Why I think we're wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist

"Frankly, I’d rather pay an engineer in Poland to actually dispose of carbon dioxide than some Brussels eco-yuppie to trade it around" .

An interesting article by Oxford Professor Myles Allen champions the rather stagnant process of carbon capture and storage (CCS).
I've found most discussions on reducing emissions ignore the reality that jurisdictions with fossil fuel resources aren't likely to resist exporting them to jurisdictions desirous of growing their wealth through energy use - which does not make CCS feasible, but does make it a desirable technology.

Why I think we're wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist | Mail Online:

It is perfectly possible to burn fossil carbon and not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere: you have to filter it out of the flue gases, pressurise it, and re-inject, or ‘sequester’, it back underground.
If you’re using fossil carbon to drive a car or fly a plane, you just have to pay someone else to bury CO2 for you.
The only thing that actually matters for climate policy is whether, before we release too much, we get to the point of burying carbon at the same rate that we dig it up.
Nothing else matters – not for climate, anyway. Not efficiency targets, nor even population growth, provided we meet this goal. Unfortunately, turbines, fancy taxes and carbon trading schemes aren’t going to help us do so.
How much is too much? Well, if the Transient Climate Response is 1C-2C, we’ll need to limit future emissions to around a trillion tonnes of carbon to avoid more than 2C of warming.

It could be a lot less or it could be a bit more, but since this is the middle of the range that everyone agrees on, let’s get on with it and revisit the total when temperatures reach 1.5C. That’s when we’ll have more of an idea of where we’re going.
So with a trillion tonnes to go, we need to increase the fraction we bury at an average rate of one per cent for every 10 billion tonnes of global emissions.

That’s not a policy – that’s a fact.

Read the entire article at the Mail