CO2 sequestration is okay, as long as you don’t dump it in the Oceans which are already acidifying, and when you pump it underground you realize it will be coming back eventually.

In other words, use it to buy time, not as permanent fix.

The economics of it are such that I don’t think it will be much of a worry anyway … if you have old oil and gas fields to inject the captured CO2 into, it might make economic sense, but otherwise it costs more to capture the CO2 that the money made from selling the power generated.

This is the big issue facing the US. The great majority of it’s electricity is generated using coal. Because coal is cheap. ( As long as you don’t count the sludge ponds and the damage from strip mining. ) To make coal global warming friendly by capturing the CO2 it becomes expensive. Very, very expensive.

To somewhat lesser degree that is the same issue facing the oil / tar sands. We can make them ‘clean’ but at $90 – $100 a barrel. And no one will pay that when they can buy mid east crude at $50.

The difference with the oilsands is that Alberta looses it’s main source of disposable income … bad enough, but potentially survivable. For the US to go green in the time that we seem to have left means turning the lights out. Faced with that, denial is, unfortunately, understandable.