CO2 has a deminishing effect. Meaning you'd have to sequester a crap load of the stuff before you'd see in change in global climage. Not to mention, you'd have to produce a crapload of it, before you see any effect on global climate. I'm talking way more then we can produce in a century.

Want proof: Last century we dumped a ton of that stuff into the atmosphere and yet the beginning of the century was hotter then the latter. Seems pretty contrary to global warming theory.

Evidence points to the fact that CO2 actually precedes mean global temperature increase. So my question is why sequester it. It makes up one the smallest elements in our atmosphere. We should take that money and put it to better use, like trying to figure out how to put the US economy back on track.

I actually think that Hydrogen will be a feasible to use as fuel in the foreseeable future. It's not any more dangerous than combustibles we already use. That, and there is no harmful emissions when it does burn. That gets my vote.