Hi Ron, Could you elaborate on why you think indemnification is not appropriate to biochar or REDD+? Is this simply because it isn't necessary, or because granting indemnification might foster an impression that these activities are potentially hazardous?
Josh On May 13, 10:16 am, [email protected] wrote: > Greg (cc list). > > Thanks for alerting us to this video, which I have watched. I learned a good > bit more from the pre-filed testimony and then reading the (not very long) > bill. The bill authorizes (but not appropriates) mainly for a still not quite > fixed indemnification process. I would expect the bill to be amended a bit > based on the testimony. > > Like you, I think the witness testimony is not very encouraging. I have one > friend closely watching the small number of available of CCS test results - > she says the program is a disaster. You don't pick that up clearly in this > hearing - but explains why indemnification is so important to everyone. It > seemed clear that the witnesses were unanimous that any Federal > indemnification must be temporary - and not be complete. Some liability now > appropriately remains with the developers. > > I was surprised that there was only oblique (very negative) reference to the > recent APS report on air capture. > > I think the whole Geoengineering discipline (this list) would benefit a lot > from a little more discussion along the lines of this hearing. Different > forms of both SRM and CDR would seem to have quite different risk (and needed > indemnification) profiles. If that discussion has reached the same level of > sophistication as exemplified here (especially the last witness), I have > missed it. The (maximum of ) 10 CCS projects will have a total of $10 billion > in Federally assumed responsibility. There was agreement that this is > appropriate only at this early stage. (Not clear if this is a maximum of $1 > billion each - or cumulative $10). Getting something similar through the UN > for similar SRM activities appears daunting. I think there is a much smaller > risk and need for insurance indemnification for the CDR areas that don't > involve underground sequestration. > > Based on this hearing, I would now argue strongly that Federal > indemnification NOT be requested/allowed for the REDD+ or Biochar forms of > CDR. > > Ron > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:35:40 PM > Subject: [geo] Senate hearing > > For those interested, archived webcast of Thurs Senate hearing on CCS and air > capture here: > > http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStr... > > But perhaps I can save you the agony of watching. The continued economic > unviability of CCS comes to the fore (despite billions of investment), and > now more is being requested to indemnify projects. Air capture is finally > mentioned for a few sentences at about 51:30 into the session. No air capture > experts were present. Very depressing given what's at stake and what little > progress on CO2 stabilization has been made (and will be made) on the present > course. > > -Greg > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
