The article glosses over the question of whether geosequestration can work economically and long term on the scale required. It might work for example for natural gas byproduct on Barrow Island, but not for brown coal burning in the Latrobe Valley. If as some predict it turns out to be an expensive dud this raises the question of whether the Howard government is
(a) scientifically gullible or
(b) in cahoots with coal industry to buy time.
Not surprisingly both the Howard and Bush administrations are pushing geosequestration, naysaying Kyoto and both think the missile defence shield is good science. Since both were comfortably re-elected I guess we will have to wait some years for a reality check.

My mind simply can't comprehend how one can take a tonne of anthracite (carbon) out of the ground, mix it with oxygen to make it into 3.7 tonnes and then put it back where you got it from (albeit a bit deeper), and at the same time cross one's fingers to make sure the gas cannot leak out. Sure you can make some sort of difference but to make the whole process carbon neutral to the atmosphere now and into the future escapes me. Surely it is better not to burn the stuff in the first place.
What we need is some leadership but it has been a long time since we have seen real vision in this country.