The university-town pledge to reduce their carbon emissions is good. We need more organizations doing this type of reduction. Looking at manmade point sources and taking steps to mitigate them. As for the sequestration concept, I don't see this as fully thought out, despite appearances to the contrary.
It's predicated on a couple of assumptions: the continued absence of climate change policies and the cost of alternative fuels being more at present than fossil fuels. The solutions put forth are: reduction or sequestration. Well reduction would mean using less fossil fuel. Since we're hooked on that like a junkie to heroin or crack then hey lets sequester. Well, to do that from the point sources would be pricey and we're running out of places to put what we collect from there. Cheap decommissioned mines and the ocean floor are current sites. But, with dead trees lying all over the forest floors of the world and, well while we're there, some of the standing trees, living that is. could be collected and buried or stored above ground (Visions of X-files type warehouses).
Basically the logging industry says this would be way cheaper! I suspect they are thinking about those X-files type warehouses won't be necessary and all that dead stuff that can't be sold could be buried AND they get paid for it. Wow, now they can charge to deal with what was just a problem that cost them. The author makes no reference to the CO2 that would be spewed in the process of collecting all that considering the heavy equipment that would be necessary and the access roads that would be cut. Now this brings up a couple of other points he kinda brushes aside, environmental damage and loss of biodiversity as we cut up every last forest on earth to get to all that sequestered CO2. This all sounds like the ultimate junkie's dream, getting paid to shoot up!
Sorry, Nish. It just sounds like a bad idea put forth without the full consequences being accounted for.
