David,

Thanks for the article. It was great.

Sometimes it's difficult to decide whether to be more "global" or "local." Today, it's local.

I live in the middle section of New England - NH, to be exact. Acid rain, from my fellow citizens in the West and MidWest, is a huge problem. It's irritating because there's nothing we (in NH) can do to directly stop it - and the coal fired power plants don't listen to us.

So, given the choice between warmer days, loss of coastal areas, and other bad events, I would have to say that the cost of storing carbon emissions is not a great solution (for us).

I wish the management of and the investors in those coal fired power plants would build some windmills or solar panel farms - or come swim in some of our lakes...

- Dan

It reminds me that CO2 sequestration from combustion of biomass will have similar drawbacks in increased supply chain emissions.  More biomass to power the CO2 pumping.  Pipelines, wells, equipment, it all adds up and adds to the GHG.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

For any fuel/power cycle.  Chasing pollution control while compromising efficiency is always a bad idea, for the simple reason that it makes other problems harder.

And bad as CCS is, it is only the natural extension of the Clean Air Act, which follows the same approach.  But you've heard that rant before...