What's interesting is that we now pay, because of regulations, a hefty toll to take the sulfur out of gasoline. Wasn't this orignally because of acid rain it caused? The suggestion to now put it back at a huge cost seems illogical if it defeats the original purpose for taking it out of fossil fuels. The issue may be more complex, but if we really think sulfur can reduce global warming, why not save money by leaving it in the gas, and save the 50 billion too. There seems to be some contradictory science at work, that needs to be seriously resolved before any huge investment are made.

A much cheaper solution would be to use Jet fuel with high sulfur content for all high altitude international and military flights and when it gets cool enough switch back to olow sulfur fuel. While this would solve the socalled greenhouse gas problem , the real warming problem is coming from increased solar activity and there is nothing man can do about it but it will decrease at some point within the next 2 to 10 years and then we may be glad there is some warming from greenhouse gasses as the last mini iceage saw snow and ice 2 miles thick in the northern U.S.

You have got to be kidding me, I live near Chicago, and the very best weather people, can't predict the weather 24 hours in advance. Now we have to listen to "concerned comments" about changing the weather. Give me a break. I spend alot of time on Lake MIchigan, and all you have to do is get caught in 1 storm out there and you realize, in a heartbeat, who is in control of the weather.