Interesting link to a BBC article about the slow down in the rise in methane. The article suggests that "If one really tightens emissions, the amount of methane in the atmosphere 10 years from now could be less than it is today" -- the benefit being that methane's GWP (Global Warming Potential) is something like 20x that of CO2 and is short-lived in the atmosphere, so reductions could have a larger impact than comparable CO2 reductions. In addition, methane reduction strategies (such as capture) can often pay for themselves. For more on that, see Methane To Markets.
Just tapping landfill methane for baseload power generation is a good thing. Offset some coal consumption while converting the methane to CO2 at the same time. Capturing feedlot pooh and running it through anaerobic digesters then to microturbines has the same effect and its increasingly economical.
Methane must establish its celebrity first. The science does not matter, even though handling methane makes sense. If it does not become a political piece in the environmental game, it's scientific value will be of no concern. Environmental politics is full speed ahead, damn the evidense.
