Carbon sequestration is a fool’s errand. I’m sure there will be some effective technique at some point, but the hangups are huge: Concentrating CO2 (easiest done at the smokestack of a fossil fuel power plant), pumping it into a less harmful location (such as a natural-gas reservoir), and then ensuring it doesn’t leak.

One problem to keep an eye on is that CO2 apparently has some effect lubricating faults in rocks, so it may increase the permeability of the gas reservoirs where it’s injected. No guarantees one way or the other. Just as before the Iraq War, I said I hope the right-wingers are correct and this leads to peace and prosperity, I say the same thing with carbon sequestration.

Ever noticed that secuestrar (sequester) is the Spanish word for kidnap, hijack, sieze and confiscate? Then again embarazar means to get pregnant.

yes! it is very important to remember that when a bushie says a number relating to the environment, it is not a real number; it is a number that is being subtracted from a much larger number that you don’t want.

for instance, they call their gasoline initiative “twenty in ten” - 20% reduction in gasoline use by 2017. but

* “20%” means “if we can”;
* “reduction” means “after factoring in expected growth, so maybe it won’t be lower than it is now, which is a miserable friggin result to show for 10 years’ work”;
* “gasoline” at least means what it means; and
* “2017″ means “lawsuits to extend the schedule are openly invited”

on reduction. in 2004, according to this, we used 140 billion gallons of gas. okay so, the bushies described cutting gasoline use by 5% with “up to 8.5 billion gallons” saved by fuel efficiency. so their projection for 2017 gasoline use is 170 bn gallons.

170 - 20% = 136. a staggering 3% improvement over 140. even before you take into account the actual practicality and real net gain of growing 35 bn gallons of corn and rapeseed ethanol.

and yet you know, they’re big numbers. how can billions not be enough?