Found at GP.org:
Green Party of Pennsylvania says no to Carbon Sequestration
GREEN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA
http://gpofpa.org/
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Hillary Kane, 267-971-3559
Jay Sweeney, 570-587-3603
No substitute for reducing emissions
This week, the Green Party of Pennsylvania spoke out against a plan by Governor Rendell to bury waste from power plants in the ground. Known as “carbon sequestration,” the technique is believed to be more environmentally friendly than releasing toxics into the air.
However, the Green Party believes that injecting toxics into the ground is no solution to the problem noting that sequestered toxins can leak into groundwater and cause other disastrous environmental effects. Carbon sequestration will require capturing carbon dioxide, compressing into a liquid, transporting it through pipelines to a sequestration site and injecting it beneath the earth’s surface.
“We should be reducing our carbon emissions not simply moving the by-products around like it’s some sort of shell game,” said Hillary Kane, GPPA Chair.
Recently, Governor Rendell and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources have initiated an effort to explore the state’s geologic storage potential for carbon capture and storage or sequestration. Act 129 of 2008 requires research on carbon sequestration. Pennsylvania produces one percent of the earth’s greenhouse gases and this is an attempt to reduce the commonwealth’s contribution to global warming.
According to the Rendell administration, capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and storing it instead of releasing it into the atmosphere will allow coal resources to be used in a more environmentally friendly manner.
But the Green Party, a long-time environmental leader, disagrees. “Carbon capture and storage is no substitute for reducing carbon emissions. Pennsylvania should be reducing its coal fired power production by 50% and increasing its solar and wind energy production to compensate for this reduction,” suggested Wyoming County Green Party chair Jay Sweeney. “Capturing carbon, liquefying it and building a system of pipes to move the liquefied carbon to a sequestration site poses many environmental hazards including leakage into soil and water. The science is unproven and the results could be far more harmful than the benefits.” The Green Party of Pennsylvania, (http://www.gpofpa.org), is an independent political party founded on the four pillars of grassroots democracy, social justice, ecological wisdom and nonviolence.
it really depends on the medium in which the carbon is sequestered – sometimes these solutions — like in this case just burying it in the ground – may be effective than thought…
May be, as I alluded in the 1960s and 1970s, the earth is under going a mini ice age and the green house effect is so massive and run away that the temperature avalanche is well under way!
I suppose that a 100% lethal virus, immediately killing all human life not in orbit would only slow down the global warm up by a few centuries.
All the half measures recently contemplated will have little or no influence on the fore seeable future. I do not blatantly approve of super heated robber barren capitalist, and of course the smog and pollution equation is a separate issue. But global heat build up? Too little too late! Yelling and screaming will not help, nothing would/ will.
All these ‘experts’ tossing out solutions for environmental problems reminds me of all the clueless financial wizards, having blindly run the economy off into a ditch, now propose to direct us to safety and surety!
Yeah, right, sure!
Are we sure that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is really significantly contributing to any observed global warming? I think this quote from the release kind of sums up the entire issue: “The science is unproven and the results could be far more harmful than the benefits.”
Commercial wind generation is limited to places above 2,000 feet in elevation, which would mean parts of the upper Allegheny plateau and most of Somerset County. The number of cloud-free days in PA does not make it one of the best states for commercial solar power generation.
Maybe more nuclear power plants could help offset some of the coal generated electricity. Pennsylvania is one of the largest electric-generating states in the union, and it just so happens there is a lot of coal about.
Trying to replace half of the current production with solar and wind power may not be possible with present technology. Having said that, I do think it is a good idea for the Commonwealth to not pursue carbon sequestration research.
Good job with the release!