ODT: Carbon capture and storage should not be required.

From an economic point of view, why are pollution, global warming and climate change such big problems. The problem is that they are negative externality of industrial operations [1]. The idea is that the cost of pollution is paid by the world community; where as the entity which indulges in pollution reaps immediate benefits. The best economic solution would be where the polluter has to pay the cost of clean up as well.Thermal power plants (TPP) account for a large proportion of CO2 pollution as they burn large amount of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) is a process consisting of the separation of CO2 from industrial and energy-related sources, transport to a storage location and long-term isolation from the atmosphere. CCS is a neat idea which can reduce fossil fuel emission from thermal power plants by over 90% [3]. It also internalizes the cost of clean up into cost of power production using TPPs. Whatever is the cost of power production today, it does not include the cost of cleaning up the atmosphere later on. If that cost is also considered as part of production of power, CCS will definitely turn out to much cheaper.The status of CCS was raised dramatically in 2005, when IPCC found CCS to be fundamentally feasible scheme and argued for research to fill in the gaps in the knowledge [4]. Since then lots of progress has taken place in this field making it one of the foremost tools to tackle global warming. International Energy Agency (IEA) prepared a target of converting 30% of power using fossil fuel to CCS by 2040 [5]. In December 2011, 7th session of Kyoto Protocol accepted CCS as the major mechanism for reducing global emission and worked on its modalities [6]. Coal Utilization Research Council expects that CCS technology will cost less than conventional method by 2025[7]. In its roadmap CURC lists at least 12 CCS projects which are under development in United States alone [8].== Rebuttals ==Roy relies on some rough back of the envelope calculation to argue against CCS. The calculations actually bolster my case, once some questionable assumptions are addressed.Negligible reduction in global warming: Effects of global warming will be felt across the globe. The whole world will have to naturally work together in mitigation effort. Roy assumes that this is a United States policy debate and tries to prove implementation of CCS in United States will have negligible effect on global warming. He succeeds in doing the opposite.As per his calculations, United States can achieve (1317/5424)*100 ~= 24% reduction in emissions by using CCS alone. This is no mean achievement.24% reduction in emission by US amounts to (1317/30398)*100 ~ 4.5% reduction in global emission. This is also a large amount once it is considered that this reduction would be the contribution of United States alone, by only working with thermal power plants.Pro correctly points out the effect of CO2 increase on global temperature may not be linear. Some extremely approximate calculations are used to argue that by the time global temperature rise by 3.0 degrees Celsius, CCS would have reduced it by 0.1 degree Celsius. Pro ignores the fact that effect of temperature rise on our planet may be exponential. However we will ignore that for the moment.However even this is significant once we consider that this is the contribution of United States alone. Let us extend this calculation to rest of world.Globally, power generation accounts for 10 billion tonnes of carbon emission [9]. If we can save half of this through CCS, the savings will be of 5 billion tonnes. Adapting my opponent’s calculations:Percentage saving in emission = (5 / 30)*100 ~ 16.7%Over an unspecified period, instead of doubling carbon rises by 1.83Increase in temperature ~ 3*log(1.83)/log(2) ~ 2.6 degree celcius.The savings are indeed significant.Cost makes CCS impractical: As per study presented by my opponent:...carbon dioxide capture increases the busbar electricity cost (COE) from 5.0 to 6.7 ¢/kWh at IGCC plants, from 4.4 to 7.7 ¢/kWh at PC plants, and, finally, from 3.3 to 4.9 ¢/kWh at NGCC plants.There are two factors to be considered. This is the extra cost based on current technology. A major factor which is contributing to cost is that this technology is relatively new. As per CURC the cost of energy production using CCS is likely to level off with conventional production by 2025. The cost of. CCS internalizes the cost of pollution. If the cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere is factored into cost of conventional production, CCS will turn out to extremely inexpensive. CCS does not come free. However considering the benefits offered by this technology, CCS offers value for money.Pro uses weird and old argument that 'China' would never do it. Let us get thing straight. We are talking about global warming. Major global players will have to work together on this issue. If United States and China, both use 'they won’t do it' excuse to wriggle out of any action, no efforts to mitigate effect of global warming are going to succeed. Pro should not be allowed to use such arguments in this debate.3. Nuclear, Adaptation, and Climate Engineering are Better Alternatives: Pro throws in major red herrings into the debate.There is no doubt that nuclear power is a good option. However there are some major problems with using nuclear power to replace fossil fuels.I accept that nuclear power poses very little risk if proper safety precautions are taken from design stage itself. However the human and economic cost of accidents is disproportionately high. If the cost of accident relief is internalized into production cost, nuclear may not remain a very feasible option. If Pro is urging for world-wide adoption of nuclear power, nuclear technology will have to be given to large number of countries. This could be problematic. In case of world-wide adoption it is possible that the safety standards will go down, increasing the risk of accident. After the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, there has been huge political opposition to nuclear power. This makes widespread adoption unfeasible. If Pro is arguing for adoption of nuclear power by United States only, his own calculations can be used to show that the impact on global scale would be negligible. Pro mentions adaptation, however he fails to explain what he means by it. He mentions research into climate engineering. While I do support further research; as an old parable goes, 'a bird in hand, is worth two in bush'. Pro offers no evidence that any solution which may be offered by climate engineering is likely to be less expensive.If the only alternative which Pro can offer is nuclear, that makes my case for world-wide adoption of CCS stronger. We can always adopt both nuclear and CCS options to reduce emissions.== References ==[1] http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://sequestration.mit.edu...[4] http://www.ipcc.ch...[5] http://www.iea.org...[6] http://unfccc.int...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.coal.org...[9] http://www.sciencedaily.com...