While there may be a clause in the TOS that allows you to end it without early termination fees (ETF), the CTIA Consumer Code is a more complete expression of your rights as a consumer. The code can be found at:

http://www.ctia.org/content/index.cfm/AID/10352

and here:

http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-resources/consumer-code.jsp

The seventh right is the one that says they'll let you out of the long term agreement if they change the TOS. The code may or may not have the legal weight of the TOS, but it makes for a good starting point when dealing with a customer service rep. I used it to get out of a contract about a month ago when they changed the arbitration agreement. The CRS agreed to allow me to go month-to-month. In the long run, AT&T benefitted because I used the freedon to get a bigger, better phone that required a beefier data plan, so it was win-win. Just remain polite and firm with the CSR.

More details are available here:

http://consumerist.com/228186/script-for-escaping-cingular-contracts-without-fee-based-on-new-arbitration-clause

Transportation is the usual methane capture project killer. Landfills and wastewater treatment plants are typically located away from densely populated regions, for reasons apparent to anybody who's ever been downwind of one. As such, there typically isn't as well developed as it would have to be to make a project work.

There are, of course, exceptions. Puente Hills Landfill in LA can generate 50MW. A more typical landfill can generate only a fraction of that.

I work for an engineering firm in California that does air permitting.

Nitrous oxides are primarily a concern as a smog/ozone precursor. Ground level NOx is a health concern because it will create an acid, as the parent mentioned.

CO and NOx are basicly dueling pollutants any time you have a combustion process. High temperatures lead to NOx, low temperatures lead to CO. In California, most reguins are in attainment for CO, but many are not in attainment for NOx. Permitting most combustion sources will result in trading one problem for another.

By doing that, you're assuming all programs with a similar purpose are compatible, but they aren't. It wasn't that long ago that OO added support for the Office 2007 formatted files. If emacs were listed in the same menu as OO Writer, would she be able to do the same thing? If your professor says they want the homework submitted in Word Perfect format, would she be able to do the same thing? (What, you haven't had a professor who's a bit of an anachronism?)

If you don't already know OO is compatible with Word, there's no reason to assume it is.

Some credits are better than others. There are several verification programs in existence. In the USA, I am most familiar with the Chicago Climate Exchange and the California Climate Action Reserve (CCAR). A lot of projects would have occurred anyway due to profitability or regulations, and GHG credits from these projects are junk. Preserving a piece of forest in a desolate valley nobody could profitably harvest or installing a landfill gas flare where carbon has become too expensive should be considered "business as usual," but unfortunately some accreditation agencies and verifiers don't consider "business as usual" and say there is a reduction anyway. These credits are a scam perpetrated by the seller, the verifier, the accreditor, and sometimes the buyer.

There are some projects that generate real reductions. For example, capture or methane from manure lagoons or landfills where it is not required by regulation and is not less expensive than carbon treatment or the planting and preservation of trees in an area that would otherwise be harvested. These credits are real reductions.

The problem is the layman has no idea where their credits are coming from. I'm in the industry, and I can't always tell you the value of a credit.