Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is in some respects the "holy grail" for countries that largely depend on coal-fired power for electricity generation but want to reduce carbon emissions. Under this approach, carbon is captured during the incineration process and then transported typically to an underground location where it can be stored.

Energy experts in the European Union have very high -- perhaps way too high -- hopes for CCS. There is also considerable interest in China and the U.S. since a successful CCS process would allow both countries to continue to burn vast amounts of coal without emitting more carbon into the atmosphere.

But what about the risks associated with CCS? Will they outweigh the benefits? A recently published paper in Issues in Legal Scholarship, "Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Identifying and Managing Risks," provides an interesting and thought-provoking consideration of the subject.

The article, written by Profs. Alexandra B. Klass and Elizabeth J. Wilson of the University of Minnesota, is organized in two parts. The first part assesses risks associated with CCS. These include capturing the carbon dioxide emissions, using pipelines to transport the gas, and then storing it permanently underground. The second part of the article considers how the risks associated with these steps could be managed and analyzes whether "CCS should be deployed or whether its use should be limited or rejected in favor of other solutions."

CCS is going to be one of many ideas evaluated in the context of a carbon constrained economy. This article helps put the overall subject in more context.

(Thanks to Diane Burkhardt, Faculty Services Librarian at the DU law library, for calling this to my attention.)