Duh. Roger Pielke wrote an article in December giving a straightforward theory for why mitigation is not widely discussed in global-warming policy discussions:
Currently air capture of CO2 is a political third rail of climate policy. Here is why:For most of those people opposed to greenhouse gas regulation advocating air capture would require first admitting that greenhouse gases ought to be reduced in the first place, an admission that most on this side of the debate have avoided. [...]
For most of those people who support greenhouse gas regulations, even admitting the possibility of air capture is anathema, because it would undercut the entire structure of the contemporary climate enterprise. Consider that the Kyoto Protocol and all of its complex mechanisms would largely be rendered irrelevant. So too would be most research on carbon sequestration (though point source sequestration would likely remain of interest) and management, as well as much of research on reducing emissions in autos, homes, cities, etc.. As well, because among many much of the motivation for climate mitigation lies in changing peoples lifestyles, securing advantages in international economics, and changing energy policies, air capture represents a tremendous threat to such agendas.
If we interpret this debate as a proxy for other political issues, then its character becomes obvious. Personally, I wonder if we should not treat Mother Earth a little more kindly? We should care for her, not use her as a pawn on the political chess board.