The emissions nutters seem horribly dense, and so make ridiculous statements, but it isn't lack of intelligence that troubles them, it's tunnel vision.

The point was illustrated by a recent decision by the Virginia State Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, to turn down an application by the Appalachian Power Company to build a plant that would have captured 90 percent of its carbon and deposited it nearly two miles underground, at a well that it dug in 2003. The applicant’s parent was American Electric Power, one of the nation’s largest coal users, and perhaps the most technically able. But the company is a regulated utility and spends money only when it can be reimbursed.

The Virginia commission said that it was “neither reasonable nor prudent” for the company to build the plant, and the risks for ratepayers were too great, because costs were uncertain, perhaps double that of a standard coal plant. . .

Thus an approach that makes collective sense — trying out technologies that could be helpful over the long term — is unattractive to individual participants.

Nonsense. It's just unattractive to regulators. The problem is that individuals who do find the technologies attractive are hamstrung by regulation, the threat of future regulation and general political meddling that would screw up investments. They never know what nonsensical regulations will next be enacted that either raises their costs, or lowers those of competitors so that the business plan is junked.

. . . building a plant might make sense to a utility regulator, or to a company that builds power plants on speculation, if it generated pollution credits that the company could then sell to other polluters, for instance, or could help the plant meet emissions quotas. But there are, as yet, no credits to buy or sell and no quota to meet.

But the threat of such regulation prevents anything from happening now, and all but guarantees that what is done in future will not make any sense except as rent seeking. It won't matter if such systems actually improve climate prospects, all that will matter is that they get paid according to regulations.

When Congress debates the idea, one of the drawbacks is that no one is sure where to set the caps on emissions, because no one is sure what the carbon regulation would cost. So there is no regulation, no plant built to meet the regulation, and thus no plant for lawmakers to look at to determine how strict a regulation to pass.

This is a very good reason for congress to get out of the way and make unbreakable commitments to not interfere in affairs about which it has no clues or competence. The best that could happen would be a European style mess that achieves no good but is still expensive. It's a jobs program for politicians and regulators that is dead weight for society. It's like having intestinal parasites - or engine sludge perhaps.