In my view, the reason for the big pushback (which is failing, BTW) is because of the fear of big tobacco-like lawsuits. Looks like the fossil fools were right.

Best,

D

Global warming(GW) needs to be taken even more seriously than recent big TIME, VANITY FAIR and ELLE articles have indicated. We are already having major effects from GW as TIME detailed due to the excess of carbon dioxide in the environment. But no one is realizing that to get some control of global warming(GW), we have to start removing some of that excess.
All present approaches including the Kyoto Protocol are directed to reduce some emissions, which still means emissions adding to the excess of that gas to speed GW. We have to develop a plan that will remove some carbon dioxide.
We also need to get low emission fuels so I propose that we take advantage of the huge amount of energy being dumped in our organic wastes. A pyrolysis process, basically the process to make charcoal, can be applied to the wastes to give off a hydrogen rich gas for burning and some inert carbon char, which does not converted by microbes back to carbon dioxide. That is what happens with much of our disposed organic wastes. Possibly tree farms could supply wood chips that in the process could release considerable methanol and other organic liquids to become the vehicle fuel from a non-fossil source. Again some inert char would be formed to stop cycling of carbon dioxide.
While I have not figured specifically values. I suspect that we discard organic matter everyday having more energy content than the fossil fuels we burn for energy everyday. In the USA, about 30,000,000 disposable diapers having about 1/2 lb. of organic cotton and plastic each are dumped daily. That is roughly equal to7-8,000 tons of coal. Some other sources of energy may also be found in other wastes as urea from human and animal sewage could be converted to release hydrogen.
Instead of calling for minute little actions that just slightly slow emissions, we need bold steps for new clean energy that will remove some of the excess of carbon dioxide already in the environment already causing the melting of glaciers and other GW effects.
J. A. Singmaster, III, Ph.D. Environmental Toxiclologist

Although the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required the EPA to complete a study of the need for and feasibility of mobile source (cars, ect.) air toxic regulations by 05/92, and to promulgate regulations based on that study by 05/95, the EPA failed to meet these statutory dealines.
Suit was brought, in 04/01 the EPA issued a rule, and a pertinent section of the rule reads, "No later than July 1, 2003, the Administrator shall propose any requirements to control hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuel ... During this rule making the EPA also intends to evaluate emissions and potential strategies relating to hazardous air pollutants from non road engines and vehicles."
Because this regulation did not require any reductions in emissions as required by statute, but rather deferred a decision on the matter, another suit was brought; however the DC Circuit concluded that it is appropriate for the EPA to defer a rulemaking on controls to hazardous air pollutants until a later time...
Next, in Sierra Club v. Michael O. Leavitt, a suit to challenge the EPA's continued "inaction," the district court 'threw out" the defendant's Motion to Dismiss...
I don't know the current status of Sierra Club v. Leavitt, but my point here is that 15 years after the Clean Air Act Amendments were passed the case still has a long way to go before the Supreme Court finalizes anything... How could God possibly Bless such an inefficient, "guilty" America...
And, right on, yes we should turn "rotting s__t" into fuel, especially insofar as decomposing matter produces major green house gases. This is the major problem with the "wholesale chopping down" of rain forests--the "cuttings" rot in the sun and produce major gas.
Another major source of green house gas are landfills. Here it seems to me that rather than "speculation" about whether SCIENCE can or cannot find a way to "remove some of the excess of carbon dioxide already in the environment," we need to address the problems of landfills and crop refuse (left in the sun) in the Third World...
On the subject of green house 'sinks," the ocean is where carbon dioxide goes, and the BIG problem here is that after the ocean is full of gas, we're stuck (or rather the next generation) with any "secondary adverse effects," because the ocean is very slow to release the gas back into the atmosphere.

I read recently that even if everyone complied with the Kyoto protocals, it would take 100 to 300 years to reverse GW. If this is true and if the projections of polar cap melting is correct, then it is too late for many coastal areas. Perhaps our money should be spent building dikes.