The Removing and Sequestering Carbon Unleashed in the Environment and Oceans Act, known as the ReSCUE Oceans Act, aims to support and regulate activities related to the removal of carbon dioxide from the marine environment. The bill is structured to involve multiple federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), assigning them roles in the development, oversight, and funding of programs focused on marine carbon dioxide removal.

General Summary

At its core, the bill seeks to establish programs to advance research in marine carbon dioxide removal, develop monitoring systems, and enable interagency collaboration to achieve these goals. The Act includes provisions related to grants, partnerships, data management, and international cooperation. It defines key terms and sets out guidelines to ensure responsible implementation, while also specifying appropriations over a ten-year period. The bill also mandates regular reporting to evaluate progress and findings from these activities.

Summary of Significant Issues

One major issue with the bill is the lack of clarity in several definitions and provisions. For instance, the phrase "marine carbon dioxide removal" is vaguely defined without specifying permissible "intentional interventions," which could result in inconsistent application of the law and unanticipated environmental or economic impacts.

The authorization of appropriations section shows a dramatic decrease in funding between fiscal years 2029 and 2030, with no explanation provided, raising concerns about whether existing and future projects will have sufficient resources to be sustained.

Furthermore, the bill grants significant discretion to agencies like NASA in determining relevant activities, without clear guidelines or oversight mechanisms, increasing the risk of potential misuse or misallocation of resources. Additionally, while the bill proposes interagency collaboration, it lacks specific mechanisms for oversight and accountability, which could hinder effective collaboration and lead to inefficiencies.

Public Impact

Broadly, the bill aims to address climate change by exploring innovative solutions to remove carbon dioxide from marine environments. This has the potential for significant environmental benefits, but the vague legal language and absence of defined metrics for success could dilute its effectiveness.

The public may perceive the bill positively due to its focus on reducing greenhouse gases and potentially mitigating climate change impacts. However, without clear guidelines and oversight, there's a risk that efforts may not yield the desired outcomes, potentially wasting taxpayer dollars.

Stakeholder Impact

Scientists and Researchers: For those in scientific and research communities, the bill offers funding and resources to explore and test carbon removal technologies and methods. This creates opportunities for innovation and establishing best practices in a nascent field.

Environmentalists and Coastal Communities: While the bill's goal to protect marine ecosystems is commendable, its lack of specificity could lead to unintended environmental consequences or disruption of local ecosystems. Coastal communities, especially those near designated research areas, might experience economic and social impacts, both positive (e.g., job creation, infrastructure development) and negative (e.g., disruption of local economies, ecosystem degradation).

Private Sector Partners: Opportunities for engagement through public-private partnerships have been outlined, although criteria for selecting potential partners are not clearly defined. This could lead to unequal benefits among stakeholders, with private entities gaining preferential access to public resources.

Government and Regulatory Bodies: The multiple agencies involved may face challenges due to the bill’s broad language and undefined roles. Effective interagency communication and transparency are crucial for achieving the bill's intended outcomes. Without it, there's a risk of duplication of efforts and potential inefficiencies.

Overall, the bill represents an ambitious legislative effort to tackle climate change through marine carbon removal activities but requires more precise language and structured oversight to ensure its effective implementation and to maximize benefits while minimizing risks.

The bill, H.R. 10471, titled the "Removing and Sequestering Carbon Unleashed in the Environment and Oceans Act" or the "ReSCUE Oceans Act," involves significant financial commitments spread across various sections, reflecting a strategic investment in marine carbon dioxide removal activities. Below is an analysis of the bill's financial components in relation to the identified issues.

Summary of Financial Allocations

Section 106 authorizes a substantial financial commitment to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, with funding allocated over a ten-year period. Here are the appropriations:

• $264,000,000 for fiscal year 2025
• $263,200,000 for fiscal year 2026
• $256,400,000 for fiscal year 2027
• $256,200,000 for fiscal year 2028
• $244,400,000 for fiscal year 2029
• $149,200,000 annually from fiscal year 2030 to 2034

This section highlights a significant reduction in appropriations from $244,400,000 in 2029 to $149,200,000 commencing in 2030, which may raise concerns about the sustainability of ongoing projects and potential impacts on long-term objectives.

Section 202 focuses on the National Science Foundation, with a decade-long funding plan as follows:

• $49,500,000 for fiscal year 2025
• $49,300,000 for fiscal year 2026
• $48,100,000 for fiscal year 2027
• $48,000,000 for fiscal year 2028
• $45,800,000 for fiscal year 2029
• $28,000,000 annually from fiscal year 2030 to 2034

Here, the decrease in funds from $45,800,000 in 2029 to $28,000,000 from 2030 onwards might affect the ability to maintain funding for research development and field trials.

Section 302 provides smaller financial allocations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA):

• $4,900,000 for fiscal years 2025 and 2026
• $4,800,000 for fiscal years 2027 and 2028
• $4,600,000 for fiscal year 2029
• $2,800,000 annually from fiscal year 2030 to 2034

This funding supports NASA's efforts in measuring marine carbon dioxide removal from space, although the broad discretion granted to NASA in determining "any other relevant activity" might increase the risk of inefficient or inappropriate spending.

Section 402 deals with funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology:

• $11,500,000 for fiscal years 2025 and 2026
• $11,200,000 for fiscal years 2027 and 2028
• $10,700,000 for fiscal year 2029
• $6,500,000 annually from fiscal year 2030 to 2034

The drop in funding from $10,700,000 in 2029 to $6,500,000 implies a potential constraint in the institute's capabilities to validate marine carbon dioxide removal technologies.

Relationship to Identified Issues

One prominent issue identified is the sudden decrease in allocations from fiscal year 2029 to 2030, present in Sections 106, 202, 302, and 402. This drop raises questions about the bill's long-term financial viability and the potential impacts on the continuity and effectiveness of the programs proposed, given the substantial reduction in funding. The issue of decreased appropriations might affect the ability to achieve the bill's full potential regarding research and implementation of these marine carbon dioxide removal activities.

Additionally, Sections 101 and 102 mention public-private partnerships without detailing criteria for partner selection. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk of conflicts of interest or favoritism, which could lead to inefficient or misallocation of the authorized funds. Transparency in partner selection processes is crucial to ensure that public funds are used appropriately and effectively.

Furthermore, the absence of a clear funding breakdown in Section 201 for research activities financed by the National Science Foundation may result in opaque spending practices, making it challenging to identify and rectify potential waste and favoritism. Such transparency is essential for accountability and ensuring that appropriated funds are directed toward the most impactful and necessary research efforts.

Overall, while the financial commitments laid out in the bill reflect a comprehensive plan to support marine carbon dioxide removal, addressing these financial issues and clarifying the appropriations and partner selection processes would strengthen the bill's effectiveness and ensure the best use of public funds.