Carbon Sequestration: Injection of toxic gases into poor communities or the salvation of the fossil fuel industry, or both?

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Jane Williams
Executive Director
California Communities Against Toxics

Carbon sequestration, sounds almost like a medical procedure or something they do as a military exercise. Most people have no idea what carbon sequestration, also known as geosequestration, is, much less where it would be done, how it would be done, who would do it, and to whom.

Despite this, there is a bill in the state legislature, AB 705, which would create regulations to govern carbon sequestration in California. In the last version of the bill, the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGER) would be the agency charged with creating and implementing the regulations. This is the agency that currently regulates the extraction of oil and gas.

Carbon Sequestration actually refers to the practice of injecting compressed CO2 gases into the ground to keep them from being released into the atmosphere where they are causing the planet to overheat. In order to be injected, the gases must be compressed into a liquid, a costly and expensive process; some experts estimate that 20% of the energy from a power plant will be needed to collect and compress the CO2 emitted from the plant. Once injected into the ground, the gases must be carefully monitored for leakage. This is because if the gases leak out, they are deadly. CO2 is lighter than air, and displaces air when released into the environment. When the gases are released they stay close to the ground, displace oxygen, and suffocate everything in its path.

The sponsor of the bill claims that the bill is necessary because carbon sequestration projects in California are imminent. However, there are no pending applications for carbon sequestration projects in California at any state or local agency. However there are recent studies that conclude that carbon sequestration could create alarming environmental problems, endanger communities, and potentially be very costly to both ratepayers and taxpayers.