Sequestration without first bringing production to zero is a Sisyphean endeavor.
People tend to lose sight of the fact that it's NET reduction of carbon that we're interested in, not GROSS reduction. I'm fine with an industry putting a million tons of Carbon into the atmosphere as long as it pulls out 1.1 million tons through some mechanism.
The fact that Bill's entire presentation is based on a false premise, and that nobody in this thread other than me has called him on it, is disturbing.
Pretty slide presentation aside.
There's that old adage about 'an ounce of prevention', which I think is even more apt in cases such as this, where the 'pound of cure' is an as-yet-undeveloped technology.
Mathematically, yes, you could focus on sequestration. But policy-wise, it's inviting disaster to defer today's problems as something to be solved with tomorrow's advancements.
And even if a suitable 'pound of cure' is found, it will almost certainly be dramatically more expensive to fix the problem, to say nothing of fixing the collateral damage caused in the interim.