if the claims are true or not.
Mr. Williams. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
I now recognize Mr. Bowman.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deich, the DOE is no stranger to community engagement
for projects in sensitive ecosystems. Can you describe how DOE
and their labs would involve the local community and ensure
that their concerns are heard before conducting any marine
carbon dioxide removal demonstration projects?
Mr. Deich. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Bowman.
So for all of our projects, the Department of Energy
requires community benefit plan frameworks to be considered.
These are multifaceted processes to both engage the communities
and really understand not just the environmental impacts, but
the broader social, economic, and workforce impacts of these
projects. We think that's a critical element of our program
evaluation and project evaluation specifically, alongside the
more conventional, technical, economic, and other
considerations we have. So that's embedded in our project
evaluation framework.
We've also released responsible carbon management
principles, which we hope will help inform developers across
the carbon management space, including the marine CDR space, as
just a starting point for how they can engage with communities
and what communities are expecting from them in terms of
engagement and making sure that projects are done responsibly.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you.
Dr. Doney, what type of negative impacts of mCDR should
cause researchers to stop and reassess or consider ceasing
development of a given mCDR approach? In other words, what are
some possible showstopping issues for mCDR?
Dr. Doney. Some of the areas that we still have uncertainty
is, as we perturb the ocean, how is it going to affect marine
life, and particularly marine life that's, you know, protected
species or commercial fisheries or other parts of the ecosystem
that are culturally or economically valuable. So I think it's
hard to say where that line is and a showstopper because, of
course, there are going to be tradeoffs. Any aspect of carbon
dioxide removal will have tradeoffs.
But I think what--right now, what we need to better
understand is, for example, alkalinity enhancement. You know,
how is that going to affect organisms? As Dr. Kapnick talked
about, there's been a lot of work by NOAA on looking at how
organisms respond to acidification. There's been less work on
the opposite side. If you add alkalinity, you make the water
more basic. What's going to be the impact short term and long
term on organisms?
Mr. Bowman. Thank you. And last, Dr. Kapnick, what are the
most pressing concerns about the impact of mCDR on the marine
environment? How can we monitor for these impacts in the
research and development process so that they can be properly
mitigated or avoided?
Dr. Kapnick. Yes, and that's why I know it's critical in
this space due to our mission of stewardship. It's--we not only
monitor what is the ocean chemistry, modeling where the carbon
is, where it's moving through the system, but it is also our
mission of fisheries, of the ecosystem health, of ensuring what
we are doing doesn't have impacts and being able to have an
understanding and tracking of what those impacts might be. And
it's not only out in the ocean, but we also--in all of our work
we do laboratory tests and understanding. And we have--I
welcome any of you to come to our laboratories that have coral
reefs where you can actually go see the corals, where we
understand how they're affected by acidification and different
factors. We actually have them in tanks.
So we are able to do the end-to-end research on what is
happening with ecosystems to understand it and then use our
models to also envision future worlds and what may happen in
future worlds to be able to assess that further. And so it's--
having a holistic fundamental research program is critical to
understanding this problem and what it will look like into the
future to be able to answer all the questions that you have.
Thank you for your question.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Bowman.
I now recognize Mr. Kean out of New Jersey for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of
our witnesses for being here today.
Marine and ocean technologies provide Americans with
significant benefits across numerous industries, contributing
$432 billion in goods and services to the United States economy
and supporting nearly 2.3 billion--excuse me, 2.3 million jobs
annually, according to NOAA. Dr. Doney, how do investments into
developing marine CDR technologies benefit Americans outside of
emissions reduction potential?
Dr. Doney. I think that depends if some of the approaches
have co-benefits. You know, we've--we know quite a bit now
about the sort of coastal blue carbon space whereby protection
and restoration of carbon-rich marshes and seagrasses we could
actually provide, you know, huge conservation benefits,
biodiversity benefits, and also carbon removal. One of the
areas of research we need to pursue is, are there similar co-
benefits, for example, by expanding--you know, protecting
seaweed beds, natural seaweed beds.
For things like alkalinity enhancement, some of the
electrochemical approaches actually generate co-products. Some
of the companies out there, through the electrochemical
approaches, are generating, for example, hydrogen. And so we
need to look at what these co-benefits are and see how they fit
in.
Some of the country--companies that are pursuing direct
ocean capture are looking at reusing that carbon dioxide, so
rather than sequestering it, bringing it back into the economy.
So you'd have to balance out, you know, how much carbon is
removed, versus what are these economic and other co-benefits
that might occur.
Mr. Kean. And what are some of the economic benefits for
States that--and entities that do invest in this type of
technology? And how could more research help understand these
benefits?
Dr. Doney. Well, as Dr. Kapnick and Dr. Deich have noted,
you know, we need to observe the ocean, both in its current
state and for marine carbon dioxide removal. These are very
advanced technologies. I work a lot with folks at Rutgers who
have developed glider technology for measuring off the
continental shelf, adding new sensors. We could be at the
forefront of these autonomous platforms and sensors. We've done
a lot of the work already, but we need to maintain that
position. And the sensors that are developed have lots of other
marine applications, so I think an investment in this
technology could really expand our ability to work in that
space.
Mr. Kean. In your testimony, you state that there are--
tradeoffs exist for all CDR technologies across different
evaluation criteria, but further research investment is likely
warranted to support future deployment decisions. With that in
mind, in the broader conversation of carbon dioxide removal and
emissions reductions, are there any particular removal
techniques that you would say do not warrant future deployment,
and if so, for what reasons?
Dr. Doney. I guess I'd say the--I'd maybe frame it as the
techniques that I think show real promise. I think some of the
alkalinity approaches--because--you know, the reason why the
ocean takes up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere anyway is
because it's alkaline. And in fact, the long-term fate of all
the carbon we emit to the atmosphere, almost all of it will
eventually end up in the ocean because weathering products add
alkalinity to the ocean. So in that sense, the more geochemical
approaches are just accelerating an ongoing natural process,
speeding up the ocean uptake. And I think there's a lot of
promise there.
Mr. Kean. OK. Thank you.
And, Mr. Tarbell, in your testimony, you state that public-
private partnerships have the potential to advance the field as
it relates to the safety and efficacy of marine carbon dioxide
removal. To date, what advancements have you seen in this space
already, where the private sector is making a difference in
mCDR that the Federal Government could not on its own?
Mr. Tarbell. So this has been the focus of our
collaboration with NOAA and DOE and in our work at Pacific
Northwest National Labs, and it's focused on the science of
safety. It's focused on the science of efficacy, of proving
that we're pulling CO2 out of the air. Excuse me.
And I think what private industry does well is innovation and
pace of scale. And what the government is proving to do well is
supporting basic research, supporting science, supporting
guardrails and guidelines. And so the collaboration between the
two is helping us advance a solution that has promise.
Mr. Kean. Yes. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Kean.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to put my
statement into the record.
Chairman Miller. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
Ross, Chairman Williams, and Ranking Member Bowman, for holding
this important hearing today.
I believe that marine carbon dioxide removal, or m-C-D-R
for short, has the potential to play a significant role in our
nation's and indeed the world's efforts to mitigate and even
reverse the growing impacts of the climate crisis. That is why
I am very happy that this Committee has worked together in a
strong, bipartisan fashion to craft this hearing, and to put
together draft legislation that considers both the costs and
benefits of these proposed solutions.
And I do want to be very clear about this: we do not yet
know if the projected benefits of any of the approaches to m-C-
D-R will outweigh their possible environmental risks. That is
precisely why we need a robust research program to better
inform policymakers regarding the pros and cons of potentially
employing m-C-D-R methods and technologies in our fight against
climate change.
I also want to be clear that while I am quite supportive of
developing and using any safe, verifiably effective
technologies that could substantially remove harmful greenhouse
gas emissions from our atmosphere, this is no substitution for
the urgent need to decarbonize our energy use as quickly as
possible. The problem is far too large at this point for us to
sufficiently address it through carbon capture alone.
Further, several carbon removal technologies are quite
energy intensive, and will need widely deployable, zero-
emission sources of 24/7 power like fusion energy to actually
be effective in reducing net carbon emissions. This is yet
another reason that we need to be fully funding the Science
part of the CHIPS and Science Act. We've certainly made a lot
of progress, but I believe that the next generation of
technologies will be absolutely essential in ensuring our clean
energy future. And to get there, we need to put our money where
our mouth is.
With that, I would like to thank you all again for being
here. I'm looking forward to a productive discussion this
morning, and I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. And then I'd like to say I think this is one
of the most important hearings that the Science Committee has
had this year and maybe in many years.
We're at a point where eliminating emissions is not enough.
We're going to need to remove carbon to have a future as a
planet. We know that. And the role of carbon removal in our
oceans is an important one, but not an easy one.
Listening to all of you and reading your testimony, you
know, we've got a situation where the ocean itself is in
trouble. I mean, we've seen the reefs dying off, and that will
have implications for the planet in terms of food supply and
the like. How we are going to remove carbon safely and
permanently is something that we're grappling with.
Now, one of the things that I'm interested in, Mr. Deich,
if that--I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly. I'm
wondering, has the Department done any analysis on which mCDR
technologies are likely to be the most energy-intensive? And
I'm also wondering if we've examined the value of potential
future clean energy sources like fusion, which this Committee,
on a bipartisan basis, is working hard to support. I ask that
because, it's successful, fusion would be able to provide large
amounts of 24/7 energy anywhere without an emission problem.
What is your answer to that?
Mr. Deich. So it's a great question. We haven't looked
specifically at a ranking of which of these technologies are
most energy efficient, but instead are really focusing our
strategy for innovation to understand the energy balance
associated with a wide range of technologies. Our goal is to
assess not just the energy impacts, but a wide range of
performance and environmental impacts of these technologies
and, as we learn more from early R&D efforts, use that
information to inform future pilots and then larger-scale
demonstrations as appropriate.
We also are pursuing, as a department, many different clean
energy solutions. The Earthshots represent--our Moonshots in
that direction. We've explored how we can work with carbon
removal more broadly to some energy sources like nuclear, but
we have not done specific analysis on how they could couple to
marine CDR approaches yet, but it's an area of importance and
one that we think is worthwhile pursuing in the future.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I'm wondering if any of you can answer
how we calculate, if at all, the net removal of carbon dioxide
for the various mCDR technologies, even land-based CDR
technologies, related to emissions for the energy source that
might be used. I mean, you know, if we're using fossil fuels to
support this, we're defeating ourselves. How are we calculating
that?
Mr. Deich. So whenever we think about the carbon impacts of
a technology, we look at the what we call cradle-to-grave
lifecycle impacts, and so we try and understand all of the
upstream emission impacts, as well as the carbon storage
benefits of this for all of our approaches. And DOE has
published guidelines for some carbon removal solutions. We hope
to expand that in the future. And we also support our national
labs to conduct analysis on that topic and are eager to support
a wide range of carbon removal solution efforts to make sure
that we do capture all of the upstream and downstream impacts
of these technologies.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Tarbell, thank you so much for your
testimony and for the work that you're doing. How do you ensure
that the energy used for mCDR comes from clean energy sources?
And, additionally, if you are using clean energy sources, that
that is not diverting clean energy from other uses so that they
would need fossil fuels, can you address that?
Mr. Tarbell. Yes, so our approach, starting with first
principles, is one of the lowest energy-intensity approaches to
electrochemical marine CDR, and so we start by using less
energy. When we use energy, we can use it intermittently, so
our system is quite flexible, and that's intentional in order
to accommodate low-carbon sources of energy that are prevalent
today like wind and solar. We can essentially use industry best
practices to account for the hourly energy, you know, carbon
intensity on the particular node of the grid that we're
operating. And so we can essentially sum up the carbon
emissions associated with that generation and then subtract
that from what we have removed from the atmosphere.
Ms. Lofgren. You're not able, I'm sure, to monitor
diversion of those energy sources from other potential uses?
Mr. Tarbell. One of the intriguing possibilities here is
because we're operating intermittently, because we can be
flexible in the way that we demand energy, we can actually
support the growth of intermittent sources like wind and solar.
So instead of necessarily taking away from the production of
low-carbon energy, we can actually stimulate the growth of wind
and solar on the grid.
Ms. Lofgren. I could see that, as a concept that makes
sense, but it's not a monitoring scheme. So I look forward to
further research on this.
And I know my time is up, so I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
I now recognize Mr. Fong out of California for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deich, you mentioned--is that how you pronounce--yes,
all right. You mentioned the need for a strong and science-
driven market for carbon credits in your testimony. Broadly
speaking, what are some of the challenges right now with the
voluntary carbon market at present where science-driven
decisionmaking is not necessarily occurring?
Mr. Deich. Yes, thank you. I think when we think about the
voluntary carbon market, the product that we're really
delivering is integrity. Without that integrity, nobody
believes that the carbon that you're claiming is real, and that
credit has very little value. And so our Administration has
committed to a set of voluntary carbon market principles really
focused on additionality, permanence, a number of criteria
about ensuring that all carbon market credits in the voluntary
context are done with the highest integrity possible.
We see a significant opportunity for CDR approaches to have
really high integrity. And at DOE, that's really where we
contribute to the voluntary carbon market. And many of our
investments are designed specifically to that. The Chairman
mentioned our ARPA-E program really focused on making sure that
the sensors and modeling are robust for these technologies
because we see that as equally important as the actual
technology development itself.
But the flip side of that coin is that the voluntary market
is still far too small to support carbon removal at the scale
that we ultimately will need and in--critically in the near
term for it to commercialize. So one of the key things is to
make sure that not only we do technology development and really
robust measurement reporting and verification, but that
corporate leaders continue to step up and invest more in these
high-integrity credits, even if they cost more than what the
market has historically paid for carbon credits, knowing that
that integrity is really robust.
Mr. Fong. So that leads to my next question, which is,
given your experience working in carbon capture removal in both
of the private sector and now at the Department of Energy, you
know, can you explain what warrants Federal investment in
marine carbon dioxide removal? Like in what--in other words,
what does the Federal Government stand to gain through the
millions of dollars being invested in this type of R&D?
Mr. Deich. So I think investment in this field can provide
a number of really important benefits. The first is expanding
our toolkit as we think about how do we actually achieve the
carbon removal outcomes that we need and making it more
accessible to a broad community of stakeholders across the
United States.
The second piece is the co-benefits that have been
mentioned. And if we can figure out how to deliver carbon
removal really responsibly, in many cases, we can unlock a wide
range of co-benefits, as we've heard here from local reduction
in ocean acidification, potentially helping bring on more clean
electricity to the grid, as well as many other local benefits
to ecosystems. And only by investing in that early stage R&D
will we be able to figure out how to do that in a responsible
manner.
Mr. Fong. And my last question, certainly, this hearing is
focused on marine carbon dioxide removal. How do you how
compare it to other carbon capture technologies?
Mr. Deich. So when we think about the carbon removal
portfolio, we are not trying to pick winners at the Department
of Energy. We've actually worked with Livermore National Lab to
produce what--a report called the ``Roads to Removal'' report.
And if you think about carbon removal broadly, there are
opportunities across almost every county in the United States
if you think broadly.
And so what we're trying to do is encourage technology
development across a lot of different pathways. There are still
uncertainties across all of them, and our work is designed to
try and minimize some of those uncertainties and make sure that
there are opportunities for the communities across the United
States.
Mr. Fong. Got you. So versus air--direct air capture or
this or that, you're agnostic in terms of what that would--what
would be the benefits?
Mr. Deich. We don't think of it as versus. We think of it
as yes/and. Direct air capture has a role in many communities,
ocean CDR and others. If we can figure out how to develop those
in parallel, it will enable us to deliver the overall CDR
outcome more effectively.
Mr. Fong. I certainly appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Fong.
I now recognize Ms. Bonamici from Oregon for 5 minutes of
questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And thank you to the Chairs and
the Ranking Members, but especially to the witnesses.
I represent a significant portion of the Oregon coast. I
also co-chair the Oceans Caucus and have served on this
Committee for years, working on a bipartisan basis on both
ocean acidification legislation and blue carbon legislation, so
I'm grateful for the conversation today.
More recently, I've been working with Mr. Tonko of this
Committee on a--the best approach, science-based approach to
strengthen Federal mCDR research to provide robust community
engagement, including community benefit planning, which I know
came up this morning, and to build a foundation to really
evaluate these technologies for future development. And I look
forward to working not only with Mr. Tonko, but others on this
Committee, with NOAA, and other stakeholders as we introduce
this bill. Also, we're watching--which I understand is coming
out soon--for the Fast Track Action Committee's report and
recommendations, hopefully soon.
And I know that some of these issues have been addressed,
but I want to really dive in. Dr. Kapnick, thank you for being
here. I know with a--with Dr. Spinrad being an Oregonian, he's
very familiar with this important work. As we've discussed,
mCDR has great potential to remove emissions, but we have to be
mindful, of course, weighing the climate advantages and
potential environmental and community consequences. Potential
harms could be localized, especially on research sites in
coastal communities, affecting residents, fisheries, coastal
tribes.
So what can NOAA and the scientific community do to build
trust with stakeholders and community members? Which of these
actions--and we want, you know, to include compliance. What
would you do to include compliance with the marine CDR research
code of conduct? And what role should NOAA play to really
facilitate that community engagement, including providing the
expertise and permitting for future research and testing?
Dr. Kapnick. First, thank you very much for your question
and for all of your leadership on ocean issues, especially on
ocean acidification. I--especially with this question--thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to talk about communities
and the work that NOAA does, particularly with Sea Grant, where
we have the engagement capacity in coastal States to be able to
work with them on the engagement. It is critical for this type
of work. It's critical for the development of the research plan
when it's happening in our universities, but as it goes into
the communities and as we experiment and then beyond, we need
to work with all the communities on understanding the science,
understanding what is being done, the impacts, and working hand
in hand with them.
Additionally, on the question of permitting, EPA and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers are the leads on permitting, and NOAA
consults on those, as required by law. So it's important for us
to have our deep research program to be able to provide all the
support that we need to in the engagements that we do in local
communities.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Thank you for mentioning the great
Sea Grant program.
And I want to ask Mr. Tarbell, you mentioned you're working
closely with local communities. Briefly, because I might want
to get a question--another question in, what are you hearing
from them?
Mr. Tarbell. Yes. So coastal communities are some of the
most impacted by climate change, as you know, and so, you know,
as we talk to them, we are understanding some of the potential
tangible benefits to them. Ocean acidification is affecting
local industries. You know, the shellfish industry in the
northwest, Pacific Northwest----
Ms. Bonamici. I'm very familiar with that word.
Mr. Tarbell. Yes, had to, you know, lose billions of
oysters in the last 20 years. And so, you know, the
opportunities we're seeing are around helping mitigate ocean
acidification, keeping homegrown innovation at home,
rejuvenating local industrial sites that we'll be locating at.
But, yes, there's a----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I might need to follow up on
the record because I want to ask Dr. Doney.
As you noted, natural-based solutions like blue carbon are
more well understood. We understand the benefits. We have
existing processes in place, but other methods like the ocean
alkalinity enhancement or direct ocean capture require,
certainly, a lot more research. So how can we guarantee that
research is precautionary and doesn't lead to more
environmental or social harm? And what guardrails should we
have in place to enforce that?
Dr. Doney. Well, I think one of the things that the Federal
Government is already doing is playing a role in setting up
rules for permitting that, as we move from small-scale lab
experiments to mesocosms to field pilot studies, we have the
right framework. Are we doing the right validation? Are we
looking at environmental consequences? Are we engaging with
local communities that might be affected?
So I think one of the things that the Federal Government
can do in terms of private and philanthropic approaches is to
lay out those clear guidelines and rules, and I think that's
what the agencies are doing. I look forward to seeing the Fast
Track Action Committee report as well.
Ms. Bonamici. Yes, thank you. As someone who's experienced
this over the last more than a decade, I just can't emphasize
enough the importance of that community engagement with the
stakeholders, with tribes, and others. So thank you.
I'm out of time and yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Baird out of Indiana for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the
witnesses being here.
My questioning starts off with Dr. Kapnick. You know,
earlier this year, I passed the Carbon Sequestration
Collaboration Act, a first-of-its-kind Federal research plan
that required the Department to collaborate with, coordinate
with, and share data with other agencies engaged in carbon
sequestration research. Collaborating agencies include the
Department of Agriculture, the National Labs, the U.S. Forest
Service, just to name a few.
So in light of NOAA's intent to engage in carbon
sequestration with our oceans, can you give us some idea on
your perspective on the importance of the collaboration with
these agencies in sharing data, in coordinating research plans?
Dr. Kapnick. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. We--
all of our data and information that we produce abides by our
principles for transparency and making it available,
interoperable, being able to find it. We see an importance in
building the infrastructure for that data management and
availability. And in this field in particular, due to the
importance in the equities of Department of Energy, we pursued
an MOA with them to be able to help us outline how we should
work together and to be able to launch that capability for
working together. And I will even add, we even have a Sea Grant
fellow working between our agencies as a fundamental glue to
ensure that we are working as closely together as we can.
Mr. Baird. So any other witness have anything you'd like to
add to that? Yes, sir?
Mr. Deich. So from the Department of Energy's perspective,
we have a long history with carbon sequestration on the
terrestrial side. The National Energy Technology Lab has done
an amazing job of creating the EDX (Energy Data eXchange)
platform to share a lot of that learnings, and it has benefited
industry. And so I think the lab in particular has amazing
capabilities to be able to deliver on that transparent data-
sharing across the carbon sequestration world.
Mr. Baird. Well, you know, you have--I really--I'm really
impressed with the amount of computer capability and quantum
computing that the Department of Energy has, and then to share
that data across different agencies, I think, increases
efficiency and provides opportunity to discover additional
pieces of information that we might not have now.
So, Mr. Deich, is that--if I pronounced that correctly,
since you spoke up, I'm going to ask you a question. The
Department of Energy's Fossil Energy and Carbon Management has
invested in a number of ocean-based carbon management R&D
projects and a number of projects that are located in States
without an ocean on their borders such as Pennsylvania,
Kentucky, and North Dakota. So could you talk to us about the
value of marine CDR research to all States like Indiana, for
example, with a number of world-class research institutions not
just near the ocean?
Mr. Deich. Yes. So the Department of Energy works with
world-class researchers, not just at our national labs, but
across academic institutions around the United States. And
there's actually amazing expertise on the ocean, not
necessarily located in coastal States, as you mentioned. And so
I think there's an amazing opportunity to link many of those
world-class research institutions with some of the early
research and development projects that we're doing in order to
understand how these projects work, not just from a technical
and economic perspective, but from all of the other ecosystem
and environmental impacts.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Does any other witness have anything
to add to that?
Hearing none, I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Baird.
I now recognize Mrs. Foushee out of North Carolina for 5
minutes questions.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
witnesses for being here with us today.
I represent North Carolina's 4th Congressional District,
and while my district does not represent coastal communities,
North Carolina has over 300 miles of coastline that play a
vital role in the country's economy, including soon-to-be
energy development within offshore wind sector.
Dr. Kapnick, in addition to Federal interagency
coordination, can you talk about the interstate cooperation and
collaboration that needs to take place, specifically amongst
coastal States like mine, to ensure that marine carbon dioxide
removal research and development is executed effectively?
Dr. Kapnick. Thank you very much for your question. Because
we're working with the ocean and there are ocean currents,
things move around. Ecosystems move around. Whales move around.
Having knowledge and building up the understanding and working
across all of the States is absolutely critical as we are able
to predict and project where things are moving and the
lifecycle of carbon over time.
I will also add something that hasn't come up is there is
an entire supply chain potentially for this technology coming
from Department of Commerce. It--the benefits won't just be in
the coastal States because the whole--if you looked
holistically at the supply chain of what is needed to do these
activities, it may include economic development that can occur
far from the coast.
Mrs. Foushee. Can you describe any current or planned
interstate regional collaborations with Federal agencies on
marine carbon dioxide removal?
Dr. Kapnick. Sea Grant--thank you for the question. Sea
Grant is actually setting up a law and policy symposium and--on
mCDR that will be occurring in a couple of months, and the
reason for that is we are seeing interest across different Sea
Grant programs. And so they are bringing that together to have
the discussion across all the programs and do the community
outreach on this issue on legal and policy issues to think
through some of those hard issues that you're raising.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Weber of Texas for 5 minutes--excuse
me. Yes. Yes. I will now recognize Mr. Weber of Texas for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Weber. Phew, thanks. All right.
Mr.--is it Deich or Deich?
Mr. Deich. Deich.
Mr. Weber. Deich, thank you. I appreciate you being here.
In October 2023, DOE announced funding for 11 projects
across eight States. I'm sure you know that. I feel like I'm
telling Noah about the flood. One of those projects housed at
the University of Texas in Austin will study the ecosystem
activity and the efficacy of storing carbon in shallow seagrass
beds. Given the importance of diverse ecosystems that support
recreation and the economy across my district--I'm the three
really coastal counties, starting at the Louisiana border, that
other foreign country, and going down, those situated along the
Texas Gulf Coast. Our ecosystem that supports recreation across
my district situated across the Texas Gulf Coast, are you able
to share with us any updates on that particular project?
Mr. Deich. Thank you for the question. I don't have
specific updates on that project, but I can say that where we
are starting our research at DOE is really not just
understanding the technology, but understanding exactly those
impacts to communities from an ecosystem and economic
perspective as well because we recognize how important that is.
And from the very beginning of these research projects, we want
to understand what those impacts will be so we can inform
future deployments.
Mr. Weber. Well, we do, too, given all the recreation and
this--and the--and actually the economy that's from our seven
ports. I guess we could probably reach out at the University of
Texas there in Austin, maybe get an update on what they're
finding.
What role do you see for the Gulf of Mexico in the
development of marine carbon dioxide removal, both in testing
and implementation going forward?
Mr. Deich. Yes, it's a great question. I think one of the
important aspects of the diversity of marine carbon removal
solutions is some work better in cold waters, other in warm
waters, and the fact that the United States has opportunity to
test both is really important, as well as in shallow versus
deep water ecosystems. And so I think it's going to be a
critical field where we're able to test many of the carbon
removal approaches that work best.
Mr. Weber. Yes, I was wondering about that with your
exchange with the lady before me. I think she says she's from
North Carolina. Of course, that's--Gulf of Mexico is a lot
warmer water than, of course, Atlantic Ocean is.
Mr. Doney, in your testimony, you describe potential
benefits to the ecosystems and marine life from using different
techniques. For example, in referencing ocean alkalinity
enhancement, you stated, quote, ``The resulting pH increase
would also directly counteract anthropogenic CO2-
induced ocean acidification that is negatively impacting marine
ecosystems,'' end quote. You're--you know what I'm referring
to? OK. I was a little late getting in because I was with
Energy and Commerce, so I didn't get to hear everybody's
testimony.
Mr. Doney--is it Doney?
Dr. Doney. Yes.
Mr. Weber. OK. Can you expand on the potential benefits of
marine carbon dioxide removal and any potential pitfalls? You
know, we want to also know that--we want to know not just the
good, but the bad. This is one of those good, bad, and ugly
movies. Expand on potential benefits of marine carbon dioxide
removal and any potential pitfalls to these ecosystems that are
critical to coastal communities such as my district, as I've
described it, warm water Gulf of Mexico.
Dr. Doney. Right. So you already mentioned the seagrass
project from University of Texas. I think one of the, in some
ways, safer approaches are these conservation and restoration
approaches such as restoring damaged wetlands or protecting
carbon-rich ecosystems because these are systems that already--
are already functioning biologically, and if they have the
benefit of adding carbon, as well as biodiversity and
recreation, fisheries, that's great. Where I think we have more
concerns is where we're manipulating the biology in a way
that's different than the natural state.
Mr. Weber. I was just thinking about that. In my district
in the Gulf of Mexico, we have a lot of oyster beds, and so I
guess--I'm 71 years old. I've grown up in a 20-mile radius all
71 years old, although a lot of people consider I'm not really
grown up. But--so if it was working for oyster beds, and if
it--if the natural habitat was working, are we concerned that
we're changing that level somehow?
Dr. Doney. Yes, that is one of the concerns with adding--
for example, adding alkalinity that--we haven't done as much
work on the local effects of what's going to happen on the
ecosystem. Over long time scales, as it gets diluted out, it's
probably not as big of a concern, but locally at the
distribution point, it might shock some of the organisms. And,
as Dr. Kapnick has talked about, there's a lot of work in NOAA
on the acidification side, less so on the alkalinity
enhancement side.
Mr. Weber. Have you been to the Gulf Coast of Texas?
Dr. Doney. Oh yes.
Mr. Weber. We want you to come back and spend lots of
money.
I yield back.
Chairman Miller. I now recognize Mr. Casten out of Illinois
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. So I really appreciate--thank you to
the Chair for having this hearing. I'm getting flashbacks. When
I first joined this Committee about 6 years ago, I think one of
the first hearings I was in I made the observation that the
conversation about whether we need to get to zero CO2
emissions by 2030 or 2050 is sort of dumb because a--human
supporting--the kind of civilization we want needs CO2
to be below 350 parts per million, which means we need to stop
emitting CO2 by about 1995. And in the absence of a
time machine, we need what you all are doing, so we need to do
it more and do it faster.
Dr. Kapnick, I'd like to start with you just because,
first, I just want to make sure I've got my numbers right
because I was looking things up on the internet, and that's
always dangerous. If I understand right, on the margin, if we
emit another ton of CO2 to the atmosphere, about 30
percent of it ends up in the ocean. Is that right?
Dr. Kapnick. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Casten. OK. Chalk up one to the internet. And then, No.
2, that for every additional unit of heat that the atmosphere
takes in because of anthropogenic global warming, I think about
90 percent of that heat ends up in the ocean. Do I have that
about right?
Dr. Kapnick. That is also correct. The majority is in the
ocean.
Mr. Casten. OK. That latter number scares the dickens out
of me. So I wonder if you could help out because if we're--
given as we are heating the ocean much faster than the
atmosphere, and we all appreciate that--what we feel in the
atmosphere, how concerned should we be about feedback loops,
particularly on ocean acidification, right? Because if we're--
if the ocean's heating up, we're increasing the solubility of
CO2, is that 30 percent moving? Are we seeing
accelerations in acidification?
Dr. Kapnick. Yes, there are concerns that it is not going
to remain exactly the same over time, and that is why we have a
robust program for understanding how ocean uptake may change
over time. And mCDR, the thinking of doing some of the research
of it was originally to understand the carbon cycle in the
ocean, understand what might happen in the future. But then, as
we potentially do this, it speeds up the natural processes of
carbon uptake into the ocean and accelerates it to potentially
being above that 30 percent level through active management of
how the carbon is uptaken by the ocean.
Mr. Casten. But just to be clear--and I think everybody
said this up here. I want to make sure that we're all clear
that none of us are encouraging technologies that would
increase ocean acidification. Is that correct?
Dr. Kapnick. Correct.
Mr. Casten. OK.
Dr. Kapnick. We do not want to increase ocean
acidification. We are trying to manage locally.
Mr. Casten. OK. So then, given the higher rates of heat,
how confident are you--and, Mr. Deich, if you want to chime in
on this as well. How confident are we that we feel good about
the upwelling and downwelling plays? Because if the ocean is
warming up, you know, I mean, we've got plausible risk that the
Gulf Stream shuts down because places that we trusted were
reliable upwelling and downwelling spots don't work anymore. It
seems to me that if we're putting carbon in a place where we
think we're confident it's going to stay down and all of a
sudden there's an upwell, are we confident of that? Like what's
the--how should we be thinking about that?
Dr. Kapnick. Thank you for the technical question. I
believe what you're referring to is the fact that we have large
ocean occurrence in the Atlantic meridional overturning
circulation, and there is a fear that in the coming decades
that may reduce its efficacy of changing where the ocean is
sinking. That is why this type of research and understanding
and understanding of its impacts requires not just
understanding the impacts as something goes into the ocean,
then you model it out for a couple of years. It is--requires
multi-decade, multi-century review of it because the goal of
mCDR is to at least sequester for at least 100 years, and it
can be thousands of years, depending on where it's placed.
Mr. Casten. So----
Dr. Kapnick. So----
Mr. Casten [continuing]. To that end--and Ms. Ross had
mentioned this trip we did to Norway together where we went to
that longshore--longshore, I think that's what's it's called,
long--where they pumped it, but they're pumping beneath the
ocean surface so it stays permanently down. I haven't heard
about that. Is that one of the things that's in mCDR, or are we
thinking about that in a different bucket? Because at least
that way we're not worrying about ocean acidification, and
presumably, we're relatively confident it stays down.
Mr. Deich. Yes. So at DOE we think of that as a different
bucket. That's very similar to the geologic storage we do
onshore here in the United States. It's similar types of
technology and formations. Those----
Mr. Casten. OK.
Mr. Deich [continuing]. Storage formations are just
offshore.
Mr. Casten. Are you all monitoring--I guess it's Longship.
Are you monitoring that Longship process----
Mr. Deich. Yes, we----
Mr. Casten. There are some lessons learned there, I would
hope.
Mr. Deich. That's right. We collaborate closely. We have a
bilateral agreement with the Norwegians, and we actually
exchange a lot of technology learnings. They have a technology
innovation center there that complements our National Carbon
Capture Center.
Mr. Casten. OK. And I see I'm about out of time, so if we
don't have time--if the Chair will allow you to respond, great.
If not, kick this for the record. We have to do what you're
talking about, and the scale scares the dickens out of me.
There's been some talk about operating costs, but when we were
in Iceland a while ago, we were talking with the Climeworks
people, and we were just sitting there back--which is a
fascinating technology now, direct air capture, pulling this
out, and we sort of back-of-the-enveloped, and I said, OK, if
we want to take 100 parts per million out of the atmosphere to
get back below 350, that's like 800 billion tons. Then we said,
OK, take this facility, cost you $15 million, how many would
you have to build to take out 10 parts per million? And we ran
the math, and that was like 100 percent of global GDP (gross
domestic product).
And so like, as we think about these technologies, are
there anywhere we look at and say, this has the potential
physically and financially to scale to a point that matters?
Because we can do a ton of these small things, but, you know,
whatever, we'll sell some voluntary carbon credits, but if it
doesn't matter, what's the point?
Mr. Deich. So this technology is more or less where solar
was back in 1995, and that probably would have been a similar
calculation if you took the price then----
Mr. Casten. Well, but I guess my challenge is that like--
these are like pumps and filters. This is mature technology,
right?
Mr. Deich. We actually see massive potential for
innovation----
Mr. Casten. OK.
Mr. Deich [continuing]. Across it----
Mr. Casten. All right.
Mr. Deich [continuing]. And cost reduction.
Mr. Casten. To be continued. Thank you for giving me a few
more seconds. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Lee out of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes
of questions--Mr. Collins for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Collins. I'm out of Georgia.
Chairman Miller. Out of Georgia, yes, I'm aware. It's been
a rough morning, Mike.
Mr. Collins. Too much carbon dioxide. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
And I'm bad about mispronouncing names, too, so is it Mr.
Tarbell?
Mr. Tarbell. It is.
Mr. Collins. OK. All right. Thank you. Mr. Tarbell, I think
it's important that, as we talk about the growth of marine
carbon removal, we ensure it doesn't turn into the wild west
where some companies are claiming to do extraordinary things
that end up not actually materializing. And I want to avoid
anyone, especially the Federal Government, from being sold a
pipedream and investing heavily in bad actors perpetrating what
would be--amount to fraud. So how do you engage with DOE's
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to conduct measurement,
reporting, and verification so that the folks in the Federal
labs know and trust the technologies that you're developing?
Mr. Tarbell. Yes, so we have a very close collaboration
with the scientists at both NOAA and DOE at the project we're
working on at the Pacific Northwest National Labs. It's
critical for us as we grow for there to be stringent standards
and transparency around the way that we measure and report on
and quantify how much CO2 is coming out of the air.
The way we do it is through, you know, different methods of
measurement, monitoring, and modeling.
Mr. Collins. Can you get into what kind of data there
asking for?
Mr. Tarbell. So the data that's available is--there's--you
know, there's baseline data of the ocean chemistry. There's
data around how much alkalinity we're adding to the ocean. And
then there's models around how the ocean currents and ocean
conditions change based on the perturbation that we're adding.
Mr. Collins. Do you think the data they are asking for, has
it been helpful? Has it----
Mr. Tarbell. Certainly, the collaboration with DOE and NOAA
has been extremely helpful in enabling us to say with
confidence how much CO2 we're pulling out of the
air.
Mr. Collins. OK. How quickly do you think your technology
can be scaled upward in the next 5 years?
Mr. Tarbell. So the system that we've installed at Pacific
Northwest National Labs is 100 ton per year scale system. Our
goal in the next 5 years is to have deployed a million tons per
year of removal capacity. And the way we scale is by co-
locating with existing industrial facilities, so desalination
plants, mining installations, you know, existing industrial
facilities that are moving oceanwater. We couple our system to
those facilities. One large desalination plant alone can
comprise a million tons a year of capacity.
Mr. Collins. I think that--and that leads into my last
question about--and you've pretty much answered, but if you've
got any more--who's going to be the primary investors besides
the Federal Government?
Mr. Tarbell. So our investors to date are primarily venture
capital investors, and, as we grow, as we're deploying systems,
it will be more infrastructure investors, so investors doing
project financing, you know, similar to the investors that fund
the development of power plants or other infrastructure like
that.
Mr. Collins. OK. So they'll be investing and then latching
on to like the desalinization plant?
Mr. Tarbell. That's right. We co-develop projects with
operators or owners of, for example, desalination plants----
Mr. Collins. Right.
Mr. Tarbell [continuing]. And we bring in outside money
from project finance investors.
Mr. Collins. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I got. I'm going to yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
I now recognize Ms. Lee out of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes
of questions.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In October of last year, the University of Pittsburgh
received over $2 million in funding from the U.S. Department of
Energy to develop marine carbon capture technologies and
accelerate novel climate solutions. The Pitt team will be using
this ARPA-E funding to develop optical fiber sensors that will
measure pH and carbon dioxide in seawater from the ocean's
surface and the seafloor. Sensing technology like this could be
a gamechanger for integration into other applications like
public infrastructure to help prevent disasters, for instance,
like the collapse of the Fern Hollow Bridge in my district last
year, so I look forward to seeing, you know, this particular
project developed.
But, you know, just to get down to it, I was elected to
this office by communities and constituents that simply seek
practical solutions to everyday problems that they face. So, as
I continue to learn more on this subject matter, I'm curious to
hear from our witnesses today how marine carbon dioxide removal
plays into the bigger questions addressing the climate crisis.
Mr. Tarbell, could you share more the type and volume of
resources required to carry out mCDR operations?
Mr. Tarbell. Yes, there's several different buckets of
activity that are required to deploy one of our systems. So,
first, our focus historically has been R&D, so designing and
engineering systems that work, that address the science and
demonstrate safety and efficacy. As we scale, we veer more into
the realm of deployment and the capital required to actually
build out plants. And so, you know, the resources required
there are around capital investments in building out equipment.
The--you know, the opportunity for us to accelerate the
growth of this through partnership and investments from the
Federal Government are--you know, primarily what we're looking
for is an opportunity to level the playing field, to be tech
neutral in the incentives to enable the best solutions to rise
to the top. And so, you know, we're looking for opportunities
to fund R&D, to stimulate the growth of the best technologies,
and then opportunities for deployment of the technologies that
are most promising.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Deich, R&D is experimental at its
fundamental core. How can the Department commit to partner with
communities to ensure equity in reaping the benefits of carbon
removal without potentially causing harm to ecosystems, our
local communities in poor, vulnerable regions through mCDR
experimentation?
Mr. Deich. That's a great question, and it's the core of
how we're approaching our early investments in research and
development. We're requiring the projects to build community
benefit plans around their projects that look at the broad not
just environmental impacts, but workforce impacts as well. And
we're also trying to understand through these early research
projects what those environmental impacts are so that we can
inform not just how to mitigate any risks, but how to take
advantage of any benefits that this could provide to local
communities in terms of environment, economy, and workforce.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Tarbell, again, is it a failure if
R&D teaches us that this technology is not scalable to address
CO2 removal at the needed level to meet our climate
goals?
Mr. Tarbell. We should be focusing our investments on the
technologies that can have an impact. Our company's mission is
to remove billions of tons of CO2 from the air, and
if the technology we're working on is not capable of that, we
need to shift our focus to something that will.
Ms. Lee. So the climate crisis, from extreme heat to
unprecedented flooding, disproportionately affects Black and
Brown communities. How will the R&D of mCDR improve the lives
of families who struggle to combat the daily realities of the
climate crisis in their homes and communities, if at all? And
that's for any who would like to answer.
Dr. Doney. I do want to say, you know, so the Federal
Government published the ``Ocean Justice Strategy'' last
winter. There are a lot of--whether it's minority communities
or indigenous communities, there are a lot of complicated
issues that I don't think the sort of--a lot of the research
community have really addressed. And I see this as an
opportunity, as we move forward, to do this in a better way
than we've done previous research where we've done research
independently of the communities. So I see the community
engagement as a really crucial part. And in part, we need to
find out what the right questions to ask are.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Thank you. I really do appreciate that
answer, and I appreciate you all being here today. And that's
my time, and I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. In closing, I just
want to thank all the witnesses sincerely for the valuable
testimony here this morning and the Members for their
questions. The record will remain open for 10 days and
additional comments and written questions from Members. Thank
you very much again.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]