Al Gore’s Pledge Against Coal Energy

Image representing Al Gore as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

Al Gore makes a pledge to defy any future coal plants that refuse CO2 capturing.  Coal Plants must embrace EGO GORE’s  false science or fail to exist.  Southern Company follows the pledge of Al Gore along with Mississippi Power.

The Turkey Bologna Mississippi Power-Southern Company Gobble-up

Mississippi Power and Southern Company, are strong proponents of global warming.  They have been collaborating since at least 2003 on preventing further Global warming by following the Kyoto Protocols.  Southern Co Voluntary Emission Reductions Kyoto protocols  complies with Al Gore Science clowns recommendations VOLUNTARILY as UN dictates without laws or official regulations on CO2 yet.   Southern Co will fully comply with United Nation’s Kyoto Protocols.
Just ignore The Southern Company’s occasional forceful finger wag suggesting EPA disapproval as they continue to help develop mountains of regulations in full cooperation following the Kyoto protocols.
All is not well with Al Gore’s turkey bologna science.  More emails exposed providing more evidence for criminal fraud we hope will be used to stop this non-science in the IPCC.  Perhaps Southern Company should rethink their bed-fellow.

Shocker: 5000 More ‘Climategate’ Emails Released!

More Climategate emails have been released — showing widespread deceit among climate alarmists.

Five thousand more Climategate emails have just been released on a Russian web site. PR trouble is on the way for Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, James Hansen, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), etc.

James Delingpole, author of Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors, couldn’t be happier. As he writes in yesterday’s newspaper column:

… all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.

Delingpole then lists a few excerpts from the latest Climategate emails. Among them are these:

/// The IPCC Process ///
<1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […]

<3066> Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter: It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

<2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck: I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about “Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence.  What is it?

<0714> Jones: Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones: Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be have to involve him ?)

This is just a little sampling of thousands of newly-released emails from the gurus of “climate change.” The fun has just begun.

Climate realists are combing through these emails to find more proof that the “climate change” activists are dishonest and pursuing political agendas that have more to do with global government than dealing with any real climate change crisis.

For background on the Climategate emails released in November, 2009, read Climategate by Brian Sussman and Climategate: The CRUtape Letters by Steven Mosher.

And, for more on the Climategate 2.0 email scandal, check out: Steve McIntyre, James Delingpole, Anthony Watts, and Steve Milloy. The emails can be downloaded from FOIA.org.

Southern Company Helps Reduce Global Temperature by Reducing CO2

Southern Company and Mississippi Power are playing a supportive and grossly expensive role in pushing to reduce CO2 out of the savings of the citizens for Southern Company’s possible profit.  Southern Company’s shareholder’s risk is greatly diminished by the ratepayers paying for virtually all   expenses of the experiment.  Do you feel cheated?

Cow Fart Game

Play Methane Madness: put a cork in Gore’s climate day

CFACT’s new game trains online players to help “Pal Gore” control the climate by corking cows and watching them float away, only to realize neither humans nor cows are threatening the planet and Al Gore is the one full of hot air!

http://methanemadness.cfact.org/

Al Gore’s Says CO2 causes Global Warming and Kemper IGCC Experiment is Here

Al Gore on Global warming and the need to reduce CO2 from coal plants.  The rate payers in Mississippi are being FORCED to pay for the experimental CO2 capturing device on the Kemper Coal plant. This is a following the plans for Cap and Trade and the Agenda of international governments (United Nations).  Al Gore plays a key role in promoting the bogus science.

 

Kemper County Coal – FRAUD

John Casey Mentions Kemper County by Name on the Radio this Morning.

Interview with Kipp Greggory on 104.9fm Gulf Coast Morning

http://www.newsradio1049fm.com/player/?art=B4L&tra=on%20demand&omu=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/30338/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/30338/1695/richmedia/INTERVIEW_-_20110901_-_JohnCasey_-_Agenda21AndGlobalWarming.mp3?CCOMRRMID=21370730&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=BILOXI-MS&NG_FORMAT=&NG_ID=&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=1695&SERVER_NAME=wbuv-fm.admin.clearchannel.com&SITE_ID=1695&STATION_ID=WBUV-FM&TRACK=

Artificial Paradise, Inc. (Agenda 21) (via Free Us Now Weblog)

Just a couple more laws and regulations… Do you want to to look the other way?

Artificial Paradise, Inc.  (Agenda 21) Introduction I have some good news for you.  You have a life plan!  Your idyllic paradise has been carefully conceived and is awaiting just a couple more laws and regulations to be hammered out before given to you.  The bad news is that your life plan is being planned by someone else. Your paradise is not of your conception, nor perhaps even to your liking.  It is artificial, imposed by the CEO's of AP, Inc. Although many years of planning have g … Read More

via Free Us Now Weblog

Al Gore Profanity Laced Meltdown as Global Warming Scam Collapses

Rated “R” Parental discretion

Al Gore Meltdown at the Aspen Institute – Profanity laced rant as Global Warming Scam collapses

Mississippi Punked – Scheme Raises Energy Prices to Enrich Wall Street

Congressional Climate Bills:

Stealth Schemes to Raise Energy Prices

and Enrich Wall Street

by Stephen Lendman
Monday, 17 May 2010
If cap and trade is enacted, polluters will win. Consumers will lose, and Wall Street will get the mother of all speculative bonanzas. No wonder, they and the energy giants are lobbying ferociously for passage.

On June 26, 2009, HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) passed, purportedly “To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.”

In fact, it lets energy polluters raise prices for huge windfall profits and gives Wall Street a bonanza through carbon trading derivatives speculation. Catherine Austin Fitts’ Solari.com blog, “Coming Clean” explained it last July in her article titled, “The Next Really Scary Bubble” is coming, saying:

“If you think the housing and credit bubble diminished your financial security and your community, or the bailouts, or the rising gas prices did as well, hold on to your hat” for what’s ahead. “Carbon trading is gearing up to make the housing and derivative bubbles look like target practice,” or in other words, be the mother of all scams, courtesy of administration, House and Senate collaboration with Wall Street and the energy giants.

Now the Senate version – a clean energy bill? Not according to the Center for Biological Diversity (biologicaldiversity.org) calling it:

“a disaster for our climate and planet. (The Kerry-Lieberman) proposal moves us one baby step forward and at least three giant steps back in any rational effort to address the climate crisis. (Their bill) would entrench our addiction to fossil fuels by offering incentives for increased oil and gas drilling just days after what appears to be the worst offshore oil disaster in American history.”

Their proposal includes “no safeguards….to make offshore oil safe. (It) echoes greenhouse pollution reduction targets that scientists recently called ‘paltry’ and inadequate to prevent the worst impacts of climate change….The Kerry-Lieberman (bill) is not the answer because it asks the wrong questions.”

New climate legislation must:

  • reduce “atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million….;”
  • supplement “existing environmental laws – especially the Clean Air Act – instead of gutting these successful and proven environmental protections;”
  • be “free of loopholes allowing polluters to delay or avoid reducing their greenhouse gas emissions;” and
  • avoid “habitat destruction and increased greenhouse gas emissions through perverse subsidies.”

House of Senate bills fail “these tests.” They’re “a disaster for our climate and planet.” The House bill lets polluters “escape real emissions reductions.” The Senate bill:

  • bans Clean Air Act provisions and “existing state and local efforts to tackle climate change;”
  • facilitates, subsidizes, and accelerates oil and gas drilling, including offshore;
  • “subsidize(s) dangerous and costly nuclear energy; and
  • incentivize(s) the destruction of forests for biomass energy production;” this provision, however, appears stalled.

Last June, Public Citizen called the House bill:

“a new legal right to pollute (that) gives away 85 percent of (its) credits to polluters. (It) will not solve our climate crisis but will enrich already powerful oil, coal and nuclear power companies” at the expense of consumers stuck with higher than ever bills to enrich them.

This writer’s July 8 article titled, Obama’s Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill: A Stealth Scheme to License Pollution and Fraud explained it.

Hyperbolic Democrats praised it, Speaker Pelosi calling it “transformational legislation which takes us into the future” after taking congratulatory calls from Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Al Gore.

The former vice president has long-standing ties to Goldman Sachs (GS), and in 2004, he and David Blood, GS’s former asset management division CEO, co-founded Generation Investment Management LLC, a firm likely to profit hugely from cap and trade schemes if enacted.

So will energy giants like Royal Dutch Shell (top-ranked in 2009 on Fortune’s Global 500) and Duke Energy that helped write the bill, that according to Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder “fails to come anywhere close to solving the climate crisis. Worse, (it) eliminates preexisting EPA authority to address global warming – that means it’s actually a step backward.”

Greepeace agreed saying it “sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions.”

Energy companies praised it, and why not. Big Coal got a waiver until 2025. Agribusiness was exempted altogether even though it contributes up to one-fourth of greenhouse gas emissions. The free allowances provision benefits the nuclear industry hugely. The nation’s largest nuclear power company, Exelon, said it would reap a $1 – 1.5 billion annual windfall from subsidies and higher prices.

ACESA is a scam. It’s about profits, not environmental remediation. Its emissions reduction targets are so weak, they effectively license polluters by giving them a new profit center to exploit. As for Wall Street, it offers greater than ever derivatives trading profits – a new multi-trillion dollar market to be “securitized, derivatized, and speculated,” according to Clinton’s former Commerce undersecretary, Robert Shapiro. If cap and trade becomes law, the market will explode in his judgment.

Others agree, seeing a speculative bonanza, why FIRE sector (finance, insurance and real estate) lobbyists spent a record $465 million in 2009 according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Energy and natural resources companies also, spending $409 million to assure a plum this sweet becomes law.

The American Power Act (APC) – Unveiled on May 16 and now available in Pdf form.

It’s as hyperbolic as the House version saying:

It “will transform our economy, set us on the path toward energy independence and improve the quality of the air we breathe. It will create millions of good jobs that cannot be shipped abroad and it will launch America into a position of leadership in the global clean energy economy.”

It claims not to be about enriching Wall Street, but to reduce carbon pollution by “17 percent in 2020 and by over 80 percent in 2050,” so far ahead that who’ll remember unmet targets.

It says:

  • “Consumers will come out on top.
  • We need energy made in America.
  • America needs to regain its competitive edge….
  • We need a new approach to reducing emissions (and)
  • The system must be simple, stable and secure.”

Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica debunked it, saying:

“Without dramatic improvements, this bill should not be passed, and senators should consider alternatives. In the meantime, existing tools like the Clean Air Act must be put to work. More broadly, we must end a system in which polluter lobbyists exercise effective veto power in Congress. Our economy, global security and the health of the public are all at stake.”

According to Public Citizen’s Tyson Slocum in his May 13 analysis, APC fails across the board saying the “Climate Bill Is a Misnomer: It’s a Nuclear Energy-Promoting, Oil-Drilling-Championing, Coal Mining-Boosting Gift to Polluters….with a weak carbon-pricing mechanism thrown in.”

Worse still, it guts the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. It provides nuclear power incentives at taxpayers expense. Under sections 1101 and 1105, citizens won’t have public hearings on nuclear power risks, especially ones in their communities. Section 1102 “increases loan guarantees primarily for nuclear power to a jaw-dropping $54 billion.” Considering the industry’s high default risk, consumers will be stuck with the bill the way they’ve paid trillions for Wall Street bailouts.

In section 1103, 12 proposed nuclear plants will get $6 billion in taxpayer-subsidized risk insurance. Section 1121 lets nuclear power operators accelerate depreciation. Section 1121 “provides a 10 percent investment tax credit for new reactors.” Under section 1123, the industry gets Advanced Energy Project credits, and it “derives certain tax, bond and grant benefits from investing in nuclear power” from sections 1124, 5 and 6.

More than ever, Big Oil gets to “Drill Baby, Drill” (that assures “Spill Baby, Spill”), including more of it offshore, despite the spreading Gulf disaster, and there’s more. Under section 1202, states may keep 37.5 of oil and gas royalties. “That’s like saying because more rich people live in California and New York compared to Mississippi and New Mexico, (they) should be able to keep more federal dollars raised from income taxes. Royalty revenue sharing is patently unfair,” especially since offshore spills respect no state shorelines or inland areas if they spread.

Big coal will get generous loan guarantees and more. “Section 1412 establishes a (utility-collected) carbon tax paid by ratepayers….to fund carbon capture and storage (CCS) – with no money allocated to rooftop solar or energy efficiency investments.” Under section 1431, coal companies are given (taxpayer subsidized) emissions allowances – “an untested, risky strategy that benefits (them) and is gobbling up a lion’s share of subsidies” that should go for renewable energy development.

Merchant coal power plants (whose rates aren’t regulated) will get about 5% of the handouts, “which will provide opportunities for them to gouge consumers.”

Section 1604 says because “voluntary” renewable energy markets are efficient and effective programs, “the policy of the United States is to continue to support” them without the guarantees given fossil fuel and nuclear industry giants.

The bill also promotes carbon offsets trading – a scam to let polluters buy credits from countries or companies whose greenhouse gas emissions fall below their allowed quotas. However, shifting isn’t reduction. It simply transfers pollution from one place to another, has no verification mechanism, creates a system wide open to fraud and mismanagement, and allows the same market manipulation shenanigans that created the housing and toxic derivatives bubbles – precisely why energy giants and Wall Street want it.

Utilities, not consumers, will benefit from free 2013 – 2029 allowances, “exclusively” for ratepayers purportedly. But instead of remitting directly to them, the Senate bill lets state utility commissions decide. They, in turn, can be more or less consumer friendly, but as their past history shows, ratepayers will end up losers.

As for Wall Street, the Senate bill is marginally less accommodative than the House version, but not enough to matter. For example, a new Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Office of Carbon Market Oversight is created, letting the corporate-run agency regulate spot and futures emission markets.

It would require emissions traders to register, be approved, and have their transactions cleared through a CFTC-run Carbon Clearing Organization. It’ll work the same way the Federal Reserve regulates banks – by letting the giants that own it make the rules.

Further, carbon trading lets Wall Street “control our climate future” by “mak(ing) the housing and derivatives bubbles look like target practice,” as Catherine Austin Fitts explained.

If cap and trade is enacted, polluters will win. Consumers will lose, and Wall Street will get the mother of all speculative bonanzas. No wonder, they and the energy giants are lobbying ferociously for passage.

Connection to the Gulf Disaster

On May 9, Attorney General Eric Holder told ABC’s This Week that he sent Justice Department officials to the Gulf to determine if any “misfeasance (or) malfeasance” occurred.

Is the Senate climate bill perhaps connected to the Gulf spill? – being used as a pretext to propose “protections,” including a provision saying:

“Mindful of the accident in the Gulf, we institute important new protections for coastal states by allowing them to opt out of drilling up to 75 miles from their shores. In addition, directly impacted states can veto drilling plans if they stand to suffer significant adverse impacts in the event of an accident.”

Don’t bet on it, as House and Senate bills, in fact, assure more, not less, offshore drilling, thus far prohibited in oil rich waters Big Oil companies covet. But what they want, they generally get, free from regulatory oversight or not enough to matter. That won’t change nor the chance for more spills, on or offshore. As one expert explained: “As long as we keep using this stuff, we’re going to be spilling it. It goes with the territory.”

Yet if the Gulf incident was deliberate, why so? On September 30, S. 1733: Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act was introduced, purportedly to “create clean energy jobs, promote energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.”

On November 5, it was reported to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, remained stalled, and the December Copenhagen climate summit (COP 15) failed. Then after the April 20 Gulf incident, it was reactivated to take advantage of a good crisis – what White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel once told the Wall Street Journal saying:

“You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is that it’s an opportunity to do things you thought you couldn’t do before.”

And a joint Kerry-Lieberman statement said ahead of the bill’s rollout:

“We are more encouraged today that we can secure the necessary votes to pass this legislation this year in part because the last weeks have given everyone with a stake in this issue a heightened understanding that as a nation, we can no longer wait to solve this problem which threatens our economy, our security and our environment.”

White House climate advisor, Carol Browner, told Bloomberg TV that:

“This accident, this tragedy, is actually heightening people’s interest in energy in this country and in wanting a different energy plan.”

Perhaps they, BP, Transocean and Halliburton know something we don’t. In this case a possible false flag “accident” to jump-start passage of the Senate bill to enrich polluters and Wall Street, the only way they may have thought possible after Senate debate stalled.

Of course, to enlist enough public and congressional support, a headline-making incident was needed, though doubtful one this grave was intended – according to some experts spewing from 40,000 – 100,000 gallons daily to continue for months, even years given the enormous underwater pressure at a one-mile depth – 40,000 pounds per square inch, the reason fixes so far tried have failed, and no one’s sure what’ll work. The latest BP tube insertion may be more a PR stunt than a solution, but don’t look for its officials or Washington to explain it.

Extremely worrisome are the enormous deep water oil plumes, one, for example, 16 km long, five km wide, and 91 meters thick, suggesting permanent ecological damage with untold consequences. Already, oxygen in the Gulf is depleting, threatening sea life over a vast area and the livelihoods of area fishermen.

As for the industry’s likely cost, it’s pocket change, especially as others (including Washington and perhaps the states), not the offenders, will pay the most. Consider the Exxon Valdez disaster.

It occurred in March 1989. After years of litigation, plaintiffs got $385 million in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitive ones. However, after numerous appeals, the Supreme Court (in June 2008) reduced the latter ones to $500 million – ten cents on the dollar or the equivalent of about 1.5 days profit from Exxon’s Q 1 2008 operations, or hardly enough to matter.

As for Prince William sound and its residents, its beaches are still contaminated. The high-pressure hoses did more harm than good. They destroyed interlocking layers of gravel and flushed away fine sediments that protect beach areas, clams and mussels during storms. As many as 300,000 seabirds were killed plus other wildlife.

A Trustee Council study found 17 of 27 monitored species haven’t recovered. Bio-accumulation of toxins affected the killer whale population. Clams are inedible from hydrocarbon poisoning. Shellfish damage slowed the recovery of otters that feed on them. The herring never returned. Salmon caught have abscesses and tumors, and the lives of about 32,000 plaintiffs were permanently disrupted economically, emotionally and culturally by bankruptcies, alcoholism, suicides, family violence, and divorces. And today the area still smells like a gas station and perhaps will for decades.

As for enacting Senate energy legislation, falsely called a climate bill, the battle lines are now drawn, including for offshore drilling, but given its importance to Big Oil, expect heavy-lifting lobbying for passage, whether or not this year. Whatever happens, expect the public to lose out to powerful corporate interests, especially energy and Wall Street ones spending millions to assure it.


Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His blog is sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to Lendman’s cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/051710Lendman.shtml

Carbon Dioxide – Geologic Sequestration | Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

Mississippians are told by their Elected Public Service Commissioners that the Kemper County Coal Plant will Capture CO2 then store, transport, and trade it.  So let’s learn more about this process:

Geologic Sequestration

Background

According to scientists, atmospheric build-up of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases as a result of human activities is changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and tending to warm the planet. Scientific studies link these changes to shrinking glaciers, sea level rise, changes in plant and animal habitats, and other global impacts. One possible way to avoid the negative impacts of higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is to avoid emitting the CO2 into the air in the first place.

Carbon dioxide can be captured at stationary sources and injected underground for long-term storage in a process called geologic sequestration (GS) (Video – WMV, 8 min.). In its Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Exit EPA Disclaimer, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identified CO2 capture and geologic sequestration as one of several options (including energy efficiency and renewable energy) that have the potential to reduce climate change mitigation costs and increase flexibility in achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions. The IPCC estimates that there is enough capacity worldwide to permanently store as much as 1,100 gigatons of CO2 underground (for reference, worldwide emissions of CO2 from large stationary sources is approximately 13 gigatons per year) (IPCC, 2005).

Confidence in this technology is supported by the knowledge that CO2 produced through natural processes has been retained in geologic formations for hundreds of millions of years (IPCC, 2005). The presence of multiple trapping mechanisms will reduce the mobility of CO2 underground over time, decreasing the risk of CO2 leaking to the surface (IPCC, 2005). It is likely that well-selected, well-designed, and well-managed GS sites can sequester CO2 for long periods of time.

Approximately 95% of the largest stationary sources of CO2 emissions (e.g., coal-fired power plants) in the United States are within 50 miles of a candidate GS site (GTSP, 2006). Considering the large storage capacity in the United States, GS has the potential to contribute significantly toward meeting the goals of the nation’s climate policy. To help realize these goals, the federal government is conducting a wide range of GS-related activities.

EPA Roles and Responsibilities

EPA’s goal is to ensure that GS activities are conducted safely and effectively. EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program regulates underground injection of CO2 and other fluids under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The UIC regulations were designed to help ensure that injected fluids do not endanger underground sources of drinking water. The regulations are implemented by state and federal regulators and well operators with expertise in relevant geological issues, well siting, well construction, well operation, and well closure. With over 800,000 regulated wells injecting a variety of fluids over the past 30 years, the UIC program is one of the largest and most experienced permit programs in the nation.

EPA’s primary responsibilities include:

Developing Greenhouse Gas Reporting Mechanisms for GS Under the Clean Air Act

Developing UIC Regulations Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Evaluating Risks to Human Health and the Environment

EPA is working closely with the Department of Energy (DOE), state co-regulators and other stakeholders on all GS activities to leverage resources, clarify key questions and data gaps, and ensure that work is complementary and not duplicative. The following are examples of the products of these coordinated efforts:

EPA issued Class V Experimental Technology Well Guidance for Pilot Geologic Sequestration Projects in March, 2007 to assist in processing permit applications for near-term pilot projects.

EPA has been sponsoring and co-sponsoring workshops on Geologic Sequestration since 2005.

EPA’s GS-related activities support those that DOE is conducting. For more than a decade, DOE has led federal efforts on research, development, and deployment of GS technologies. DOE is currently directing seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships and overseeing the development of FutureGen Clean Coal Projects, an initiative to equip multiple new clean coal power plants with carbon capture and storage technology.

References

GTSP. 2006. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage: A Core Element of A Global Energy Technology Strategy to Address Climate Change. Global Energy Technology Strategy Program.

IPCC. 2005. Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

via Carbon Dioxide – Geologic Sequestration | Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA.

%d bloggers like this: