To fix the climate, these 10 investors are betting the house on the ocean

Climate change is a problem important and pressing enough that investors have begun to grasp the opportunities that arise when trying to solve it. Now, they’ve started to cast their nets wider for other, adjacent opportunities.

Tech that serves to conserve the oceans while using it to replace older, more harmful means of generating energy and food seems to be one such opportunity. In fact, when we asked 10 investors in the sector to share their thoughts on the space, we quickly learned that ocean conservation tech startups are seeing more and more interest from generalist investors now that climate change is hot and people are seeking more ways to mitigate its effects.

“Climate change used to be more focused on terrestrial operations. It is now ‘warming’ up to ocean conservation,” Daniela Fernandez, managing partner of Seabird Ventures, told TechCrunch.

The world’s oceans and its climate have always been tightly coupled. Winds generate ocean currents, which in turn influence weather patterns both over the open water and deep into the continents.

“Our planet is 70% ocean, so the urgency of facing and solving climate change can only be properly addressed if we include the ocean in the equation,” said Rita Sousa, partner at Faber Ventures.

The open ocean also contains tremendous amounts of energy. Previously, accessing it meant drilling into the ocean floor to tap hard-to-reach deposits of oil and gas. But today, it increasingly means tapping the enormous energy represented by the ocean’s winds and waves. Just offshore wind alone has the potential to meet global electricity demand by 2040, according to the IEA, which is well in excess of all offshore oil and gas production today.

Stephan Feilhauer, managing director of clean energy at S2G Ventures stressed the viability of technologies like offshore wind as commercial alternatives to fossil fuels: “Offshore wind has established supply chains across the globe. It is possible today to manufacture, install and operate gigawatts of offshore wind energy using technology and equipment that is well established and has years of operational data to help us understand its performance. Offshore wind is the only ocean-based renewable technology that meets these criteria today.”

The oceans are constantly exchanging gases with the atmosphere, too; most importantly withdrawing and storing about 30% of all carbon dioxide pollution. The ocean’s capacity as a carbon sink has created problems for myriad marine life, which have depended on historically stable acidity levels that are now creeping higher. However, this very capacity also creates opportunities to put key nutrient cycles to work and capture humanity’s excess emissions.

“A healthy ocean will continue to provide crucial opportunities for carbon sequestration,” said Peter Bryant, program director (oceans) at Builders Initiative. “There are a number of opportunities for increasing the ocean’s ability to store carbon. We have biological approaches that include ecosystem restoration, seaweed cultivation and iron fertilization; chemical solutions where you use minerals to lock dissolved carbon dioxide into bicarbonates; and electromagnetic approaches that store carbon by running electric currents through seawater.”

Founders and investors have a growing appreciation for the ocean’s potential as a resource for renewable energy and its capacity to buffer and even solve some of the climate problem. “We’re confident in the ocean’s resilience here. It’s simply one of the best resources we have in the fight against climate, and that means opportunity,” said Reece Pacheco, partner at Propeller. “We won’t achieve our climate goals without the ocean. Full stop.”

Christian Lim, managing director at SWEN Capital Partners, agreed: “It took too much time, but finally the ocean is being recognized as a critical piece of our fight against climate change.”

We spoke with:

Daniela V. Fernandez, founder and CEO of Sustainable Ocean Alliance, and managing partner at Seabird Ventures
Tim Agnew, general partner, Bold Ocean Ventures
Peter Bryant, program director (oceans), Builders Initiative
Kate Danaher, managing director (oceans and seafood), S2G Ventures
Francis O’Sullivan, managing director (oceans and seafood), S2G Ventures
Stephan Feilhauer, managing director (clean energy), S2G Ventures
Sanjeev Krishnan, senior managing director and chief investment officer, S2G Ventures
Rita Sousa, partner, Faber Ventures
Christian Lim, managing director, SWEN Blue Ocean Partners
Reece Pacheco, partner, Propeller

Daniela V. Fernandez, founder and CEO of Sustainable Ocean Alliance, and managing partner at Seabird Ventures

Climate change is the elephant in the room. Has the issue’s rising profile sucked the air out of the room or is it bringing attention to ocean conservation that otherwise wouldn’t be there? How have things changed in the past five years?

Climate change has been a topic for decades. It used to be a “nice to have” about a decade ago: “If you have the extra funds to perform climate risk assessment, then we will dedicate it to climate change.”

Now, it’s more of a “must have.” If we don’t address climate change, we’ll see more extreme weather events. Over the past five years, we’ve seen more focus on ocean conservation, but there is still a $149 billion annual ocean funding gap. Climate change used to be more focused on terrestrial operations. It is now “warming” up to ocean conservation.

We are just now beginning to see a distinct shift in tone. The thinking used to be that “the ocean is a victim of climate change,” but now the thought is more “the ocean can become a climate hero” and plays a huge role in reducing our carbon footprint. Yet, this shift is still very much in its infancy. In particular, the philanthropic community is just starting to recognize that there is an urgent need to support efforts to develop ocean-based climate solutions.

Until now, most climate funders focused on terrestrial or atmospheric issues, and ocean funders focused on important, but only tangentially climate-related ocean issues such as ending unsustainable fishing practices and establishing marine protected areas. The ocean is already the biggest carbon sink on the planet, and we need to better understand both what absorption of all that carbon is doing to ocean ecosystems, and how much more it can potentially contribute without disrupting its other critical ecosystem functions.

It’s also been encouraging to see governments taking action to truly prioritize and create financial incentives for investing in climate/ocean innovations, such as the bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in the U.S. in 2022. There is also an upswell of talent realizing that working a “typical” job is no longer an option if we won’t have a livable planet in the next seven years. We are seeing society reset its priorities and climate is one of the highest ones at the moment.

Climate change has been called “recession-proof” because governments and investors have come to recognize the scope, scale and urgency of the issue. Do you think that’s true of ocean conservation tech as well?

Yes. Climate change and ocean restoration are inherently linked. The ocean is humanity’s biggest protection against climate change, as it produces more than half the air we breathe and absorbs 93% of excess heat from global warming.

Ocean tech and climate change companies and investors all have the same goal. The urgency of the climate crisis has kept passionate funders and entrepreneurs engaged in the development of solutions regardless of the state of the economy.

Climate change has affected the oceans greatly, causing everything from rising water temperatures to more acidification. How are you approaching the question of climate change in your investments?

Seabird Ventures is internally tracking impact and reporting on social and/or environmental factors in our investments. We have externally reported on the following key ocean impact areas:

Blue carbon and CO₂e removal or avoidance: Initiatives in this category are incredibly important for capturing and avoiding harmful GHG emissions, which contribute to climate change and ocean acidification. The impact of these companies is measured by the weight of CO₂e emissions reduced or sequestered as a result of the solution.
Waste reduction and circular use: We focus on companies that reduce the amount of solid waste and plastic polluting our ocean. Two approaches commonly used are preventing plastics from leaking into waterways and plastic cleanup solutions. Plastic pollutants are responsible for choking marine life and destroying both marine and coastal ecosystems. Tracking impact in this category is done by measuring the mass of plastic reduced, avoided or recycled. Companies offering fully biodegradable plastic alternatives are also considered in this area for their ability to displace the use of traditional plastics.
Blue foods: This ocean impact area addresses the need to sustainably feed the growing population worldwide without continually exploiting marine ecosystems. Blue foods can play a critical role in improving human health by providing access to crucial micronutrients vital for a healthy diet. We focus on companies that avoid negative aspects of ocean-based food production, which can include overfishing, harmful forms of marine aquaculture and other irresponsible harvesting practices. Overall reported values can first be converted into calories and then further quantified as “meals generated” or “people fed.”
Ecosystem preservation and restoration: Many marine habitats have been degraded and destroyed by human activities. This subset of solutions seek the restoration of these ecosystems. Companies are measured by the area of marine habitat they restore or preserve. Examples of these habitats can include coral reefs, mangrove forests, kelp forests, wetlands and seagrass beds. These habitats serve as nurseries for marine organisms and are critical areas for blue carbon capture. Beyond the sheer size of the area restored, there is a clear need to assess the quality of restoration.

What sort of government regulation or oversight is needed to increase the impact of ocean conservation startups? What differences in the approach do you notice in developed economies compared to emerging economies?

Overall, government investment could play a significant role in accelerating sustainable ocean startups. Many developed economies around the world have recognized this potential to varying degrees, with European nations and Canada in particular making major investments in the sustainable blue economy, including through state sponsorship of ocean or Blue Tech Cluster organizations.

The United States has been slow to follow this model, except for a few small grant programs under both the current and previous administrations. Yet, these investments paled in comparison to the billions of dollars distributed through programs such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) that have dramatically accelerated innovation in the energy space.

On the regulatory front, government leadership must strike a balance between protecting our fragile marine environment and incentivizing development of projects that contribute to environmental restoration and combating climate change. This is often a difficult path to tread. For example, take the case of offshore wind energy development. Increasing renewable energy generation is an admirable goal, but when the impacts from construction may harm the marine environment in the short term, regulators must weigh the long-term benefits against this potential for short-term harm.

There is often a stark difference between the ability of regulators in developed and developing economies to make those value judgments. Wealthier countries have the capacity to employ far more experts, scientists and monitors who can enforce sustainability standards and regulations, while countries with developing economies are too often forced to take developers at their word that they are following protocols and taking environmental safeguards seriously.

As a result, poorer countries can be seen as more favorable places to test emerging techniques or practices, and thus they bear the risk of potential negative impacts of poorly regulated operations. See for example, Papua New Guinea’s disastrous venture into deep-seabed mining. This, of course, increases the divide between rich and poor nations. Too often, the profits from experimental practices in poorer countries’ waters goes to entrepreneurs from wealthier nations, while the threat of environmental degradation stays with the developing economy.

We must also give consideration to different value structures when it comes to how different cultures perceive and relate to the ocean and the environment. The economic cost-benefit focus that is so prevalent in the developed world and the Global North is frequently antithetical to many indigenous cultures, particularly among small island states, where the ocean itself takes on greater significance and meaning as a source of cultural identity that is not reflected on balance sheets and bottom lines.

How will the shift to renewable energy from fossil fuels affect the oceans? In what ways will things get better or worse?

We are proud that one of our solutions, CalWave, is harnessing wave energy as a clean power alternative. Wave energy has the potential to meet 20% to 30% of all global energy demand. The shift to renewable energy from fossil fuels has brought up new challenges for the transition. As we move toward more renewable energy sources, the technology will need to be deployed offshore, which creates concerns around the environmental impact on marine ecosystems.

Deep-seabed mining is a huge issue currently being decided on (and which SOA strongly opposes). The justification to invade this pristine and biodiverse ecosystem is that the deep sea is home to minerals needed to create batteries and materials that make up renewable energy sources (e.g., batteries for electric cars). However, recent studies show it is possible to keep up with production demands without mining the deep sea, and that car manufacturers are shifting away from using minerals found in the deep sea in favor of more abundant, affordable alternatives.

Energy development in the oceans used to mean one thing: drilling. Today, it could mean offshore wind, tidal or even thermal energy conservation. Which one do you find most promising? Which one has the lowest impact on marine ecosystems?

We do not promote offshore drilling. We are excited by the promising developments in wave energy, especially as clean wave energy has the potential to meet a significant portion of all global energy demand.

Tim Agnew, general partner, Bold Ocean Ventures

I’m not sure I would characterize the ocean economy as recession-proof, but the investment opportunities are real.

From a venture capital perspective, the timing for five- to 10-year investments is very good regardless of what happens in the next 18 months.

Climate change is forcing adaptation and that creates investment opportunities as companies and coastal communities address the impacts.

How will the shift to renewable energy from fossil fuels affect the oceans? In what ways will things get better or worse?

Offshore wind is a huge market that requires lots of capital and continued advances in technologies. There will always be tension over who gets to use the ocean and whether it can be shared in the most productive way.

Energy development in the oceans used to mean one thing: drilling. Today, it could mean offshore wind, tidal or even thermal energy conversion. Which one do you find the most promising? Which one has the lowest impact on marine ecosystems?

It’s too early to say which is most promising, but it’s likely to be ocean wind in the next decade.

Builders Initiative and S2G Ventures

Kate Danaher: In 2021, venture capital and private equity funding in climate tech reached a record high. Since 2018, the number of ocean-focused funds has quadrupled and we continue to hear about new ocean funds being launched.

Since 2018, we have also seen an increase in the number of ocean tech companies, demonstrating that the space is attracting talent, innovation and capital. From this data, we believe it is clear that the increasing focus on climate change is driving more investment into ocean tech rather than away from it.

Over the past five years, we have seen startups in the sector go from drawing only impact investors to attracting interest from traditional venture capital funds. The oceans are starting to be seen as more investable, but we need to make the case to even more climate-focused and generalist investors.

Sanjeev Krishnan: At a macro level, as risks to our current systems increase, the search for alpha will require new approaches, new thinking and new players. Our systems are at a point where it is more productive to work with nature than against it, and we are seeing the energy, agriculture, forestry and oceans sectors all transitioning toward systems that are less extractive and more regenerative.

While energy and agriculture are further along the J-curve, the oceans sector is more nascent, but it presents an investable opportunity that impacts almost every sector of the global economy. It is the world’s primary shipping channel, it can be both an energy source and a carbon sink, and it offers a new frontier for materials science.

Peter Bryant: While it is true that climate change is impacting the ocean greatly and the implications for marine ecosystems are devastating, people often overlook that the ocean is a powerful solution to some of its worst effects. The ocean is our planet’s largest carbon sink. It absorbs excess heat and carbon emissions, sparing us from even more severe impacts of climate change.

A healthy ocean will continue to provide crucial opportunities for carbon sequestration. There are a number of opportunities for increasing the ocean’s ability to store carbon. We have biological approaches that include ecosystem restoration, seaweed cultivation and iron fertilization; chemical solutions where you use minerals to lock dissolved carbon dioxide into bicarbonates; and electromagnetic approaches that store carbon by running electric currents through seawater.

All of these potential solutions will require more research and investment to prove the technologies and scale to the level needed to effectively mitigate the impact of climate change. We have been actively using philanthropic capital to support research and development and further policy work to help understand some of the complex questions about how the ocean can help sequester carbon and remove it from the atmosphere in ways that do not compromise marine ecosystems and species.

We believe that sustainably managed and healthy ocean ecosystems are a pillar of global environmental recovery and a driver of economic growth. We will continue to leverage philanthropic, impact-first and venture capital teams to invest in a range of ocean-based solutions to climate change and adaptation.

What sort of government regulation or oversight is needed to increase the impact of ocean conservation startups? What differences in approach do you notice in developed economies compared to emerging economies?

Kate Danaher: For a number of sectors within ocean conservation, regulation will be a driving force in quickening the adoption of more sustainable and innovative products and services. Where market forces can drive change, regulation can accelerate the rate of adoption of the technologies and products.

As an example, on January 1, new requirements from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) went into effect. The body added a tax on maritime vessels’ carbon emissions, driving companies to immediately find ways to cut emissions related to shipping. A global carbon price/tax would further drive companies to look for ways to reduce or offset their emissions. This regulation drives the development of a blue carbon market.

Plastics are another area where regulation would either force or incentivize companies to reduce or eliminate plastic usage and/or more effectively recycle the plastic in their supply chain.

Fisheries management is another area where regulation can play a key role in increasing the impact of startups. While there are local and national fisheries management policies, fish stocks are global by nature and as such, would benefit from globally adhered to sustainability policies.

Finally, cellular seafood companies’ ability to sell their products depends on countries passing regulations on cell-cultured protein.

How will the shift to renewable energy from fossil fuels affect the oceans? In what ways will things get better or worse?

Francis O’Sullivan: The evolving energy landscape will have significant implications for our oceans. The increased average temperatures, rising water levels, altered current patterns and higher acidification levels observed across our oceans today are all the result of rising fossil-fuel related GHG emissions. Decarbonization of the energy system will mitigate these dynamics, but even if full decarbonization is realized, the world’s oceans will continue to reflect the impacts of legacy emissions for decades to come.

Historically, oceans have played a huge role in the fossil fuel-based energy system. Offshore oil and gas fields still meet a large proportion of the world’s energy demand. As decarbonization accelerates, these resources will be replaced by ocean-based renewable energy sources, particularly offshore wind.

All of this change will come with new opportunities and challenges. Communities linked to offshore oil and gas production will have to pivot. Some will be able to participate in the new cleaner energy system as they retool to support offshore wind. North Sea ports in the U.K. and Europe have already begun this transition.

In other regions where the offshore wind resource is less attractive, the pivot away from fossil fuels will be more difficult. New regions will also come into focus as the role of oceans in our energy system shifts.

The high quality of wind off the U.S. Northeast means the region is already in the midst of an offshore wind gold rush. This is opening up new and significant economic opportunities for coastal communities in the area.

However, these regions are also seeing challenges arise as they look to balance clean energy development with other important ocean-based industries, including fishing and tourism. Finding a balance in how oceans play a role in decarbonization will not be trivial, but what is certain is that the nexus of energy, climate change and oceans will only grow in importance over the coming decades.

Stephan Feilhauer: We can break down the impact of the energy transition on oceans into two categories: global and local. On the global scale, moving to low or zero-emission energy sources will mitigate the atmospheric greenhouse effect, meaning reduced net heating of our oceans, lower ocean acidification and a slower rise in sea levels.

On the local scale, moving from offshore drilling and overseas fossil fuel transport will mean less disruption to marine ecosystems and lower likelihood of unintended fuel leakage such as oil spills, which leads to overall better animal and plant health.

While there will be some localized impacts from continued offshore traditional projects and pipelines, undersea cables and offshore wind turbines, these impacts are mitigated in the permitting process and the overall net impact is decisively positive for our oceans.

Stephan Feilhauer: To achieve the lowest energy systems-level impact on planetary health, we need to lean full force into deployable energy solutions.

For large-scale energy infrastructure projects, the timeline from project design through environmental permitting, site control, grid connection, financing, securing offtake agreements for the power and construction can take several years. This timeline gets lengthier when we talk about energy technologies in our oceans, which tend to be larger projects with even more coordination required between stakeholders.

Hence, the 2030 decarbonization goals are right around the corner and there is no time to lose on the deployment process. Out of the various energy technologies based in the ocean, offshore wind is the only zero-carbon, fully scaled, financeable and deployable option we currently have.

Offshore wind turbines have no operating carbon emissions. There are embedded emissions in manufacturing and installing wind projects as well as other environmental impacts during operation. These are quantified in studies called “life cycle impact analyses,” and have been demonstrated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy to be significantly lower than alternative energy technologies.

Securing financing is a critical component of any large energy or infrastructure project. There are many types of financiers who might be involved in an energy project, such as the backers of development teams, project financing banks, large infrastructure asset owners, tax equity investors and large companies investing off their balance sheet. Over the past decades, all of these participants have developed deep expertise, resulting in these large, billion-dollar projects being done at scale.

Offshore wind has established supply chains across the globe. It is possible today to manufacture, install and operate gigawatts of offshore wind energy using technology and equipment that is well established and has years of operational data to help us understand its performance. Offshore wind is the only ocean-based renewable technology that meets these criteria today.

Rita Sousa, partner, Faber Ventures

For nearly three decades, the UN has been bringing together almost every country on earth for global climate summits, called COPs. Only the 25th COP, held in 2019, highlighted the importance of the ocean for climate action. It was called the Blue COP and had more than 100 events discussing the ocean.

That year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) launched a special report on the ocean and the cryosphere by outlining the impacts of climate change on the ocean and the implications for low-lying areas and coastal communities.

Since then, awareness of the role oceans can play in helping fight and mitigate climate change has increased progressively. We are now finally witnessing more and more incentives for ocean impact innovation compared to five years ago.

Our planet is 70% water, so the urgency of facing and solving climate change can only be properly addressed if we include the oceans in the equation.

For us, “impact” is a key criteria in our investment process. We need to understand the company’s contribution and alignment with the UN SDGs, and monitor and measure the progress of previously established impact KPIs once the startup is part of our portfolio, and report those impact indicators at a portfolio and fund level.

We have a carry mechanism that is impact-linked, which means that our remuneration is tied to the impact performance of our portfolio. As such, we are incentivised to deliver and maximize on both financial returns and environmental impact.

In general, regulation is required to facilitate startups’ access to sea biodiversity, infrastructure and facilities to test their technologies in the oceans. Public funding mechanisms should be available to help early-stage companies develop their technologies before they are ready to raise capital from VC funds.

In this regard, Portugal is a great example of the support being provided to the ecosystem to foster innovation in the ocean conservation space. We believe ocean conservation will play a key role and will be at the forefront of emerging industries in Europe by 2030.

How will the shift to renewable energy from fossil fuels affect the oceans? In what ways will things get better or worse?

The shift to renewable energy will affect the oceans in a very positive way. Decarbonization of the global economy will have a major impact on the many aspects affecting ocean sustainability, including acidification, deoxygenation, warming, more stable water stratification and circulation changes, fishing, habitat destruction, invasive alien species and underwater noise, among others.

Wave, tidal, ocean thermal energy conversion and salinity gradient energy are promising technologies. In most cases, they are still at the prototype or demonstration stage, but some are in the initial stages of commercialization.

Offshore wind and solar-based technologies are definitely leading the way and are expected to expand quickly in the years to come. As these technologies scale, startups must be conscious of the need to mitigate their environmental impact with innovative and sustainable solutions, including design, materials and supply chain.

Christian Lim, managing director, SWEN Blue Ocean Partners

It took too much time, but the ocean is finally being recognized as a critical piece of our fight against climate change. The result has been a surge in investment in the ocean across all asset classes.

Indeed. We raised an oversubscribed ocean fund during the COVID-19 and Ukraine crises with the backing of institutional and private investors. This illustrates the realization that the collapse of ocean health, just like climate change, is an existential issue that is prioritized even against the backdrop of terrible crises.

We invest in marine-based solutions to climate change. That includes companies such as Ecosubsea, which developed a hull-cleaning robot that helps substantially reduce the carbon footprint of shipping.

The ocean offers additional solutions, such as low-carbon food, as well as some of the ecosystems most effective at sequestering carbon, like kelp forests or mangroves.

Regulations that promote sustainable seafood, the circular economy and the decarbonization of maritime transportation are all helpful. Many of these regulations were put in place recently and many more are upcoming.

But the beauty of ocean startups is that their solutions often do not depend on regulations to thrive because they offer sustainable alternatives that perform better and cost less than legacy products and services.

How will the shift to renewable energy from fossil fuels affect the oceans? In what ways will things get better or worse?

The shift will address climate change, which is a main threat to the ocean. But the ocean will contribute to the shift as well, as it is an incredible source of renewable energy.

They are all promising, but will reach the market at different times. Offshore wind is expected to reach commercialization first.

Reece Pacheco, partner, Propeller

We won’t achieve our climate goals without the ocean. We need to leverage the ocean’s scale, additionality, permanence, abundance and biodiversity. That narrative has only grown stronger in the last five years.

Thanks to the incredible work of ocean scientists around the world, we have more knowledge about the ocean and its role in our climate than ever before. There’s still a lot we don’t know about our ocean and climate, but the science shows that the ocean holds incredible potential to be a source of solutions.

What’s changed in the last five years is the quantity and quality of ocean entrepreneurs: It’s been up and to the right! More and more high-quality talent are taking risks. Scientists are applying their research and starting companies, and repeat founders from other sectors are pairing up with ocean scientists to build impactful companies. It’s very exciting to witness and be a part of.

I don’t have a crystal ball, so I won’t try to predict what’s recession-proof. I am also incredibly biased by my day-to-day, so take this with a grain of sea salt: It certainly seems like there’s momentum in ocean-climate solutions right now.

Some real rounds are still being raised and some early innovators are starting to hit key milestones. They’ll be tested by the next year or two when they go to raise capital, but I’m rooting for them. At the end of the day, good businesses that create real value will continue to attract investors, customers and talent, and weaker ones will have to adapt to survive.

We’re an ocean-climate fund, so the climate crisis is core to every investment decision. We think about the potential impact each innovation could bring to the world and on what time scale. There are myriad opportunities in, on and around the ocean to reduce emissions and draw down CO₂. We’re excited at the chance to invest in this sector.

It is important that we create equitable, science-led solutions to the climate crisis. We know the ocean is an incredible carbon sink already, but we don’t know everything. We must proceed with sound science and stakeholder engagement, aiming to clarify regulations for ocean-based climate solutions, specifically carbon removal, both in the U.S. and internationally.

Environmentally, the EPA will regulate this in the U.S., but there are also economic policies to consider. For example, 45Q (a U.S. tax credit for carbon sequestration) currently only applies to certain approaches, but what if it applied to ocean-based climate solutions within the United States’ EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) as well? It could be a game-changer for some startups innovating in the sector.

Internationally, the London Convention (1972) and the London Protocol (1996) apply to any form of “dumping,” but there are still questions around how carbon should be treated, especially when you realize that we effectively “dump” it into the atmosphere right now.

So, broadly speaking, clear domestic and international policy is crucial. We see tremendous opportunity for ocean-based solutions to the climate crisis. Forward-thinking and equitably built policies would be welcome.

How will the shift to renewable energy from fossil fuels affect the oceans? In what ways will things get better or worse?

It’s critical that we shift away from fossil fuels. I don’t see a downside in that!