Reply #29: I think his stance is a bit more nuanced than that quote suggests

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://climatetasmania.com.au/2010/03/13/hansen-interview/

James Hansen interviewed on Australian radio

...

Adams: Cannot we sequester?

Hansen: Well, carbon capture and sequestration is worth investigating, because we may need to use that with biofuels, because we’re going to need to draw down the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We’ve already passed into a dangerous zone. We can see that the ice sheets are going to be unstable even if we just stayed at 390 parts per million (concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). So we could burn biofuels in a power plant, capture the CO2, put it underground, then we would draw down in that way the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But I don’t think that using it with coal is going to work. It’s going to make the coal so much more expensive that other alternatives would be preferable.

...

His argument appears to be financial.

"CCS is worth investigating," but it's too expensive for coal.

My guess is that if an inexpensive enough solution was presented, he'd be in favor it of.