Marine renewable energy (MRE) harnesses energy from the ocean and provides a low-carbon sustainable energy source for national grids and remote uses. The international MRE industry is in the early stages of development, focused largely on tidal and riverine turbines, and wave energy converters (WECs), to harness energy from tides, rivers, and waves, respectively. Although MRE supports climate change mitigation, there are concerns that MRE devices and systems could affect portions of the marine and river environments. The greatest concern for tidal and river turbines is the potential for animals to be injured or killed by collision with rotating blades. Other risks associated with MRE device operation include the potential for turbines and WECs to cause disruption from underwater noise emissions, generation of electromagnetic fields, changes in benthic and pelagic habitats, changes in oceanographic processes, and entanglement of large marine animals. The accumulated knowledge of interactions of MRE devices with animals and habitats to date is summarized here, along with a discussion of preferred management methods for encouraging MRE development in an environmentally responsible manner. As there are few devices in the water, understanding is gained largely from examining one to three MRE devices. This information indicates that there will be no significant effects on marine animals and habitats due to underwater noise from MRE devices or emissions of electromagnetic fields from cables, nor changes in benthic and pelagic habitats, or oceanographic systems. Ongoing research to understand potential collision risk of animals with turbine blades still shows significant uncertainty. There has been no significant field research undertaken on entanglement of large animals with mooring lines and cables associated with MRE devices.

Marine renewable energy (MRE) is under development in many coastal nations, adding to the portfolio of low carbon energy sources that power national electricity grids as well as off-grid uses in isolated areas and at sea. Progress in establishing the MRE industry, largely wave and tidal energy, has been slowed in part due to uncertainty about environmental risks of these devices, including harm to marine animals and habitats, and the associated concerns of regulators and stakeholders. A process for risk retirement was developed to organize and apply knowledge in a strategic manner that considered whether specific environmental effects are likely to cause harm. The risk retirement process was tested against two key MRE stressors: effects of underwater noise from operational MRE devices on marine animals, and effects of electromagnetic fields from MRE electrical export cables on marine animals. The effects of installation of MRE devices were not accounted for in this analysis. Applying the risk retirement process could decrease the need for costly investigations of each potential effect at every new MRE project site and help move the industry beyond current barriers.

Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is key to international energy transition efforts and the move toward net zero. For many nations, this requires decommissioning of hundreds of oil and gas infrastructure in the marine environment. Current international, regional and national legislation largely dictates that structures must be completely removed at end-of-life although, increasingly, alternative decommissioning options are being promoted and implemented. Yet, a paucity of real-world case studies describing the impacts of decommissioning on the environment make decision-making with respect to which option(s) might be optimal for meeting international and regional strategic environmental targets challenging. To address this gap, we draw together international expertise and judgment from marine environmental scientists on marine artificial structures as an alternative source of evidence that explores how different decommissioning options might ameliorate pressures that drive environmental status toward (or away) from environmental objectives. Synthesis reveals that for 37 United Nations and Oslo-Paris Commissions (OSPAR) global and regional environmental targets, experts consider repurposing or abandoning individual structures, or abandoning multiple structures across a region, as the options that would most strongly contribute toward targets. This collective view suggests complete removal may not be best for the environment or society. However, different decommissioning options act in different ways and make variable contributions toward environmental targets, such that policy makers and managers would likely need to prioritise some targets over others considering political, social, economic, and ecological contexts. Current policy may not result in optimal outcomes for the environment or society.