This note proposes that the policies behind strict liability make it a viable remedy, superior to statutory and many common law causes of action, for the potential and probable injuries that will inevitably flow from CCS operations.
This report examines the state of geoengineering science, federal involvement in geoengineering, the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering, and any governance challenges around geoengineering activities.
This article considers the legal and commercial models for securing the rights to use geologic pore space in an effort to sequester billions of metric tons of CO2 deep underground to mitigate climate change.
This article focuses on the need to address carbon capture and sequestration jurisdiction (what is CCS and how it should be permitted), liability (who is responsible for any harm), and property rights (who owns the various pieces of a CCS system).
Will Reisinger, Nolan Moser, Trent A. Dougherty, James D. Madeiros
This note examines the legal uncertainty surrounding the acquisition of storage space for carbon dioxide, the injection process, and the liability for post injection incidents as disincentives to the large-scale deployment of CCS in the United States
This article suggests ways in which risks of CCS can be minimized and managed and considers more broadly when or if CCS should be deployed or whether its use should be limited or rejected in favor of other solutions.
This paper provides a 2009 update of the regulatory and legal developments of CCS in the European Union, United States, Australia, Canada, and Norway, as part of the IEA’s International CCS Regulator’s Network.
This article provides a comparative analyses whether biochar is waste in the EU and the US and whether the pyrolysis treatment, transportation and storage of biochar may be exempted from the regulatory burden placed on the classification of waste.