If the price goes up we could be left with stranded investments.

Also investment in CCS might not be wise until coal reserved are reliably known.

Con Little, I’m playing a pretty straight bat on this one. If Kim said RWDB it was because some of the phrases looked like it.

I’m not apologising this time. I could have taken offense at how I was characterised, but mostly these days I can’t be bothered.

So let’s just put it down to experience and draw a line, OK?

I do own the comment from 2006. A bit has changed since then. For example, there has been quite a bit of talk about geoengineering from time to time. Robert Merkel first posted about it in April 2007, I think.

Also we’ve become aware of the potential for other kinds of sequestration, such as soil carbon sequestration.

Are you redundant? Have you been offered “redundancy”? Is some part of you redundant? just asking.

I note this from Brian in 2006:

“Secondly, Gore, Hansen and others who express confidence in the success of mitigating action mostly seem to rely on the geosequestration of CO2 from burning coal as a central part of the answer. If this proves impossible, what then?”

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/10/05/facing-the-knowns-and-unknowns-of-climate-change/

Since CCS has been in use since 2000, some 6 years prior to you declaring it potentially impossible, I can only surmise you have not properly investigated the issue. The fact that you and Kim resort to personal abuse and hysteria when facts like these are brought to your attention does your cause no favours at all. Manners cost nothing.

A splendid idea! Shall we have a contest, then? The first person to stop breathing wins.

Your turn!

With a current world population of 6,710,503,425 (as of 01:35 GMT (EST+5) Jul 17, 2008), each person containing about 18% carbon, and assuming 50 kilograms mass per person, there is some 72,473,426 tonnes of carbon poised to enter the environment at any one moment.

Worse, it’s reproducing, and is increasing in mass every day. Every day. Every. Single. Day.

This is intolerable! What shall we do?!!??!?

More seriously you might like to tell us what your interest is in this matter. Is it purely intellectual, or something else?

Google seemed to think I meant Little Con!

But you and your camp followers chose to believe what the scientists are telling us on GHG but appear to dismiss what they tell us about CO2 geosequestration with little more than a condescending sniff. If I’m wrong about you…

You are, I think. There’s still an attitude problem, Con. If you weren’t here when it was being discussed, you don’t know.

It’s been done over many times and if others want to have another go, it’s up to them.

Personally, if what I wrote came across as a “condescending sniff” I’m sorry. Usually I don’t put as much colour in my writing as many. Possibly I’m not all that good at it.

Ambigulous, James Hansen has some hope that we can reduce the extra GHGs to virtually nothing. He does suggest that we should have separate programs for each, as we did with CFCs. He thinks they are more amenable to solving than CO2. He could be right, I wouldn’t know.

Obviously.

But you and your camp followers chose to believe what the scientists are telling us on GHG but appear to dismiss what they tell us about CO2 geosequestration with little more than a condescending sniff. If I’m wrong about you and you’ve in fact reached a conclusion based on a disinterested examination of the available evidence, then please be kind enough to share with us what you know. I’ll certainly closely examine your arguments and the contents of any links you provide.

I can understand why BROWN coal is so bad, being approx 70% water, so a huge amount of the combustion energy is used in drying the next batch of fuel (imagine trying to burn et newspaper or wet firewood).