While rising oil prices are not good for the economy, they do discourage the consumption of the fossil fuel and therefore can reduce carbon emissions.

Another side benefit pf $100 barrel oil is it increases the amount that oil companies are willing to pay for CO2 that can be injected in deep wells to get more oil out.

According to a new research paper by Sean T. McCoy of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, oil companies would pay between $250 and $392 per ton for CO2. The CO2 is injected to push more oil out, and then it can be permanently sequestered.

But before we get too happy, there's always a catch. The CO2 that is generated by the oil that could be recovered through this process is more than the amount that is sequestered:

In addition, the results of the case studies show that the CO2 storage rate in tons per bbl oil is relatively small compared to the CO2 emissions produced from the consumption of the oil.

So we get the temporary storage of C02, but more enters the atmosphere eventually. So the Catch-22 is if we "need" more oil, we might as well sequester it in the process, but in the process we emit more of the greenhouse gas. Perhaps finding an oil alternative is the better solution.

The study also points out the importance of capturing the CO2 that is generated through electricity generation. The paper says that "emissions from electricity generation make up approximately one-third of global CO2 emissions," and in the US, it is 39% of all CO2 emissions. So if we are to continue using coal and natural gas for electricity "the potential exists for large CO2 emissions reductions if the carbon intensity of electricity generation can be reduced."

The DOE's decision to end funding for its FutureGen "clean coal" power plant isn't an encouraging sign that an economically feasible technology will be developed soon.