Josh: Yes to both parts of your second sentence. The supplier of the Biochar certainly has a continuing responsibility as to the source of the Biochar.
Also the user has a responsibility to test before applying Biochar inappropriately. Testing is easy. The process and need for indemnification for CCS projects (maybe most Geoengineering projects) will strongly limit their introduction - and probably indicates that type of project is a bad idea. To my knowledge, no-one in either the REDD+ or Biochar technology areas is asking for indemnification. Ron Sent from my iPad On May 16, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Josh Horton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
