faldor, we're talking about carbon, not toxic waste.

This is stuff that you can safely eat.

Burying it is really the only option. It may be difficult to put it back into quite such inaccessible places as the coal and oil reserves it came from originally, but nevertheless, leaks are not a big concern. You read the report, so you know that all the possibilities have been considered.

Carbonated beverages are mentioned once, in the section entitled "Present industrial uses of carbon dioxide". The report even concludes: "The scale of the use of captured CO2 in industrial processes is too small, the storage times too short and the energy balance too unfavourable for industrial uses of CO2 to become significant as a means of mitigating climate change."

I don't understand how you can read this report and come to conclusions so diametrically opposed to what it recommends.

Carbon isn't normally a gas. But yes, the report talks more about CO2 than carbon.

And I'm pretty sure carbon remains carbon no matter what compound it is in :-D

Given that carbon is a hugely abundant element, and central to the natural carbon cycle, I'm really not worried about it leaking. CO2 leakage is slightly more problematic, which is why I prefer the mineral carbonisation approach.

I object to CCS on different grounds altogether. It's a pointless waste of money, when we need a serious commitment to reducing emissions simply by not digging up the coal in the first place.

Carbon storage comes into play when we consider how to "put the genie back in the bottle" and clean up the mess we already have.