Climate Vault Launches RFP Round for Innovative Carbon Dioxide Removal Projects

Learn more

In July, I had the opportunity to attend the inaugural Advancing Ocean CDR Summit in Boston. The summit brought together a diverse group of researchers, entrepreneurs, and industry experts, all focused on a shared goal: advancing ocean carbon dioxide removal (CDR) research and technologies. The event’s smaller and intimate setting fostered in-depth discussions that allowed for ongoing dialogue, particularly around the challenges of monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV)—a topic that is not so easily addressed over a single cup of coffee. 

MRV was a common thread woven throughout the discussions and presentations during the two-day conference. What stood out to me most were the discussions on the purpose of MRV and how we might reconsider its components, the core challenges to implementing standardized MRV approaches, and the variety of research efforts underway to advance knowledge and standardization in the space.

Unpacking MRV: More Than Just Monitoring

MRV is the backbone of any carbon removal project. Simply put, MRV provides a structured framework for ensuring that CDR activities are accurately measured, transparently reported, and independently verified. This in turn enhances the CDR project’s credibility and the validity of carbon removal claims.

For example, if an ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) project claims to have removed 100 tons of CO2, how do you confirm that this is true? The answer is by reviewing their MRV framework. A solid MRV framework clearly details the procedures, mechanisms, and calculations used to determine a project’s carbon removal potential – including any models or assumptions involved – and can be reproduced and substantiated by an independent auditor.

This is MRV. Or at least, this is what most of us think about when we think about MRV. But as conversations continued on this topic, it became clear to me that MRV goes beyond just confirming carbon removal capacity. It is also about demonstrating that projects adhere to laws and regulations designed to protect ecosystems, wildlife, and communities. And in order to do this successfully, MRV procedures should be designed with these criteria in mind, so that potential impacts can be measured and documented from the get-go. 

Additionally, collecting these data sets as part of a comprehensive MRV process can help project developers to better assess project results, anticipate future project needs and impacts, and more effectively plan for these changes over the course of a project’s lifetime. In this manner, MRV is also a critical mechanism for effectively scaling CDR solutions. 

On this note, Nicolas Sdez, CEO and Co-Founder of PRONOE, aptly summarized during a presentation that the current “M” in MRV does not effectively capture the full scope of the process. Instead, he suggested expanding the definition to include “Models” and “Measurements” alongside “Monitoring.” In effect: Models, Measurements, Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification. Or perhaps we could collectively agree to refer to it more simply as “M3RV”. This broader approach recognizes the importance of modeling and measuring potential impacts from the outset, ensuring that projects and their MRV frameworks take a more comprehensive approach.

4 Challenges in MRV Development

Despite its importance, MRV development faces significant hurdles. Some are simply due to the ocean’s inherent complexity, while others are the result of our own processes for vetting and advancing scientific research. During a panel discussion featuring Nate Beatty (former VP of Applied Science at Running Tide), Tremaine Bowman (Scientific Project Manager at Seafields) and Morgan Reed Raven (Chief Science Officer at Carboniferous), these leaders discussed key challenges facing MRV development. Of these, four stood out to me as key areas in need of continued, dedicated focus:

  1. Tool Limitations: The ocean is a complex and challenging environment for conducting research. The further you venture from shore or deeper underwater, the more difficult it becomes to conduct experiments and take measurements. Enhancing the tools and systems we use in these environments is crucial for developing robust and reliable MRV processes. Tools that more effectively and reliably model ocean system interactions are needed to establish baselines for MRV activities and predict the range of potential outcomes from mCDR projects. In case you missed it, this is a subject that Climate Vault highlighted in its recent response to the National Science Foundation’s RFI to develop a comprehensive “Marine CDR Plan” to advance critical mCDR research. I invite you to dive into our response here.
  2. Regional Variability: The ocean is not a uniform environment, and conditions can vary dramatically from one region to another. Factors like wave activity, salinity, and water temperature differ across locations. For example, if you launch a pilot facility off the coast of California, you can’t assume that your variables and findings from this test location will be the same if you conducted the same test off the coast of Florida or Norway. The conditions you observe in one location, and the resulting data, cannot be easily extrapolated to other regions. This variability significantly complicates the scaling of mCDR projects. Given these challenges, a panelist emphasized the need for partnerships between research groups across different regions. By conducting simultaneous studies in diverse locations and making the data accessible, we can accelerate the development of MRV standards that account for these regional differences.
  3. Lack of Standardization: The mCDR field is still in its infancy, which means there’s a lack of standardized approaches to MRV. The diversity across technological methods, materials, and models used, as well as the aforementioned regional variability, makes it difficult to develop a one-size-fits-all standard. As more sophisticated research tools are developed, pilot facilities are implemented, and the findings are shared and continue to be built upon, we will continue to move towards more comprehensive MRV procedures. In the meantime, there are some promising collaborations taking place between start-ups and verification bodies to help close this gap. These organizations are working together to create bespoke MRV standards for specific CDR methods. These partnerships are an encouraging first step toward more comprehensive and consistent MRV procedures, and I look forward to seeing how these efforts continue to evolve.
  4. Limited Peer Review Resources: Another significant challenge discussed was the bottleneck in peer review and publication. In scientific research, peer review is a crucial step in validating findings, but there is currently a shortage of experts available to review and publish new research in the mCDR field. This bottleneck slows the dissemination of critical data and insights. Expanding funding and exploring alternative approaches to streamline the peer review process, without sacrificing scientific rigor, could help address this issue.

NOAA’s Leadership in mCDR Research

Amid these challenges, there are bright spots. For those of us who are not scientists or do not sit squarely in the academic arena, it can be difficult to conceptualize and keep pace with the important work that is being conducted to address key research needs. This is why one of the summit’s highlights for me was a presentation by Gabby Kitch, Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Lead for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Ocean Acidification Program, who discussed NOAA’s mCDR research portfolio. 

NOAA’s work spans a variety of methods, from macroalgae and biomass sinking to ocean iron fertilization. Learning about the specific projects and the talented scientists leading them made the current research efforts more tangible for me. It also made me feel even more inspired about our collective ability to address the challenges in developing MRV standards and advance mCDR technologies. If you want to learn more, I encourage you to check out NOAA’s research portfolio and CDR focus areas here. 

What I’m Reading Next

With all this talk of research and MRV development, there’s two publications that I’m looking forward to digging into following the summit: 

Final Thoughts

On the train ride back to New York City, I found myself thinking about the dedicated group of scientists, entrepreneurs, and advocates I met at the summit. The road ahead in combating climate change is long, but the progress being made in mCDR gives me hope. The event made it clear that MRV is a cornerstone of credibility in the CDR space, and it will be essential for scaling these developing technologies effectively and safely.  The inaugural Advancing Ocean CDR Summit was a significant step forward, and I’m excited to see where this journey leads. A big thank you to Hanson Wade Group for organizing such a thought-provoking event—I look forward to many more to come!

This post was guest-written by Brynn Esterly, Climate Vault’s Head of Carbon Removal Solutions

About Brynn Esterly

Brynn Esterly is a climate and sustainability professional with 10+ years of experience within the financial services industry. In her current role as Head of Carbon Removal Solutions at Climate Vault, she is responsible for leading the annual RFP process for innovative CDR solutions. Her expertise spans environmental markets, product management, investor relations and corporate communications. She received a Masters in Sustainability Management from Columbia University. Connect with Brynn on LinkedIn here.