What Was The WWF Thinking ?  

Posted by Big Gav in ,

I think I'd rather environmental groups asked the Government to stop subsidising coal companies instead of asking them to hand over my tax dollars in search of a magic hole in which to stuff all our carbon emissions - Green group defends clean coal push. Its not like our largest industry doesn't have plenty of cash of its own to spend...

Environment group WWF has called for urgent testing of carbon capture and storage (CCS) to determine whether or not the low-emissions technology for fossil fuels can work. The organisation has come under fire from rivals Greenpeace and the Australian Greens for cooperating with the coal industry in a call for the government to speed up CCS investigation. Greenpeace released research suggesting CCS is wasteful, expensive and environmentally risky, and could not effectively be deployed before 2030. ...

Greens climate change and energy spokeswoman Christine Milne said the technology was unproven. "So now we have an alliance designed to shepherd the Rudd government all the way to the budget," Senator Milne told ABC Radio. "It completely undermines the environment movement trying to move forward and getting to the low carbon future where we all want to be."

Greenpeace says its report, due out next month and based on independent scientific research, backs its stance that CCS is a false hope promoted by the coal industry. A summary of the report says CCS could not be deployed at a utility scale before 2030, when emissions needed to start falling after 2015 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It says the technology uses between 10 and 40 per cent of the energy produced by a power station, could lead to a doubling of plant costs and could not guarantee the safe and permanent storage of CO2. "The real solutions to stopping dangerous climate change lie in renewable energy and energy efficiency that can start protecting the climate today," the summary says.

1 comments

Anonymous   says 5:31 AM

How do they say? "Follow the money"?

Who funds WWF? Or Greenpeace, for that matter?

Post a Comment

Statistics

Locations of visitors to this page

blogspot visitor
Stat Counter

Total Pageviews

Ads

Books

Followers

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (619) global warming (423) solar power (397) peak oil (355) renewable energy (302) electric vehicles (250) wind power (194) ocean energy (165) csp (159) solar thermal power (145) geothermal energy (144) energy storage (142) smart grids (140) oil (139) solar pv (138) tidal power (137) coal seam gas (131) nuclear power (129) china (120) lng (117) iraq (113) geothermal power (112) green buildings (110) natural gas (110) agriculture (91) oil price (80) biofuel (78) wave power (73) smart meters (72) coal (70) uk (69) electricity grid (67) energy efficiency (64) google (58) internet (50) surveillance (50) bicycle (49) big brother (49) shale gas (49) food prices (48) tesla (46) thin film solar (42) biomimicry (40) canada (40) scotland (38) ocean power (37) politics (37) shale oil (37) new zealand (35) air transport (34) algae (34) water (34) arctic ice (33) concentrating solar power (33) saudi arabia (33) queensland (32) california (31) credit crunch (31) bioplastic (30) offshore wind power (30) population (30) cogeneration (28) geoengineering (28) batteries (26) drought (26) resource wars (26) woodside (26) censorship (25) cleantech (25) bruce sterling (24) ctl (23) limits to growth (23) carbon tax (22) economics (22) exxon (22) lithium (22) buckminster fuller (21) distributed manufacturing (21) iraq oil law (21) coal to liquids (20) indonesia (20) origin energy (20) brightsource (19) rail transport (19) ultracapacitor (19) santos (18) ausra (17) collapse (17) electric bikes (17) michael klare (17) atlantis (16) cellulosic ethanol (16) iceland (16) lithium ion batteries (16) mapping (16) ucg (16) bees (15) concentrating solar thermal power (15) ethanol (15) geodynamics (15) psychology (15) al gore (14) brazil (14) bucky fuller (14) carbon emissions (14) fertiliser (14) matthew simmons (14) ambient energy (13) biodiesel (13) investment (13) kenya (13) public transport (13) big oil (12) biochar (12) chile (12) cities (12) desertec (12) internet of things (12) otec (12) texas (12) victoria (12) antarctica (11) cradle to cradle (11) energy policy (11) hybrid car (11) terra preta (11) tinfoil (11) toyota (11) amory lovins (10) fabber (10) gazprom (10) goldman sachs (10) gtl (10) severn estuary (10) volt (10) afghanistan (9) alaska (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) distributed generation (9) esolar (9) four day week (9) fuel cells (9) jeremy leggett (9) methane hydrates (9) pge (9) sweden (9) arrow energy (8) bolivia (8) eroei (8) fish (8) floating offshore wind power (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) methane (8) nanosolar (8) natural gas pipelines (8) pentland firth (8) saul griffith (8) stirling engine (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) airborne wind turbines (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) chp (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) scenario planning (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) futurism (6) jatropha (6) nigeria (6) ocean acidification (6) relocalisation (6) somalia (6) t boone pickens (6) local currencies (5) space based solar power (5) varanus island (5) garbage (4) global energy grid (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)