ODT: Carbon capture and storage should not be required.

Global PerspectivePeople concerned about global warming tend not to talk about global warming, but rather about carbon. The question is if we spend X billion dollars inhibiting carbon, how many degrees of global warming are claimed to be prevented? CCS requires spending a substantial amount of money, effectively increasing the cost of generating electricity by about 50%. The question for our debate is whether the cost is worthwhile. Since we don't know the costs of global warming, let's consider three scenarios:1. CO2 is responsible for most of global warming, and the warming looms as a potential world disaster. If this is true, then using CCS will not make enough difference to mitigate the problem substantially. We might get 2.9 degrees of warming rather than degrees. that's because most CO2 emissions are from mobile use, heating, and small industrial facilities. Climate engineering, however, has the potential of solving the problem.2. Most of global warming is natural, not CO2 induced, but still looms as a potential disaster. If so, CCS is a waste of money because reducing CO2 won't help. Climate engineering is then the only method that would solve the problem.3. Global warming, whether from CO2 or natural causes, is not so severe as to require global action. People will adapt to increased warmth. If so, we shouldn't spend money on CCS.These are not the only possible scenarios. We might face natural cooling or there might be new technology that offers other possibilities. But these three will suffice to discuss CCS.In the first scenario, I have made the claim that CCS won't do much good, and we'll argue that in more detail. However, notice that climate engineering proves the only means to avert disaster if the second scenario is the correct one. Moreover, everyone seems to agree that climate engineering methods are relatively cheap. The problem is that they have risks, and we don't know what will be most effective. Because CCS isn't ready to implement widely yet and is only practical when implemented in a new power plant and power plants have a life of 50 years, the CCS alternative isn't going to have a measurable effect for 50 years. That means that if climate engineering can be made practical in 50 years, we will be well ahead on solving the larger climate problem. Therefore, money should be spent on research in climate engineering instead.Global warming is not like air pollutionThe resolution doesn't say who should require CCS if it is required. Because it is so expensive, it's extremely unlikely that it could be required in any place other than the US and Europe. But if it were required in the developing world, the economic effects would pose an immediate disaster. It would means diverting scarce resources away from food production, infrastructure development, education, health, and other critical needs into the profitless task of burying carbon. It won't happen because it shouldn't happen.Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant in the conventional sense. It doesn't cause anyone to get sick nor does it do any direct damage to anyone's property. Increased CO2 helps plants grow and warming is an economic benefit to countries with cold climates. We don't know how much the extra CO2 in the environment would cost, so there is no grounds for claiming it ought to be treated like a pollutant that makes people sick. If electric generating costs are increased by 50% due to CCS, those costs will be born by the users of the electricity. That's nearly everyone. If there is a cost effect of climate change, it will also be born by a very large population, generally less in the tropics and more in temperate zones. So shifting costs to electricity users does little, especially because the CCS costs are high and the climate costs are unknown.If we are concerned about potential costs of CO2-induced warming, then we ought to use the cheapest method possible to treat them. For example, we have seven billion humans on earth each exhaling CO2 24/7. So why not require each person to exhale into a balloon and turn the balloon in for proper disposal each day. That's ridiculous, of course, but why? It's because the expense of requiring each person to do that is excessive for the small benefit obtained. It my be fair and just to charge each person for their alleged damage to the environment, but it's not the practical way to solve the overall problem. CCS has a similar problem. It costs too much to accomplish too little.CCS would provide negligible reductions in global warming Con claims that despite the costs, CCS can be effectively imposed on the entire world. If so, he calculates that a potential 3 degrees of global warming can be reduced to 2.6 degrees. Con claims that 0.4 degree savings from 3 degrees is significant, but I don't see why 13% less warming would make an appreciable difference in coping with the warming. However, if CCS were imposed on large power plants, the extra cost would likely cause people to respond by building smaller power plants to evade the requirement. The Cost Makes CCS Impractical Con objects that the costs I cited assume present technology. They do not, they are projections of what the costs will be if the technology is perfected and widely implemented. The references make that clear. The current costs are several times higher.Moreover, because the technology is in it's infancy there are risks that may drive up the cost. Organic chemist Dr. James Singmaster says, "The plants and the pipelines will be an easy terrorist target with just a stick or two of dynamite to cause a major escape and/or fire taking perhaps taking more lives that the Sept. 11 attack. A second factor that may lead to never-ending NIMBY [not in my backyard] protests is the odor of the capering chemicals. Tons of highly flammable chemicals are used and will be getting into the venting smoke of the coal fires that will be be cleaned of the carbon dioxide but be emitting odors." [11. http://www.wri.org...] Con cites a Wikipedia article that gives costs as high or higher than my sources.Con claims that the cost of CO2 in the environment is higher than the cost of carbon capture. He provides no data to support that claim. I believe that it's not possible to quantify the costs in the environment because we do not know how much warming is caused by CO2, we don't know the cost of coping with a warmer climate, and we don't know the incremental cost of coping with, say, 3 degrees rather than 2.9 or 2.6 degrees. Therefore, if we are concerned about global warming we ought to focus on the most cost-effective alternatives. Nuclear, Adaptation, and Climate Engineering are better alternativesAlternatives are not irrelevant because we are debating a resolution that says we should impose CCS regardless of cost or economic effect. I question the feasibility of extending the mandate to countries that cannot afford it, but Con persists that it should be done regardless. If we assume that things can be successfully mandated, then we ought to use that assumed power to mandate action as wisely as possible. Therefore its reasonable to propose that a cheaper alternative be used instead. If nuclear power plants are properly sited away from population centers, the costs of potential accidents are minimized. The expected cost is also a function of the probability o an accident. The Fukushima accident was a result of a very old design. New facilities will use modern, safe, designs. There is no objection to having nuclear power spread around the world, so long as there are safeguards against diversion for nuclear weapons development. If countries either refuse to agree to inspections or cannot be trusted then they must be included. That has no effect on CO2, because those countries aren't going to obey CCS mandates either.I have discussed climate engineering as being the only feasible solution to whole problem. That's where the money should go.