No subject

to include these fundamental repudiations of
democratic principles in the
U.S.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::From:
Rachel's Democracy & Health News #932, Nov. 8, 
2007[Printer-friendly version]CARBON SEQUESTRATIONBy
Peter MontagueIn response to a relentless stream of
bad news about global warming, acluster of major
industries has formed a loose partnership with
bigenvironmental groups, prestigious universities,
philanthropicfoundations, and the U.S. federal
government -- all promoting atechnical quick-fix for
global warming called "carbon sequestration.""Carbon
sequestration" is a plan to capture and bury as much
as 10trillion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide deep in
the ground, hoping itwill stay there forever. (A ton
is 2000 pounds; a metric tonne is 2200pounds; ten
trillion is 10,000,000,000,000.) Though the plan has
notyet received any substantial publicity, it is very
far along.The purpose of the plan is to reduce the
amount of carbon dioxideentering the atmosphere from
the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oiland natural
gas). Carbon dioxide is the most important
"greenhousegas," which is thought to be contributing
to global warming.[1] 

Acarbon sequestration program would capture the gas,
turn it into aliquid, transport it through a network
of pipelines, and pump it intothe ground, intending
for it to stay buried forever.From an industrial
perspective, carbon sequestration seems like awinning
strategy. If it succeeded in reducing carbon dioxide
emissionsto the atmosphere, it would allow coal and
oil firms to retain andeven expand their market share
in the energy business throughout the21st century,
eliminating the need for substantial innovation.
Carbonsequestration would also greatly reduce the
incentive for Congress toinvest in renewable energy,
which competes with coal and oil.Furthermore, carbon
sequestration might deflect the accusation thatthe
coal and oil corporations bear responsibility (and
perhaps evenlegal liability) for the major
consequences of global warming (moreand bigger
hurricanes, droughts, floods, and fires, for
example).Finally, if the carbon sequestration plan
were to fail, with grievousconsequences for human
civilization, failure would occur decades orcenturies
into the future when the current generation of
decision-makers, researchers, philanthropists, and
environmental advocatescould no longer be held
accountable.For all these reasons, coal, oil, mining,
and automobile corporations,plus electric utilities,
are eager to get carbon sequestration going. 


To accomplish their goal, the coal and oil firms are
being helped byresearchers at Princeton and Stanford
universities, and by theJoyce Foundation in Chicago,
which is underwriting a campaign byenvironmental
advocates on behalf of industry's plan.
NaturalResources Defense Council (NRDC), the Izaak
Walton League, the CleanAir Task Force, the Michigan
Environmental Council, and others havereceived
substantial grants to advocate for carbon
sequestration. 

Finally, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
administrator StephenJohnson recently endorsed
industry's plan. All the pieces are now inplace and an
aggressive campaign is under way to persuade state
andfederal legislators to endorse large-scale carbon
sequestration.What's at stakeAfter trillions of tons
of carbon dioxide have been buried in the deepearth,
if even a tiny proportion of it leaks back out into
theatmosphere, the planet could heat rapidly and
civilization as we knowit could be disrupted. Quite
plausibly the surface of the Earth couldbecome
uninhabitable for humans. 

Thus, one way or another, the futureof humanity is at
stake in the decision whether to endorse
carbonsequestration or to develop the many renewable
energy technologiesthat are available to eliminate our
dependence on carbon-basedfuels.Major benefits for the
coal industryTo one degree or another, carbon
sequestration will benefit all of theindustries
involved, allowing them to continue business as
usual,removing the need for substantial innovation,
and reducing competitionfrom renewable fuels. 

However, it is the coal industry that willbenefit the
most. One could argue that, without carbon
sequestration,the coal industry itself cannot survive.
Once large-scale carbonsequestration has begun, the
coal industry will be free to unleash anenormous new
enterprise turning coal into liquid fuels. The
technologyfor coal-to-liquids, or CTL, was fully
developed decades ago. CTL wasdevised by German
chemists in the 1920s, and the Nazis could not
havepursued World War II without it. 


Unfortunately, coal-to-liquids is anexceptionally
dirty technology that produces twice as much
carbondioxide per gallon of fuel, compared to
petroleum. Carbonsequestration would bury that extra
carbon dioxide in the ground, thussolving the coal
industry's biggest problem, making
coal-to-liquidsfeasible, and assuring a future for the
coal industry itself.You have perhaps heard the phrase
"clean coal." This contradictoryterm was coined by
carbon sequestration advocates as a publicrelations
ploy. In "clean coal," the word "clean" is narrowly
definedto mean "coal that contributes less carbon to
the atmosphere in theshort term, compared to typical
coal combustion."In actual fact there is nothing clean
about "clean coal." Even iflarge-scale carbon
sequestration begins, the mining and burning of"clean
coal" will continue to destroy hundreds of mountains
inAppalachia, and will continue to pollute the
Midwestern and Easternstates with millions of tons of
deadly fine and ultrafine particles ofsoot ("fly
ash"), plus nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides 
(SOx),mercury, dioxins, radioactive particles,
polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons, and so on. 

Large tonnages of coal bottom ash will stillbe buried
each year in shallow pits overlying aquifers, creating
aperpetual and growing threat to drinking water
supplies. In theMidwest and West, large tracts of
land, and large amounts of scarcewater, would still be
contaminated or otherwise made unavailable
foralternative uses. In sum, "clean coal" is an
advertising sloganwithout substance. Furthermore, if
even a small proportion of thesequestered carbon from
"clean coal" ever leaks out of the ground, theplanet
could experience runaway global warming.The danger of
tiny leaksIt is important to distinguish between
carbon dioxide and carbonitself. 

Carbon is an element, one of the 92
naturally-occurringbuilding blocks of the universe.
Carbon dioxide is a chemical compoundmade up of one
carbon atom attached to two oxygen atoms (CO2).
Byweight, carbon dioxide is 27% carbon; in other
words, one ton ofelemental carbon will create 3.7 tons
of carbon dioxide. Carbondioxide is the main
"greenhouse gas" thought to be contributing toglobal
warming.[1]Before the industrial revolution, there
were 580 billion tonnes ofcarbon in Earth's
atmosphere; today there are 750 billion tonnes 
(anincrease of 170 billion tonnes, or 29%, since about

1750). Becausehumans burn roughly 2% more coal, oil
and natural gas each year(thus doubling total use
every 35 years), the carbon buildup in theatmosphere
is accelerating. Presently humans are emitting about
eightbillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each
year, not all ofwhich is retained there.Unfortunately,
emissions of eight billion tonnes per year
aresufficient to worsen a global warming
problem.[1]The amount of carbon held in underground
supplies of coal, oil andnatural gas is very large. By
a conservative estimate, worldwide thereare 3510
billion tonnes of carbon remaining underground in
coal; 230billion tonnes of carbon in oil; and another 
140 billion tonnes ofcarbon in natural gas (plus 250
billion tonnes in peat), for a totalof 4130 billion
tonnes of carbon held in fossil fuels globally. If25%
of this were burned and the carbon sequestered,
leakage of only0.8% of the total per year would exceed
the current annual humancontribution to atmospheric
carbon (eight billion tonnes). 

And ofcourse the oil and coal companies plan to burn
far more than 25% ofwhat remains in the ground. Their
goal is to burn 100% of it. If theymanaged to burn 
75% of remaining fuels, then annual leakage of 0.26%of
the total would exceed the current eight billion tonne
annual humancontribution to atmospheric carbon. This
could eventually lead torunaway global warming,
plausibly rendering the Earth uninhabitablefor
humans.It is now widely believed that humans must cut
their carbon emissions80% by the year 2050 to avert
runaway global warming. (Actually,some now calculate
that more than an 80% cut is needed -- but for thesake
of argument, let's accept the lower 80% estimate at
face value.)An 80% reduction from eight billion tonnes
would allow humans to emitonly 1.6 billion tonnes of
carbon annually to avert runaway globalwarming.If we
accept this estimate of the carbon reduction needed 
--
cutting80% from current levels -- then the allowable
leakage must be reducedaccordingly:** if 25% of
remaining fossil carbon is sequestered, any leakage
above0.16% (about one-sixth of one percent) of the
total per year couldeventually result in runaway
global warming;** if 75% of remaining fossil carbon is
sequestered, then leakagegreater than 0.05% 
(one-twentieth of one percent) of the total peryear
could eventually produce runaway global warming.Can
humans bury several trillion tons of carbon dioxide in
the groundwith complete confidence that 0.05% of it
will not leak out each year?Never leak out? The
leakage could begin at any time in the fardistant
future because the danger would lie buried forever,
waiting toescape, a perpetual threat.The short-term
secondary effects of a carbon sequestration program
arealso worth considering. 


Once large-scale carbon sequestration begins, it will
be exceedinglydifficult to stop. As soon as
sequestration begins, the coal and oilcorporations,
and the environmental groups and universities
advocatingon their behalf, will assert that "carbon
sequestration has beensuccessfully demonstrated."
Indeed, the environmental advocates aremaking such
claims already, based on a very short history of
pumpingsmall amounts of carbon dioxide into oil wells
to force more oil tothe surface.[2] But how can anyone
"demonstrate" that leakage will never occur in the
future? Such a demonstration cannot be
made.Furthermore, once the U.S. government begins to
repeat theenvironmentalists' false claim that carbon
sequestration has been"successfully demonstrated," why
would China not adopt it? And India,countries in
Africa, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union
--why wouldn't they adopt it? If we claim a right to
threaten the futureof humanity, don't others have an
equal right to assert such a claim?But can other
countries devote the same resources we can devote
tositing, engineering and geologic studies? Will they
all be able tomonitor for leaks far into the future,
essentially forever? (For thatmatter, will the U.S.
have that capability? Humans have no
experiencecreating institutions with a duty of
perpetual vigilance.) 


If the carbon-sequestration advocates can get their
program started,it seems likely that Congress will
declare the global warming problem"solved" and carbon
sequestration will be employed until all
therecoverable fossil fuels in the ground have been
used up.If carbon sequestration advocates can get
their program going, theU.S. will have little further
incentive to invest in renewable sourcesof energy --
and so we stand to lose a unique opportunity to
rebuildthe U.S. economy on a sustainable basis and
revive America's standingas an industrial leader in
the world. Carbon sequestration, once itgets started,
will allow 19th century energy technologies to
dominatethe U.S. throughout most of the 21st
century.In sum, to evade liability, to relieve
pressure for innovation, tostifle competition, and to
make a great deal of money, the proponentsof carbon
sequestration are betting the future of humans on
anuntestable technology -- permanent underground
storage -- anact of hubris unparalleled in the annals
of our species.[3]Minds already made upBut, you may
ask, "Doesn't the U.S. have the strongest
environmentalprotection laws in the world? 


Surely a vigilant EnvironmentalProtection Agency 
(EPA) will ask hard questions, and protect us fromthe
bias of industry's hired experts?"Last month U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief
StephenJohnson announced that EPA will issue
regulations coveringcarbon sequestration. However, as
he was announcing EPA's intention,Mr. Johnson issued a
ringing endorsement of carbon sequestration asthe
silver bullet to fix the nation's environmental and
economicproblems: "By harnessing the power of
geological sequestrationtechnology, we are entering a
new age of clean energy where we can beboth good
stewards of the Earth, and good stewards of the
Americaneconomy," Mr. Johnson said. Clearly, Mr.
Johnson's mind is alreadymade up.The Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) -- which earned itsreputation
as a "shadow government" by watchdogging EPA -- now
sharesEPA's giddy optimism toward carbon
sequestration. In a letter to aCalifornia legislator,
NRDC's George Peridas asserts that carbonsequestration
can be "perfectly safe." And NRDC scientist
DavidHawkins was quoted recently saying carbon
sequestration can becarried out with "very very small
risks." NRDC has a $437,500 grantfrom the Joyce
Foundation to promote carbon sequestration
onindustry's behalf.Clearly, these "experts" have
their minds made up. But many common-sense questions
remain:** Given that there are many good alternatives,
why would humansaccept even a "very very small" risk
of making their only homeuninhabitable?** And, given
that the stakes are exceptionally high, shouldn't
weapproach this with a little humility and ask, "What
if the experts arewrong? What if they are fallible and
haven't thought of everything?What if their
understanding is imperfect?" After all, geology
hasnever been a predictive science, and humans have no
experience buryinglethal hazards in the ground
expecting them to remain there inperpetuity.** Since
everyone alive today -- and all their children and
theirchildren's children far into the future -- could
be affected,shouldn't we have a vigorous international
debate on the wisdom ofcarbon sequestration versus
alternative ways of powering humaneconomies? Don't we
have an obligation to develop a very
broadinternational consensus before proceeding --
especially among thenations most likely to be harmed
if carbon sequestration fails?[4,5,6,7,8].** And
finally, give the exceedingly high stakes, the
irreversiblenature of carbon sequestration, and the
substantial and irreducibleuncertainties involved,
isn't this a decision that cries out forapplication of
the precautionary principle?==============[1] Carbon
dioxide is the main "greenhouse gas" causing
globalwarming. As humans burn carbon-containing fuels 
(coal, oil and naturalgas), carbon in the fuel
combines with oxygen in the air to createcarbon
dioxide, or CO2. In the air, CO2 acts like the glass
roof on agreenhouse -- it lets in sunlight, which is
converted into heat energyas it strikes the earth.
When the heat energy radiates back into thesky, CO2 in
the atmosphere acts like a mirror, reflecting heat
backdown to earth, warming the planet just as a glass
roof warms agreenhouse. Global warming from this
"greenhouse effect" was firstdescribed by Swedish
chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[2] Thirty-five
million tons of CO2 are being pumped into depleted
oilwells in Texas each year, to force oil to the
surface. Thirty-fivemillion is 0.00035 percent of ten
trillion. Scaling up a 35 megatonoperation by a factor
of 285,000 is not a trivial problem but this isnot
mentioned by industry's advocates who are trying to
persuadelegislators to endorse large-scale carbon
sequestration.[3] Another human act that demonstrated
similar hubris by a smalltechnical elite was the
explosion of the first A-bomb at the TrinitySite in
southern New Mexico July 16, 1945. That morning, the
LosAlamos scientists involved were not sure that the
Bomb would work, butthey also had a side-bet going
among themselves because they wereunsure whether the
Bomb, if it did work, wouldn't ignite the
Earth'satmosphere. 


Contents::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's
Environment &  Health News) highlights the connections
between issues that are  often considered separately
or not at all.  The natural world is deteriorating and
human health is declining    because those who make
the important decisions aren't the ones who  bear the
brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between
human  health, the destruction of nature, the decline
of community, the  rise of economic insecurity and
inequalities, growing stress among  workers and
families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,
intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be
divided and  therefore ruled by the few.    In a
democracy, there are no more fundamental questions
than, "Who  gets to decide?" And, "How do the few
control the many, and what  might be done about it?" 

As you come across stories that might help people
connect the dots,  please Email them to us at
dhn at rachel.org.    Rachel's Democracy & Health News is
published as often as  necessary to provide readers
with up-to-date coverage of the  subject.  Editors:
Peter Montague - peter at rachel.org  Tim Montague   - 

tim at rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's
Democracy  & Health News send any Email to:
rachel-subscribe at pplist.net.  In response, you will
receive an Email asking you to confirm that  you want
to subscribe.  To unsubscribe, send any Email to:
rachel-unsubscribe at pplist.net.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation P.O. Box 160, New
Brunswick, N.J. 08903 dhn at rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::




*************************** 
*************************** http://www.draftnader.org/
http://www.ilgp.org http://www.northsidegreenparty.org
http://www.greenallianceusa.org
http://www.labornotes.org http://www.solidarity-us.org
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the
best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for
free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm


***************************
***************************
http://www.draftnader.org/
http://www.ilgp.org
http://www.northsidegreenparty.org
http://www.greenallianceusa.org
http://www.labornotes.org
http://www.solidarity-us.org
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com