I also read your letter and agree with and suport it strongly. john gorman hampshire uk ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: Rau, Greg Cc: [email protected] ; geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 6:34 AM Subject: Re: Re: [geo] Senate hearing
Hi Folks, Greg, I have read your statement to Sen. Bingaman concerning S. 699/757 (along with the bills) and found your statement to be the most concise and knowledgeable deceleration of the scientific/technical state of affairs concerning CO2 mitigation yet offered.....in any forum. Your core concluding statement "we must think beyond CCS if we are to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at safe levels. Nature provides plenty of inspiration as to how we might cheaply, safely, and effectively do this." is the road map that should be followed if we are to prevent massive amounts of resources....and time....being wasted. This forum is not singled minded on many issues. On this policy debate, it might be a good idea to agree upon the apparent "state of affairs" and support S. 699/757. Thank you....Greg, Michael On May 17, 2011 12:36pm, "Rau, Greg" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > With the sorry state of CCS and the non-discussion of air capture at the hearing, I was compelled to write a letter to the committee - attached. I would encourage others to also express their views to the committee. While this may not be the beach head we had hoped for, it is nevertheless an opening for dialogue and information exchange with the policy makers, which should not be squandered due to lack of appropriate expert witnesses being asked to speak. > > -Greg > > > > > > On 5/13/11 7:16 AM, "[email protected]" [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.LiveStream&Hearing_id=bc9e9485-df04-5fb0-8621-ac3afa2b26a6 > > > > > > 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 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. -- 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.
