Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Natural carbon uptake by ocean biology will not deliver credible carbon credits

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume 6, pages 767–768 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Natural CO2 removal is increasingly being claimed as anthropogenic climate mitigation. This misrepresentation is already prevalent for forests and coastal ecosystems; there is now the risk of the error reoccurring for open-ocean CO2 uptake via the biological carbon pump.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Natural marine processes do not facilitate additional carbon storage; thus, investment is better suited to anthropogenic interventions reducing emissions and credibly enhancing carbon removal.

References

  1. Smith, S. M. et al. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2nd edn https://www.stateofcdr.org/edition-2-resources-1 (2024).

  2. Lecerf, M. et al. Coastal and marine ecosystems as nature-based solutions in new or updated nationally determined contributions. Wetlands International https://www.wetlands.org/publication/coastal-and-marine-ecosystems-as-nature-based-solutions-in-new-or-updated-nationally-determined-contributions/ (2021).

  3. Krause-Jensen, D. et al. Sequestration of macroalgal carbon: the elephant in the Blue Carbon room. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180236 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. James, K., Macreadie, P. I., Burdett, H. L., Davies, I. & Kamenos, N. A. It’s time to broaden what we consider a ‘blue carbon ecosystem’. Glob. Change Biol. 30, e17261 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Berzaghi, F. et al. Global distribution, quantification and valuation of the biological carbon pump. Nat. Clim. Change 15, 385–392 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. United Nations Global Compact. The Plankton Manifesto: A Call for Plankton-Based Solutions to Address the Triple Planetary Crisis. https://unglobalcompact.org/library/6242 (2024). 

  7. Frenger, I. et al. Misconceptions of the marine biological carbon pump in a changing climate: Thinking outside the “export” box. Glob. Change Biol. 30, e17124 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Henson, S. A. et al. Uncertain response of ocean biological carbon export in a changing world. Nat. Geosci. 15, 248–254 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mathis, M. et al. Enhanced CO2 uptake of the coastal ocean is dominated by biological carbon fixation. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 373–379 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Doney, S. C. et al. Observational and numerical modeling constraints on the global ocean biological carbon pump. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 38, e2024GB008156 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Berger, M., Comte, A., Kwiatkowski, L. & Bopp, L. Unaccountable counting: the folly of incorporating open ocean carbon sinks in Nationally Determined Contributions. C. R. Géosci. 356, 123–137 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Lennart T. Bach & Philip W. Boyd

  2. School of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Phil Williamson

  3. School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Joanna I. House

Authors
  1. Lennart T. Bach
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phil Williamson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanna I. House
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philip W. Boyd
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lennart T. Bach.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bach, L.T., Williamson, P., House, J.I. et al. Natural carbon uptake by ocean biology will not deliver credible carbon credits. Nat Rev Earth Environ 6, 767–768 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00741-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00741-3

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene