Climate change has, for many years, divided opinion. Some chose not to listen to the professors and rock stars, simply dismissing them as alarmist. Some even contradicted the then fledgling consensus that the Earth was steadily warming. Indeed, it is possible to show that this “global warming” is in-fact cyclical and indicative of the patterns followed by the Earth over millennia and traced by scientists for decades.

Yet in the face of ever worsening data from melting ice-caps to rising sea temperatures, few can deny that the human race is now altering the dynamics of its own environment.

Few people today fail to recognise the consequences that await the Earth should we fail to take action to cut the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions pumped into our atmosphere every day, by transport and industry. These emissions insulate the atmosphere from within and cause the heating of the planet. As a fossil fuel, and one that produces the largest proportion of CO₂ emissions, the notion of coal as a component of a future “green energy” strategy, makes us all shiver. Yet, it is the cheapest and easiest way of producing energy; about a third of the world’s energy is produced in coal-fired power plants. Coal consumption is predicted to increase by as much as 60 percent in the next 25 years, as the Asian tiger economies of China and India reach the peak of their industrial revolution.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology may prove to be a solution to this dilemma. In principle, the concept is rather simple: CO2 is removed, piped to a storage area and injected deep into the ground. The advocates of CCS claim that it could reduce CO₂ emissions by as much as 90 per cent. This argument is indeed persuasive – key decision-makers around the globe are beginning to embrace the technology.

The latest nation to do so is Norway, which in May stepped up its cooperation with the EU to commercialise CCS technology, by providing at least €140 million to European CCS projects and exploring the possibility of storing CO₂ in the North Sea. Earlier in April, the then UK Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, announced that the UK’s future energy strategy cannot be implemented without coal; all new coal-fired plants in the UK will be required to capture and store carbon dioxide. Barack Obama made similar commitments as part of the US stimulus package earlier in the year. Australia has launched the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute; Japan, Canada and others are also getting involved. It must also be noted that China is a leading advocate of clean coal technology, unsurprising when one considers that it is also the highest constructor of coal-fired power plants, with 2 new ones appearing every week as of early 2008.

More surprising, is the lack of political support Governments around the world are facing from green groups and environmentalists. Those opposed to the technology advocate measures such as expansion of wind and solar energy, deployment of smart grids, investment in such fuels as algae and biomass to make their production possible on a mass scale, as well as aggressive efficiency measures that would eliminate the need for new coal-fired plants altogether.

Yet most energy experts and politicians are concerned at the lack of investment, research capacity and production infrastructure to implement such measures in mass-production and in a short time. Surely then, CCS technology presents a useful low-carbon option - both relatively cheap and good for the environment.

Not so. Critics of CCS technology emphasise that carbon capture lowers power-plant efficiency, thus increasing the required fuel input by half. Some are preoccupied with the holes in the ground that are left as a result of storage. One cannot also disregard the worries of homeowners that are not prepared to accept carbon dioxide to be stored a mile or more under their property or run through a pipeline nearby. More prominently, investment in CCS technology will draw funds from research into renewable and alternative energy – such energy that will inevitably provide the World’s electricity long after the last tonne of coal is mined. Substantial financial commitments are about to be made to coal with CCS; investment desperately needed to enhance renewables expansion. Thus, the EU’s 2020 target of 20 percent of all energy coming from renewable sources might face difficulties, especially if one takes into account the fact that Governments tend to prioritise security of supply over environmental stewardship.

Yet CCS offers an immense opportunity for countries like China and India to become involved in the World’s fight against climate change without jeopardising economic growth with the kind of investment in renewable energy that will be required to bring it online. Furthermore, it has been estimated that CCS technology, once well practised, will not be as expensive as first thought, adding less than $10 per tonne. Ultimately, CCS technology will do what is required of it – cut dramatically, the carbon dioxide emissions released into the atmosphere.

The many experts and film stars that have embraced climate change offer varying, often conflicting, messages and scenarios, yet all agree on one thing: time is the limiting factor. Governments across the world must act if the Earth is to escape dramatic temperature rises, further reductions in ice-caps, rising sea levels capable of swallowing many of the World’s cities and far-reaching social consequences. Even if CCS technology is not the ultimate solution, both in terms of its efficiency and lifespan, it may offer a temporary delay; a counterbalance, designed to buy more time to develop other, more permanent energy solutions.