As ocean-based climate solutions gain prominence, weak evidence, limited monitoring, and premature policy support risk turning the promise of the blue economy into a new frontier of greenwashing
Image Source: Getty Images
In recent years, the blue economy has emerged as a promising pathway that integrates economic opportunities with climate mitigation. Ocean-based initiatives, from carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) to marine waste-to-energy and waste-to-bioproducts initiatives, as well as other ocean-based solutions, are being promoted as central to net-zero pathways. However, advancements in the blue economy are accompanied by an invisible yet significant challenge: bluewashing.
Bluewashing is the ocean equivalent of greenwashing. The environmental benefits of ocean-based interventions are often overstated without adequate scientific evidence. Bluewashing differs from traditional greenwashing because marine systems are inherently complex, with biogeochemical interactions and long-term dynamics that are still not fully understood. Consequently, there is often a mismatch between actual scientific evidence and sustainability ambitions in the blue economy, leading to critical challenges for governance, policy, societal confidence, and ocean ecosystems.
Compared to land-based strategies, monitoring ocean-based approaches for their carbon flow, ecological outcomes, and long-term system dynamics is technically and economically challenging, creating space for claims that are difficult to verify independently.
Bluewashing in the ocean economy stems from various inherent scientific, policy, and regulatory gaps. A key challenge is the lack of robust and reliable monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) mechanisms tailored to ocean-based interventions. Compared to land-based strategies, monitoring ocean-based approaches for their carbon flow, ecological outcomes, and long-term system dynamics is technically and economically challenging, creating space for claims that are difficult to verify independently.
Many investments labelled as green or blue are often promoted as environmentally friendly but remain unsustainable, limiting the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives. This is evident in cases where aquaculture investments are promoted as sustainable, yet some intensive aquaculture practices have been associated with environmental pollution and other impacts that can adversely affect aquatic ecosystems and marine health. Deep-sea mining is another example of technology that is promoted as important for the clean energy supply chain; however, it is criticised for causing long-term harm to the marine environment.
Initiatives such as the KTH project seek to strengthen the credibility of sustainability claims in the blue economy—such as seaweed farming, seafood, and coastal restoration—by promoting participatory life-cycle assessment methods and encouraging stakeholder engagement to make policymaking more inclusive.
The US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has emphasised the need for extensive research and long-term monitoring of ocean-based CCUS techniques prior to their large-scale implementation. Nevertheless, these interventions are often portrayed as scalable and ready for large-scale deployment.
This challenge is particularly evident in ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS). Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognises the role of CDR and CCUS in achieving climate goals, most innovations have yet to progress from laboratory or pilot-stage research to industrial-scale systems. For instance, despite more than US$40 billion in investment, traditional Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) captures less than 0.1 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions each year. Many claims of permanent CCUS overlook key uncertainties regarding carbon storage duration, leakage risk, and biogeochemical effects. The US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has emphasised the need for extensive research and long-term monitoring of ocean-based CCUS techniques prior to their large-scale implementation. Nevertheless, these interventions are often portrayed as scalable and ready for large-scale deployment.
Seaweed and other marine biomass pathways are another notable example. Seaweed farming is often promoted as contributing to carbon sequestration, beneficial for climate mitigation and ocean ecosystem health. A comprehensive assessment states that seaweed-based systems can fix approximately 1,020-1,960 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) annually, but only around 173 Mt/year of carbon is stored long-term, accounting for 0.4-2.5 percent of the reduction in global carbon emissions. Despite seaweed farming’s multiple economic and environmental benefits, many evaluations do not account for a comprehensive life-cycle assessment that includes greenhouse gas and other emissions from offshore operations, harvesting, drying, transportation, and downstream processing. Additionally, the assumption that harvested or deposited biomass results in permanent carbon storage neglects factors such as nutrient cycling and microbial degradation pathways.
Despite seaweed farming’s multiple economic and environmental benefits, many evaluations do not account for a comprehensive life-cycle assessment that includes greenhouse gas and other emissions from offshore operations, harvesting, drying, transportation, and downstream processing.
Blue carbon credits accounted for only about 0.35 percent of total carbon credits and 0.9 percent of nature-based solution credits, suggesting that, despite promotion, the actual market footprint of ocean-based carbon mitigation strategies is very low. Between 2022 and 2024, at least ten court cases were documented in China involving the misuse of blue carbon credits to satisfy legal obligations despite engaging in environmentally harmful activities.
Bluewashing is also evident in marine waste-to-wealth initiatives. Technologies that transform marine plastic into fuels and materials, such as polymers, are marketed as solutions to address ocean pollution and climate change. However, such circular approaches do not ensure sustainability. Other factors, such as toxic by-products and energy-intensive processing, are often underreported. Without closed material loops and complete energy and material balances, it cannot be determined whether these pathways yield net environmental gains or merely shift burdens across systems. Declaring a technology truly green requires a comprehensive cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment. The climate benefits from ocean-based interventions are highly dependent on system boundary definitions and assumptions regarding permanent carbon storage.
At the core of the problems lies a disconnect between science and policy. Investors and policymakers are often under pressure to demonstrate measurable outcomes and rapid progress in sustainability and climate change, leading them to promote solutions that appear nature-based and scalable but lack adequate long-term scientific evidence. Technology readiness (TRL) is often misunderstood, and sustainability readiness and uncertainty are treated as narrative problems rather than core design challenges.
Declaring a technology truly green requires a comprehensive cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment. The climate benefits from ocean-based interventions are highly dependent on system boundary definitions and assumptions regarding permanent carbon storage.
Bluewashing, therefore, often results from premature policy support for interventions that are scientifically underdeveloped. This undermines the credibility of ocean-based climate interventions, wastes climate funding, misdirects resources, creates ecological risks, and reduces public trust and support for future interventions.
Addressing bluewashing and promoting a sustainable blue economy requires policy frameworks backed by strong scientific evidence.
The future of the blue economy lies in robust science and policy backing. Addressing blue washing is essential to ensure that innovation is strengthened by evidence and accountability, leading to credible, responsible climate goals. Ensuring credibility is essential to safeguard both the marine environment and the climate goals. Coordinated efforts at both national and global levels, in collaboration with academia, industry, government, and local coastal communities, are essential. Region-specific policies for coastal areas, with proper monitoring frameworks, sustainability standards, and accountability mechanisms, are key. Blue economy goals must be integrated with international climate frameworks, anchored in science and evidence-based decision-making to ensure credibility and mitigate bluewashing.
Poornima V B is a Research Assistant at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
