Plan To Bury Greenhouse Gas Won't Work, Experts Say

by Bob Burton

(IPS) CANBERRA -- A report by leading energy consultants has dismissed plans by the Australian government to promote the burying of greenhouse gases as the solution to climate change and has labelled the idea as an expensive and technologically uncertain strategy.

"Carbon capture and storage (CCS) power station technology systems are not yet operating on a commercial scale anywhere in the world," points out the report, written by a team headed by respected energy policy analyst Hugh Saddler.

The report 'Geosequestration: What is it and how much can it contribute to a sustainable energy policy for Australia?' was published by the Canberra-based think tank, the Australia Institute.

In mid-2003 the Australian government established a Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies with a budget of $153 million for seven years -- to investigate options for carbon capture.

"The producers of fossil fuels have much to gain if capture and storage technologies can provide a more sustainable future for fossil fuels in Australia and internationally," explains the centre, known as CO2CRC, in a background document.

More recently the Australian government hosted 300 delegates at a major international meeting of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) in Melbourne in mid-September, including representatives from the United States, China and Russia to explore the possibilities of the technology.

Australian Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources Ian Macfarlane stated at the time that the conference was an "opportunity for Australia to learn and present its credentials to become a significant player in the development of carbon sequestration techniques."

While the Australian government's approach has the support of the coal industry and energy supply companies, Saddler argues that CCS will be much more expensive than new renewable power supply options such as gas fired power stations or wind power -- or increasing the efficiency of energy use.

"All these technologies are far more mature than CCS; they are proven, already in widespread commercial use, but also, particularly in the case of wind, likely to fall considerably in cost over time as further experience with the technologies is gained," warn the report's authors.

The Kyoto Protocol obliges industrialized countries to cut greenhouse emissions by 6 percent from the level in 1990.

But Prime Minister John Howard simultaneously argues that ratifying Kyoto would be too damaging to the Australian economy and bad for business.

With approximately 80 percent of Australia's electricity being derived from coal-fired power stations and accounting for just over one third of the nations total greenhouse gas emissions, the powerful coal, aluminium and power generation industries vehemently oppose the ratification of the Kyoto Convention on Climate Change.

In a bid to defuse critics, Howard is on record saying that larger cuts of greenhouse gases than mandated under the convention are necessary.

On current projections Australian emissions, by 2009, are set to exceed the Kyoto agreement level by more than eight percent than in the 1990 baseline year.

Saddler sees little prospect that even if geosequestration proved technically and economically viable that it could have any impact on the level of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions before 2020.

Saddler warns that it is likely that Australia will be under immense political and economic pressure to ensure substantial cuts to emissions well before then.

"Present policy does nothing to shield Australia from such a risk and is unlikely to be the best way of maximising Australia's overall energy security," the reports states.

In mid-June, Howard launched the governments White Paper on energy strategy titled 'Securing Australia's Energy Future' which heavily promotes CCS.

"Why would we throw away this enormous natural advantage we have? So surely the smart commonsense thing to do in Australia's national interest is to try and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the use of these fuels, and this is what the paper is designed to do," said Howard.

While the government has been prepared to back the unproven technology of geosequestration, it refused to increase the five percent mandatory percentage of electricity power supply companies are required to buy from renewable energy suppliers, such as wind farms.

Internal documents leaked to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation earlier this month reveal that a fossil fuels industry lobby group -- the Lower Emissions Technical Advisory Group (LETAG) -- had significant input into the government's energy strategy.

Companies represented at the hushed-up LETAG meetings included Exxon Mobil, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and a number of other major energy companies.

A month before the release of the energy strategy Howard met with LETAG.

The leaked minutes of the meeting, obtained from Rio Tinto, noted that the proposal to bury greenhouse gases was seen by Howard as being "the long term solution to greenhouse issues."

But in the minutes, Howard didn't want to extend the scheme mandating a renewable energy target.

Instead Howard flagged a joint industry-government fund to be focussed on "accelerating Super Dooper (his words) technology progress aimed at significantly reducing emissions."

Subsequently Macfarlane complained that a review of the renewable energy scheme had "worked too well and investment in renewables was running ahead of the original planning." He flagged the possibility of establishing a one billion U.S. dollar fund to subsidise pilot geosequestration plants.

However, with the prospect that the renewable energy suppliers would object to the fossil fuel industry winning the bulk of the funding for new technology, Macfarlane requested "the need for absolute confidentiality."

He said that if the renewables industry found out, "there would be a huge outcry."

The following month, Howard's nephew -- Lyall -- who works in the public relations section of Rio Tinto, circulated a draft communications plan designed to coordinate industry support for the government's announcement.

"Industry dopes not support mandatory greenhouse gas emission targets or standards,'" it noted while applauding the government's "confirmation of the technology pathway as the key to greenhouse gas abatement."

Greenpeace climate campaigner, Gareth Walton, described Saddlers report as confirming that "geosequestration is not an effective or responsible response to climate change and that renewable energy and energy efficiency can do the job faster, cheaper and safer."