You Are Here:
Geosequestration, capturing and burying the greenhouse pollution from
coal fired power stations, is unproven and dangerous and, according to
this report, would cost far more than the shift to safe, clean and
proven renewable energy sources like wind power, bioenergy and energy
efficiency.
The Australia Institute report outlines that geosequestration will not effectively reduce greenhouse pollution from the energy sector before 2030 even if it can be shown to be technically and commercially viable.
According to the report, energy efficiency, wind power and bioenergy are less costly ways to avoid greenhouse pollution than geosequestration and their costs will continue to fall. It also notes that geosequestration has serious environmental and safety risks.
Crucially, the report questions the allocation of vast sums of public money to geosequestration research, at the expense of support for other low-emission technologies.
“This report confirms that geosequestration is not an effective or responsible response to climate change when renewable energy and energy efficiency can do the job faster, cheaper and safer,” Greenpeace climate campaigner Gareth Walton said.
“Why pollute and try to bury the mess when we could avoid polluting in the first place?”
Greenpeace is calling on both major parties to commit before election day to reducing greenhouse pollution by at least 60% by 2050 and to reject geosequestration, instead focusing on clean energy and energy efficiency.
Greenpeace does not endorse any political party or candidate and is independent of all political parties.
The Australia Institute report outlines that geosequestration will not effectively reduce greenhouse pollution from the energy sector before 2030 even if it can be shown to be technically and commercially viable.
According to the report, energy efficiency, wind power and bioenergy are less costly ways to avoid greenhouse pollution than geosequestration and their costs will continue to fall. It also notes that geosequestration has serious environmental and safety risks.
Crucially, the report questions the allocation of vast sums of public money to geosequestration research, at the expense of support for other low-emission technologies.
“This report confirms that geosequestration is not an effective or responsible response to climate change when renewable energy and energy efficiency can do the job faster, cheaper and safer,” Greenpeace climate campaigner Gareth Walton said.
“Why pollute and try to bury the mess when we could avoid polluting in the first place?”
Greenpeace is calling on both major parties to commit before election day to reducing greenhouse pollution by at least 60% by 2050 and to reject geosequestration, instead focusing on clean energy and energy efficiency.
Greenpeace does not endorse any political party or candidate and is independent of all political parties.
