Carbon Capture is, Apparently, Sheer Folly

At least, so the CBC and Globe and Mail say. The report was ordered by the Munk Centre for International Studies. So, We'll just take a look at what was written about the report and then look at the report to see if there's some kind of confirmation bias.

The CBC link has the following

The report, written by Edmonton Journal columnist Graham Thomson for the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto, concludes investing in carbon capture is currently too risky as neither the proper science nor the proper laws are in place.

Well, let's see what we can find out about Edmonton Journal Columnist Graham Thomson and if he's qualified to draw the conclusion he did. From his bio:

Graham Thomson writes on political issues for The Journal.

A graduate of the University of Waterloo's English co-op program, Graham has worked in radio, television and print as a reporter, producer and political writer. Since starting work with the Edmonton Journal in 1995, he has reported on assignments in various parts of the world including Russia and Mexico and has been embedded with Canadian troops for two tours in Afghanistan. Graham has won a National Newspaper Award, a national B'nai Brith award for human rights reporting and was a Canadian Journalism Foundation fellow at the University of Toronto in the 2008-2009 school year.

At any rate, farther down in the CBC story, we find this:

Other experts have dismissed concerns about leaks saying the likelihood is small, given that natural gas has stayed trapped underground for millions of years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that leakage risks are minor, especially from aquifers thousands of metres below groundwater supplies.

Ah, so it might not be sheer folly at all. We should look at the paper, when it gets released to the public. As of this posting, the link at the Munk institute leads to the Globe and Mail story.

I don't know enough about the paper to draw any conclusions. I can't draw any conclusions until I see it. It sure doesn't look as though this is one of those "case closed" things. If Carbon Capture is going to do more harm than good, let's scrap it. If it will allow us a bit more time with old technology as we transfer to nuclear, then let's move forward.

Let's not make any decisions because of a headline full of hyperbole.