I think stability of CO2 storage comes third in line of CCS critical failings behind the volume problem and the large energy penalty. Note that Texas has legislated to minimise liability for escape of CO2 from underground storage. Apart from climate change coal is now clearly a finite commodity. Despite claims of 200 years of reserves, the coal that is being mined now is in shallow, dry, thick continuous seams so we are picking the low hanging fruit. Recent large price increases (up to 70% a year) and the fact China is now a coal importer seem to underscore the finiteness of coal. However there is still enough to take us past atmospheric CO2 levels unprecedented for humans.

Therefore Rudd must not lose his nerve on the ETS and go for at least 25% carbon cuts by 2020. Reduce the share of the auction revenue squandered on futile CCS research. Cut the compo to trade-exposed industries as in reality most of them are still better off in Australia. I think in fact we could end up in front, not behind the rest of the world.

I do not think enough thought is given to the fact that recycling is natural. There is still the same amount of stuff on the earth but it is just in different places. Tim Flannery on Monday night in a piece of breath taking hypocrisy said how sea level were far lower 20,000 years ago without saying why? There was an Ice Age 15000 years ago but in fifty years the main ice melted and filled up the seas like Bass Strait. No one talks about this elephant in the room when Climate Change is discussed.
What you want is the power to push the rest of us around and tell us we are about to all dieand be paid for this. A prominent Melbourne climate Scientist lives at Southbank on the Yarra. Well do as you tell us not as you do and dont mention the Ice Age will you?

Anita,

I wouldn't be so certain that biological sequestration techniques are the be-all and end-all. There's evidence, for instance, that using biochar in forested areas can increase soil microbial activity. Guess what, that releases much of the CO2 back again.

Furthermore, the insistence that geological sequestration *can't* work is a pretty big call. Aside from mineral sequestration, the fact is that natural gas fields have been storing CO2 for millions of years.

Finally, there are some essential processes - notably steelmaking - for which the only low-carbon approaches involve CCS.

So even if coal-fired power stations with CCS turn out to be a dud, we'll probably need CCS anyway.

"In order to maintain the Earth's life support systems, we must prevent global warming from spiralling out of control." Hey, could you stop Tectonic (continental) Drift at the same time. This must be the flat earth society again you're coming from, climate change is natural, stop denying it and trying to stop a natural process. You'll want tides stopped next (and Tectonic Drift).

We need to spend money adapting to Natural Climate Change, whether it is warming or cooling, not trying to stop it. Talk about not being able to accept the bleeding obvious. Yes, it's change, accept it get on with your lives.

"Tim Flannery on Monday night in a piece of breath taking hypocrisy..."

Tim also commented that methods to increase the carbon content of the soil (eg Agrichar, a pyrolytic residue from organic waste) have the potential to substantially, if not entirely, offset fossil carbon emissions. As a consequence the fertility of the soil is increased.

Surely such an option which is known to improve soil fertility and store carbon stably for thousands of years makes more sense than an unproven and costly technology without additional benefits?

Tim also spoke about flat earthers.....

Joe Romm has a good article on CCS at
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/29/is-coal-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-a-core-climate-solution/
Joe identifies four fundamental problems: cost, timing, scale, and permanence and transparancy.

There is a risk that policymakers will provide CCS with a disproportionate amount of funding compared to other technologies in order to support the long term viability of Australia's coal exports. This would mean that less funding will be available for research, development, demonstration and deployment of technologies that do work or are likely to work. Technologies that are more likely to significantly reduce emissions include wind, geothermal, solar power (including solar thermal), wave power, energy efficiency, recycling and biosequestration.

If the extra funding that CCS receives is there to assist the coal export industry - and statements from senior members of government departments suggest that it is - then the funding should come from the coal industry, in the form of taxes on coal mining or coal exports.

There is nothing wrong with researching CCS but governments should not base their technology policies on "picking winners". The problems mentioned above mean that if they try this with CCS, they will end up wasting resources picking a loser.