Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

How Carbon Capture can Save the Coal-Burning Industry
Kim Strassel interviewed Robert Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy, on Saturday. Both Strassel, who works for the WSJ's editorial page, and Murray are very much on the denialist end of the global-warming spectrum, and I'd normally ignore them. But Murray said something interesting, which Strassel didn't pick up on:
The science of global warming is speculative. But there's nothing speculative about the damage a C02 capture program will do to this country.
This is the first and last that we hear of carbon capture in the interview. And one interesting thing about Murray's statement is that he gets it exactly the wrong way around. The science of global warming is far from speculative, while the economic impact of carbon-capture systems is entirely unknown.
In fact, it's probably not too much of an exaggeration to say that the future of humanity rests on the successful development of carbon-capture technologies. Whatever happens in the US, both China and India are going to build thousands of new coal-fired power plants in the coming decades. That's a given. So the question is how the world is going to deal with all those coal-fired power plants coming online – and there's only really one answer: carbon capture.
This is why Murray is so off-base here: carbon capture is one of the most exciting nascent industries in the world. If Murray could find a way of capturing and storing the carbon emissions from his coal-fired power plants, he would certainly help the planet. But more to the point, he would make much more money than he'll ever be able to make just by burning coal. The world is crying out for workable carbon-capture systems, and the likes of Robert Murray are exactly the people who are best placed to start implementing them.
Now carbon-capture technology is not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing: it depends very much on the geology surrounding the power plant, for starters. But if Robert Murray and his fellow denialists would stop railing against the inevitable and start seeing the opportunities that an enlightened carbon policy affords them, they might go down in history as heroes, rather than villains.






