The basic idea behind “Carbon Capture and Storage” is enticing: remove carbon-dioxide emissions when coal is burnt and store them safely – so we can enjoy cheap, abundant fossil-fuel energy with no negative greenhouse impact. Fantastic!

The Greenpeace perspective on CCS
And there’s the problem… while a nice idea in principle, the proposal remains, in effect, a fantasy. It’s possible future technological breakthroughs will eventually make the fantasy reality. Such things have happened before. Even so, our boffins haven’t had 100% success in making science fiction come true.
Yes, we now have supersonic aircraft – even spacecraft – things Jules Verne and H.G. Wells could only dream about. But we still don’t have time machines. Some things are imaginable – but very hard, if not impossible, to achieve.
“Carbon Capture and Storage” is of that type. It’s clearly not easy. After all, the incentive to make it work is enormous. CCS would assure the coal industry a secure future in a world compelled reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, the coal industry worldwide – with all its vast resources – has failed to develop large scale, affordable CCS. The most optimistic estimates for when CCS may become a working reality stretch out decades in the future. By any standards, it’s a long shot.
The case for spending public monies on CCS research and development is therefore very slim. Why should the public fund research that’s so strongly in the coal industry’s own interests? Coal is big business, after all.
Most legitimate environment groups in Australia have long opposed CCS, seeing it as a distraction at best. But a handful of influential conservationists have given it measured support. The Climate Institute, a relatively new lobby group, is one of organizations that has been supportive.

John Connor, Climate Institute CEO: wants to clear the air
Yesterday’s Australian budget promised a national taxpayer investment of $2 billion for CCS. The Climate Institute’s CEO, John Connor cautiously welcomed the expenditure on CCS R & D, saying: “We can’t let it hang around like a bad smell”. He means we must quickly resolve the issue of whether CCS can be achieved on a commerical scale. (Clearly, if it can’t be done, coal has little future as a mass energy source in a greenhouse-constrained world.)
The problem with this strategy is that it can take a long time to prove a negative. Eternity, to be precise. If, meanwhile, we continue to export and burn coal at record levels, Australia remains a continuing (and worsening) part of the global greenhouse problem. Surely that’s not what the Climate Institute wants?
I suggest Mr Connor’s analogy is somewhat misleading. It’s not CCS that’s “hanging around like a bad smell”. Greenhouse gas pollution – much of it caused by coal emissions – is the ‘bad smell’. CCS is more like a deodorizer.
The prospect that CCS technology will work in the future has a vital current use – for the coal industry. It helps rationalize its continuing expansion in countries such as Australia. It helps justify building more coal-fire energy plants, even in countries that claim to be ‘greenhouse conscious’ such as Britain. It helps to cover up the bad smell about what’s really happening: growth of an emissions-intensive energy source at the very time irt should be constrained and wound down.

Vattenfall Pilot Plant: progress but no solution
I hope I’m wrong. I hope CCS will work. Some optimists point to power plants such as the new Vattenfall pilot plant in Germany. But it’s only a pilot – and the CO2 storage problems are as yet unsolved: “Vattenfall is currently searching for a suitable storage site to be connected to the pilot plant..”
Some folk hope we’ll invent a perpetual motion machine – but we don’t usually let zany optimists manage our national budget. Hope alone is not a sufficient basis for the deployment of enormous public investments.
As things stand, CCS is primarily a deodorizer for the coal industry. It’s PR. What’s more, it’s PR that coal industry lobbyists have pursuaded our government to fund, with billions of taxpayer dollars.
To my way of thinking, that really stinks.







Many around the world share similar sentiments, but Icelanders currently believe they have more reason than most.
As far I can recall, there were only very half-hearted attempts in Britain to stir up war-fever and tranform Icelanders into reviled national enemies, people who merited 