This is severe cherry-picking of data (as the Op Ed page of the WSJ is wont to do on this subject). Since 1990 (the Kyoto baseline) the US has increased CO2 emissions by *20%* :http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.htmlThat's on top of a baseline that was already something like 5x the world's average (per head). At least the WSJ is finally (implicitly) accepting that reducing CO2 is a good thing, although they point to a reduction in growth for their favorite 4 year period, rather than an actual reduction in emissions. What the WSJ doesn't say is whether they think it's therefore OK for the US to sign up for Kyoto because the US's retarded approach to energy management and global warming is somehow so naturally superior to Europe's that it will create superior reductions in CO2 going forwards. If they are not happy with that, why not?Sebb
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra