Insane defined - $2.5 trillion needed for carbon capture 'demonstration' projects

Carbon Capture and Storage (C.C.S.) is a unstable, unreliable, unproven, 'reactive' form of carbon suppression NOT reduction in use or abuse. Yet that is not stopping the $Trillions$ of dollars fed by hopeless dreamers that is can 'fix' global carbon emissions...  the United States has allocated over $4 billion.

Energy czars persuade the persuadable to continue a future built by destroying finite resources 
"the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce"

NOW the executive director of the International Energy Agency, is supporting that $2.5 to $3 trillion should be invested in carbon capture and storage (C.C.S.) projects from 2010 to 2050, or 6 percent of the overall investment needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency.

The agency recently unveiled a roadmap at the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum in London to give policymakers and industry leaders milestones and steps for reducing emissions. The roadmap includes plans to build 100 C.C.S. demonstration projects by 2020, and increase that to 3,100 projects by 2050. Read full from EcoSeed

Nevermind that:

• Only five C.C.S. projects are operational
• Managing buried CO2 may be as bad or worse than atomic waste that has put nations nuclear energy program in the hole over 90 Billion
• As a carbon sink C.C.S. all but meaningless.
• C.C.S. Raises the energy consumption of a coal plant by an average of 32 percent
• A carbon capture and storage infrastructure requires HUGE infrastructure consisting of pipelines that rivals the existing oil and gas network.
• We have way to produce abundant energy with less than 10% CO2 foot print we do now (decades old tech).
  

EPA and "policy" experts not buying it? Better read more about it here:

• Comprehensive IPCC study
• And the "CCS" for dummies at Low Tech Magazine
• Or a whose "left and right" CCS debate view point at GRIST