Dear Tracy, I reviewed your paper and have a few general and specific comments in response.
First, I would suggest focusing your analysis more heavily on the statutory issues and devote fewer words to common-law causes of action. In particular, there is a significant amount of activitiy taking place under the Clean Water Act that warrants discussion. The EPA's proposed treatment of CCS under the Clean Water Act -- and how states are responding to the proposed treatment -- will influence how any litigation plays out in the future. The Department of Ecology's decision in Washington State to treat CO2 as a waste in 2007 is a particularly illustrative example of how these statutory issues are likely to shape the parameters of future litigation. Second, I would suggest combining sections 2 and 3 and then cutting the length of these combined sections in half. In my view, they do not add significant value to the legal analysis and much of the information they include is likely to be stale in six to 12 months. The pace of development in this field is the reason they risk becoming stale soon. Third, I would suggest expanding the discussion about the political question doctrine. As a practical matter, do you really think geoengineering is likely to be deployed in the absence of "severe adverse consequences" of abrupt climate change? I can't see climate engineering moving forward to the point where it would be ripe as a legal matter before there is a bonafide crisis. In these circumstances, the political question issue is far more likely to figure front and center. In any event, I enjoyed the article and look forward to reading future drafts. Thanks and hope you're well. Best regards, Bill Pentland On Feb 7, 4:48 pm, Tracy <thester0...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've lurked in this group for quite a while, but I'm now stepping into > the light to provide a working paper for your consideration. > > While this group has usually focused on technical and policy issues, > you might have an interest in some of the potential legal battles that > could affect climate engineering projects. This working paper > discusses how existing U.S. environmental laws can be used to > challenge geoengineering research or field tests. U.S. environmental > laws have often served as the first line of legal resistance to new > technologies (GMOs, nanomaterials), so it struck me as a likely > scenario for geoengineering as well. > > You can access the working paper at tinyurl.com/6e7ejtf . I'd welcome > any comments or suggestions. Thanks! > > ********** > Tracy Hester > Director, Environment, Energy & Natural Resource Center > Assistant Professor > University of Houston Law Center > 100 Law Center > Houston, Texas 77204 > 713-743-1152 (office) > tdhes...@central.uh.edu > web bio: www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
