Carbon Capture and Sequestration:

Editors Note

We agree that there must be an increase in the demand for carbon removal but  an obstacle of equal or greater dimension is the lethargic  regulatory process that governs the CCS. The existing regulatory  process is the outgrowth of a program developed by both parties. Those participants who are waiting for a particular presidential candidate to reform the aforementioned program without a strong input directly to the regulators from the regulated firms need to reassess their strategy!

It is noteworthy that we embellish  the recent 2024 Emissions Gap Report but at the same time take no immediate action to control toxic emissions into the atmposhpere.

The Conversation  Website

Wikipedia states The Conversation is “a network of nonprofit media outlets publishing news stories and research reports online, with accompanying expert opinion and analysis. Except in “exceptional circumstances” it only publishes articles by “academics employed by, or otherwise formally connected to, accredited institutions including universities and accredited research bodies”.  The following is a statement on the Conversation Website.

             Getting Carbon Capture Right Will Be Hard But It Does Not Make It Optional

We are most pleased with the response from our readers in the very short period of time this IPD has been online. That said, we are making no apologies for our support of CCS.

Is it a perfect solution, no it is not! We must remember that  we are burning fossil fuels and their by products must be disposed in either the land, water or air.  CCS chose the land and we agree because future technological advances could neuter the toxicity of the incoming waste stream.

The literature abounds with misstatements on CCS. Regulators are directed to compile complete information searches in the development of a regulatory docket and report their findings to the relevant decisionmakers. Consequently it is imperative that CRE analyze the aforementioned  misstatements. We have decided to review an article which was just published in the last seventy-two hours in an influential newspaper with a worldwide audience, The Guardian. Consequently subsequent posts will address the deficiencies in this article: “Carbon capture plan is a colossal waste of money”.

The above title says it all; CCS is an invaluable program to address climate change but it is being implemented at a slow rate, in part because of the myriad of administrative checks and balances placed upon its most important regulator–the Environmental Protection Agency. This Interactive Public Docket (IPD) is dedicated to initiating the necessary actions to elevate the interest of the public and regulators to the societal costs arising from its somewhat latent status.