Cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions is going to take more than simple changes, we need to look at how we produce, move and use electricity.

In 2006 alone, U.S. power plants consumed more than a billion tons of coal. A large portion of that coal (400 million tons) came from the Appalachian mountain range which stretches from southern New York State to northern Mississippi. The high-quality, readily available coal from these mountains is part of the reason why coal-fired electricity is still responsible for about 50 percent of electricity and 40 percent of carbon dioxide emission, the main component of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately since the coal lies underground the mountains are being effectively dug up and in the process leaving a mark on the surrounding country. Forests have been cleared, streams have been polluted and local residents’ health have been compromised in order to access the wealth of black gold below ground, and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this is not going to change until the U.S. and the world stops depending on coal for electricity.

It is predicted that over the next few decades most electricity will still be generated by fossil fuels since it is cheap and easily available. It is hoped that during this time power plants will find ways to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to cut down on their negative environmental effect. One option is called carbon capture and storage, where the carbon dioxide is trapped before it leaves the smokestack and pumped underground.

Carbon capture and storage has yet to be used at any power plant, however the U.S. Department of Energy has launched nearly 20 pilot projects to investigate the possibilities, although none of these projects are attempting capture and storage on a commercial scale. Techniques being used include passing the remnants of combusted coal through a solution of ammonium carbonate or separating the CO2 from the gasified coal. Currently it appears that gasification is the lowest cost option.

The problem with these options is that they take up energy in order to capture the carbon, pressurize it and pump it underground. Early test show that it can take up 40-50% of the energy a power plant produces to undertake carbon capture and storage, meaning an increase in the cost of coal as well as the cost of residential coal-fired energy. Also the power plants need to have reservoirs to hold the CO2 and store it for up to 50 years.

A few projects in the North Sea and Alberta, Canada have shown that when a site is chosen correctly, the carbon dioxide can be pumped underground and will stay there for thousands of years, but more research is being directed at using the CO2 to enhance the recovery of fossil fuels. New technologies are showing that by pumping the carbon dioxide into algae can produce a viable biofuel with more fuel per acre than corn or sugar cane.

Meanwhile, wind and solar power as an alternative energy source make up a small, but fast growing source of electricity. Likewise nuclear power still stands at a paltry 16% of the electricity produced today, and is unlikely to grow much more due to public perception of safety around the plants.

The IPCC is hoping that the answer to our power and greenhouse gas dilemma is contained in a multi-pronged approach that includes upgrading or replacing inefficient power plants, reducing the amount of electricity used and swapping out large power plants in centralized areas to smaller ones distributed throughout the country. It is important that action is taken immediately, since it is predicted that if emission do not peak by 2015 we will be able to avoid a global crisis.

In order to stabilize the atmosphere the earth will have to be close to zero emissions by the end of the century. The earlier that changes begin, the less costly they will be overall. While carbon capturing and storage is a good stop-gap to help cut down on CO2 emissions, they do little to help the massive environmental damage that is being caused at coal mining sites.