But as I’ve written repeatedly — particularly in my post looking at both sides of the argument for carbon capture and storage (CCS) — not everyone who supports CCS technology is “ignorant.” It is, in fact, supported by a broad range of passionate climate advocates. To quote:

“[A] large number of climate experts including the IPCC have concluded that CCS is a critical tool for achieving emissions reduction targets. A literature review by the Clean Air Task Force found supporting analysis for CCS by environmental groups including the World Wildlife Fund and Friends of the Earth. NRDC has also been a large proponent. A report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2007 concluded:

“Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is a critical technology to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. In a global CO2 emissions stabilisation scenario, CCS in power generation, industry and fuel transformation could account for 20% of CO2 savings… CCS along with other mitigation measures could significantly reduce the costs of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations and increase the flexibility to achieve that goal.”

…

CCS is interpreted differently by those who focus on the injustices of global poverty and inequality. Jeffrey Sachs, for example, is a major supporter of CCS. This technology is seen as a potential way for developing countries to retain access to affordable electricity to lift their populations out of entrenched poverty. China, for example, has brought hundreds of millions of its citizens out of poverty with coal-powered development just in the last few decades.

Proponents of CCS are more skeptical, pointing out that a comparison of New Zealand to China, India, Brazil or other rapidly developing nations is a bit of a red herring. They point to projections that China and the developing world will construct an overwhelming number of new coal plants in the coming decades. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that global coal consumption will double by 2030. China accounts for a staggering 61% of this increase. The EIA projects that China’s total coal-related carbon emissions will grow by 232% between 2004 and 2030. Europe may also be following this trend – European countries were recently reported to be constructing 50 new coal plants.

A skeptical view of energy reality – or “realistic” as CCS proponents might say – may lead you to the conclusion that CCS is an imperfect but necessary technology. If developing countries continue to consume coal and construct new coal plants to build their economies and lift their populations out of poverty, CCS will be a critical technology to capture their emissions and avoid climate disaster. Coal mining and its impacts may be unacceptable, proponents would argue, but unless you can stop global coal development and shut down the world’s existing plants, CCS investment and development is crucial.”

Coal can never be “clean.” That propaganda is ridiculous, and it should be rejected as you have done here. But CCS may be a necessary technology for the near-term to deal with climate change. I encourage you to look at both sides and don’t dismiss CCS proponents as ignorant.

Now, none of this addresses political and policy strategy. It may be that young climate activists believe CCS is necessary, but make the calculation that the political influence of the coal industry must be countered so that CCS doesn’t gain too much support.

But let’s be clear: CCS will be funded. It’s just a question of how much.

As the video indicates with its shocking footage of mountaintop-removal, rural Appalachia is currently dominated by a coal-based economy. That economy is driven by rising coal demand in economies like China and India. New coal plants in Asia are going to keep rural Appalachia under the coal industry’s yoke, and until we reverse that trend, wind development in Appalachia is going to remain a pipe dream. I don’t know how a grassroots movement can rewrite international law, but I’m willing to find out.