One of the risks is that too much pressure from the storage of CO2 far underground would cause earth tremors and force salty groundwater toward the surface.

Well, duh. Pump it into a 200 foot deep well and yeah, you're going to overpressure it. How about 5,000 feet or deeper, instead? There you have enough overburden to keep it down there.

The oil companies have been doing this for over 50 years. It's called a CO2 flood. But you don't inject it into near-surface reservoirs. If you want to know if it works or not, ask the oil companies. Don't let some college professor with no practical experience dink with it. They'll screw it up every time.

But realistically, this is much ado about nothing.

It seems kinda wrong to be looking for means to fix the CO2 problem when there is evidence that there is no problem. Until the 'divergence' issue is solved, then the very frame work of CO2 AGW is unproven.

The divergence issue is that all studies using proxies indicate that in the 20th century the highest warming was at the beginning of the century and that temperatures at the end of the century were lower. The instrumented readings show that we have very high temperatures now but they do not match the proxy temperatures for the same period. If the proxies do not match the instrumented readings one of two things has to be true. Namely, that either the proxies do not show temperatures as we believed or that we are doing the instrumented direct readings wrong. Either one means that we have no proof that the change global temperature over the last few decades is out of the ordinary.

If the change is not out of the ordinary, then there goes the whole CO2 AGW theory and the doom and gloom future. So, why tie up time trying to find a solution for a problem that has not been proven?

Hmmm...If we pump a bunch of CO2 into the ground and there is an earthquake or if we added Mentos to well, would soil then bubble up?

LOL

Surprised that nobody has commented so far.

My impression is that there is no way that carbon dioxide can be sequestered. Also, while a carbon dioxide tax may help curb the emissions, it will never be enough to seriously cut emissions since to do so would also hurt the economy that we all derive our livelihoods from.

So, the best strategy will be for everybody to just learn how to deal with the warming, increased precepitation and rising sea levels.

In some ways the insurance industry has already started doing this by charging exhorbinate fees for anybody building a strucutre near the coast and there are building codes as well.

Oh, almost forgot to mention the IPCC. Yes, there is a mitigation report from the IPCC. However, it appears to be very optimistic.

Should have included a comment about conservation and nuclear.

Believe that encouraging people to conserve may turn out to be more effective than taxation. If people do not live too extravagently, this could cut emissions better without hurting the economy than a tax. So, the conservation message is still very important and needs to be embraced by our leaders. It will not hault global warming, but will probably make more of a differance than sequestering carbon dioxide or any other strategy.

Also, a plug for Nuclear and wind power. Both are big construction projects that actually help the economy by employing lots of construction workers as well as operators for nuclear. Fortunately, the US is already moving ahead in this area and the rest of the world has never really stopped. Need electricity to power all the AC and emitting greenhouse gases from coal or gas to keep the AC going is silly.

Wow...attacks on people that put up information? What's that all about? I found an excellent article yesterday as I was trying to locate an article that discusses science, the scientific method, and how NONE of the conclusions of the IPCC measure up to the standards of scientific scrutiny that the faux claims of Al Gore and his shills tell us about. There is no Global Warming Science, just theories. If you are interested in the subject rather than character assination I suggest you go here. Brett: I'd love your take on this piece, Thanks, ">http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm>

Liquid coal won't get much political support unless they find a way to sequester the carbon. I think it's a viable method that's probably ten or fifteen years away, however.

Ideally, it'd be nice if emphasizing conservation was all we needed to reduce emissions. But most people are inherently lazy. And we know how well those "voluntary reductions" of CO2 work with corporations. They don't.

I think a carbon tax coupled with a reduction in the corporate tax would be a good idea. Instead, it looks like we'll be going with a cap-and-trade approach.

Andrew,

The city I live in just had the opportunity to replace a busy traffic light with a roundabout, but too many people complained and the city decided not to do it. This simple move could have made a significant dent in wasted gasoline and time. 3 minutes a day * 365 days a year * 50,000 drivers = 50,000,000 minutes a year saved. Multiplied times 100 major intersections this could have been 5 billion minutes of engines idling per year saved, and tens of millions of gallons of gas.

Unfortunately, fear and ignorance drove the decision. There was a Simpsons episode where Homer got stuck in a roundabout in Paris for 10 hours, and this scared people.

Instead of threating regressive and counter-productive taxes, governments (and Hollywood) should be involved in positive education to reduce waste.

Asia's brown clouds 'warm planet' The "brown cloud" is pollution from burning wood and fossil fuels Clouds of pollution over the Indian Ocean appear to cause as much warming as greenhouse gases released by human activity, a study has suggested
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6926597.stm

Great point in the 'xtronics' article about AGW "peer review": it's a small, closed club, the same people writing and reviewing papers.

ALWAYS be suspicious of researchers who refuse to share data and info on methods, ALWAYS!

I agree with Mark, a carbon tax should be in the mix.

Thor/Mark:

OK, let me play devil's advocate (Mark you probably already think I do all the time anyway):

Let's say the GW is real and man-made. In fact, let's also say that it is know taken as true that the activities of industry over the last 50 years has directly led to all of the warm up and melting ice. And, in accordance with some of the comments made here by the AGWer's simply reducing CO2 amounts will not prevent a worsening of the conditions. In other words we need some method to correct the problems.

Explain to me again how a carbon tax would solve this apparent crises? Simply put, we have seen vast increases in taxes to fix social and infrastructure concerns without any true improvement. I highly doubt that a government program or levied tax will be any sort of a solution. In fact, it will remove funds which could go to development that may lead to a solution.