Union of  Concerned Scientists views geologic carbon sequestration as one potentially viable option to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentrations. In no way, however, should geologic carbon sequestration be seen as a "silver bullet" to reducing emissions, nor should it be researched and developed at the expense of other environmentally sound, technologically feasible, and economically affordable solutions to climate change. UCS views technologies and policies that prevent emissions to the atmosphere in the first place -- such as improving energy efficiency in power generation, transportation and buildings, developing renewable energy, and protecting threatened forests - as the safest and highest priority. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/energy_sol ...  

Van Jones: There's also a thing called geological sequestration--which sounds painful! What that means is you'll bury carbon in big holes. But it turns out there aren't that many big holes in the ground. Surpise! Have you noticed any big holes walking around? And even if there were, there aren't any in a country called India, where there are 1.5 billion people. It's volcanic rock. So, even if we had the technology [for geological sequestration], we'd have to create a clean energy for them anyway. So why don't we do it all at once? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?blogid=4 ...

Barb McKasson of the Illinois Sierra Club said her organization doesn't oppose or support sequestration  http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2009/01/24/fro ...