The Pacific Northwest mCDR Node officially launched with a half-day in-person gathering of 65 invited participants at the Seattle Mountaineers Center on April 17, 2024. The location and timing of this event were chosen to facilitate participation by those traveling to Seattle to attend a separate Carbon Business Council CDR Symposium the following day. In addition to a strong showing from the Washington state mCDR community, Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, California and Washington DC were also well-represented1.

Pacific Northwest Node co-leads Meg Chadsey (WA Sea Grant), Sara Nawaz (American University) and Kohen Bauer (Ocean Networks Canada) opened the event with an overview of the Ocean Carbon & Biogeochemistry Program’s vision for regional mCDR Nodes, how the Pacific Northwest Node might function in support of that vision (including a proposed Code of Conduct), and suggestions for potential Node objectives and activities. They then set the stage for an engaging and interactive event with a casual ‘speed-introduction’ exercise, to help participants put faces to names and make new connections.

A few invited speakers provided context for the afternoon breakout sessions. David Redford, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds, outlined the agency’s current mCDR regulatory framework. Global Ocean Health Programs & Partnerships Director Francesca Hillery shared how Partnerships for Tribal Carbon Solutions is supporting Tribal leadership in carbon removal development and governance. PNNL Earth Scientist Jessica Cross made a compelling pitch for mCDR test beds, and encouraged participants to ‘put a Pacific Northwest spin’ on the breakout session topics: Permitting & Regulations; Social Issues & Engagement; Modeling; and Test Beds.

Breakout Session Summaries

The rest of the program was devoted to facilitated breakout discussions, report-outs and synthesis. The following paragraphs attempt to summarize these rich conversations; detailed notes from each breakout session available on request.

Permitting & Regulations

Participants categorized permitting challenges as either tactical (issues with the process itself) or strategic (stemming from data gaps and inadequate scientific and regulatory frameworks). Process length and complexity was cited as the primary tactical barrier, exacerbated by a mismatch between the pace of industry developments and the ability of agencies to respond. The strategic conversation focused on the disconnect between existing laws and fundamental mCDR processes, and the current dearth of basic scientific knowledge needed to develop fit-for-purpose regulations and ecological risk/benefit assessments. Participants noted that better awareness of regulators’ information needs would allow researchers and developers to proactively design their projects to address key issues. They also acknowledged the need for better communication between regulators, developers and communities, which could be improved by the creation of a ‘common local and federal language’.

Social Issues & Engagement

As public backlash to some proposed mCDR trials has shown, social engagement can be as critical to the success of a project as R&D, and yet it is often not prioritized. Social scientists need to be included in, and insert themselves in, the mCDR arena, especially conversations about place-based activities (such as regional test beds), as a means to better orient projects to local residents’ priorities, concerns and benefits. The session facilitator noted that for all its novelty, the social challenges facing mCDR are hardly new; we can learn from other ocean sectors like marine energy that have also met resistance. Participants recommended i) investing in mCDR risk research, so the scientific community can be better prepared to address community concerns; ii) learning from–and responding well to–public pushback; and iii) framing mCDR within the broader context of carbon dioxide removal efforts rather than treating it as an isolated initiative. mCDR engagement plans should also consider the who as well as the how. It is vital to avoid overburdening the same groups and individuals with repeated requests for input (especially true of tribal communities). Inviting diverse perspectives will likely lead to better outcomes. Neither should the burden of engagement fall solely on project developers, who often lack dedicated capacity, and could be perceived as biased. Innovative outreach methods, including youth-focused platforms and STE(A)M education, were proposed as a way to familiarize communities with mCDR prior to project initiation, in addition to more in-depth and participatory engagement methods where communities and residents are able to inform decision making.

Modeling

Discussion in this session revolved around i) modeling objectives; ii) the appropriate kinds, scales, resolution and accuracy of models for various stages of development and types of mCDR; and iii) what biological parameters to include in Pacific Northwest models. Participants agreed that modeling would be critical for MRV (especially in the far-field), but that models could also provide forecasts, help define uncertainty, guide decisions about project siting and monitoring, and facilitate permitting. The field is hampered by data gaps and unknowns– especially around biological impacts and feedbacks–but perfection is neither necessary nor feasible at this point. Importantly, models can help us communicate mCDR in the context of global carbon cycle and climate change.

Regional Test Beds

Prompted for a working definition of “test bed”, participants proposed “a place where a technology can grow from bench to demonstration without growing pains”, and defined short, medium and long-term goals across that growth phase. They then considered what such test beds might look like, in terms of technological scope, location criteria, scientific assets and expertise, and enabling social factors. Desired qualities included: capacity for high-quality physical, chemical and biological measurements and modeling (i.e. the ‘M’ in MRV); a confluence of the ‘right’ natural features; baseline understanding of natural system variability; support for interdisciplinary collaboration and public-private partnerships; access to local assets, expertise (and housing for those experts!); and opportunities to benefit and engage with communities. Test beds should also have robust data management plans, with standardized inter-operable data formats to support accessibility and transparency. Data should be open source to the extent possible, while allowing some protection for industry partners’ intellectual property. Ultimately, successful test beds will advance shared understanding and confidence in promising mCDR technologies for real-world deployment across stakeholders (regulators, buyers, supply chain, public, etc), and sectors (energy, ocean R&D, mineral and industry), something the Pacific Northwest–with its unique culture, capacity and resources–is well-equipped to deliver.

Next Steps

Enthusiasm for continued engagement around these topics was high, and participants were quick to suggest follow-on activities. Two of these–a coordinated response to the mCDR Fast-Track Action Committee’s request for input on their federal research plan, and a PNW Node listserv and Slack channel–have already been executed. Replicating the popular monthly Seattle mCDR Happy Hour in other cities was another. The Permitting & Regulations breakout group proposed that the Node draft a regional mCDR primer–including a glossary–to facilitate communication between developers, regulators and communities. Serving as an informal ‘initial contact’ for agency staff seeking information about mCDR is another possible role. With additional funding and/or dedicated capacity, the Node could also mobilize future events. Washington Sea Grant has already committed to co-hosting a Seattle-based mCDR Law & Policy symposium with Columbia University in September 2025, and would welcome involvement from this community. There may also be an opportunity for Node members to co-design a proposed UW mCDR mini-course in August 2026.

Parting Words

As participants prepared to shift to the inaugural Pacific Northwest Node Happy Hour at a nearby pub, NOAA PMEL Carbon Program Senior Scientist Dick Feely offered the following words of advice:

“Build your mCDR program on the backs of those who have come before you. We’ve had over 40 years of marine carbon research, and 20 years of ocean acidification research. Each of those groups have done exactly the same as you: gradually developed best practices and techniques to the best of their ability at the time, and established really great data systems for all to utilize. So we have a lot of resources at our disposal, including a best practice manual for ocean carbon dioxide removal, and the data systems in place through the National Data Center. Make use of these approaches and resources, and make sure that all of your data gets included in the transparent GLODAP.info database, so we can all benefit from the important observations that we are making. We all know this for certain: the oceans are under-sampled, so everything that we provide will be very useful for a lot of different applications.”

Participant affiliations:

• Federal: Dept of Energy (Pacific Northwest National Lab), EPA, NOAA, US Army Corps of Engineers;
• Tribal: Makah Tribe Office of Marine Affairs, NW Indian Fisheries Commission, Partnerships For Tribal Carbon Solutions;
• State: WA Dept of Commerce, WA Dept of Ecology, WA Sea Grant;
• Academic: American University, Ocean Networks Canada, Oregon State University, University Alaska Fairbanks, University of Washington, Western Washington University;
• Industry: AirMiners, Banyu Carbon, Capture 6, Ebb Carbon, Nonlinear Ventures, Nori, Synapse Product Development, 48 North Solutions;
• NGO: Carbon Business Council, Carbon to Sea Initiative, EDF, Fearless Fund, Fishery Friendly Climate Action, Global Ocean Health, PacCLEAN