2026-09-19T08:48:45Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/497032022-01-13T07:54:44Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
Judith Layzer.
Henschel, Rachel Hockfield
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning
2009-11-06T16:22:27Z
2009-11-06T16:22:27Z
2009
2009
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/49703
436283959
Thesis (M.C.P.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning, 2009.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 56-63).
Coal-fired power plants produce half of the United States' electricity and are also the country's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a proposed technological solution that will sequester CO2 in the ground. Proponents of CCS have framed it as a "clean coal technology" and broadcast the story that it will solve both our dependence on coal and prevent future climate change impacts. However, the technology is not a practicable solution for climate change, even with the most generous timetables and goals for atmospheric carbon. It cannot be scaled in time, costs too much, has serious environmental risks, and will face public resistance. Yet, CCS remains a part of future U.S. energy policy because the coal and electric utility industries have funded an attractive message and story for it. Environmental advocacy organizations are unable to create an effective counter-story because they are split into two coalitions. Therefore, the public is not mobilized and there is no incentive for legislators to challenge coal and CCS.
by Rachel Hockfield Henschel.
M.C.P.
65 p.
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by
copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but
reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written
permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Urban Studies and Planning.
Carbon capture and storage in the U.S. : a sinking climate solution
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="f85e05b0-2890-4fdb-b8ce-c41b9c0d14fe">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>Carbon capture and storage in the U.S. : a sinking climate solution</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2009</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Henschel, Rachel Hockfield</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Urban Studies and Planning.</Keyword>
<Abstract>Coal-fired power plants produce half of the United States' electricity and are also the country's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a proposed technological solution that will sequester CO2 in the ground. Proponents of CCS have framed it as a "clean coal technology" and broadcast the story that it will solve both our dependence on coal and prevent future climate change impacts. However, the technology is not a practicable solution for climate change, even with the most generous timetables and goals for atmospheric carbon. It cannot be scaled in time, costs too much, has serious environmental risks, and will face public resistance. Yet, CCS remains a part of future U.S. energy policy because the coal and electric utility industries have funded an attractive message and story for it. Environmental advocacy organizations are unable to create an effective counter-story because they are split into two coalitions. Therefore, the public is not mobilized and there is no incentive for legislators to challenge coal and CCS.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>