[purplefrog]

I have two comments.
First, I am not sure why you would want to graph Carbon and GHG as a function of GDP because the data can be potentially misleading. It seems to me that if the economy is growing in sectors that are not using much in terms of fossil fuels then you would see a decline (as shown in your graph) even though there is no net reduction in emissions. For example, in the nineties along came the dot.com boom and much was invested in computer software development. The economy grew and there was no concommitant increase in emissions because these industries do not require much in terms of energy consumption. I admit that I am not sure if this really explains the chart, but it might be worth checking out.

My second comment is that from 2000-2005 the graph shows projections and not actual data collected. It would be interesting to know if the projections were accurate.

I would like to see data on net C02 emissions over the past 15 years. It wouldn't surprise me if there was also a small decrease and I will see if I can find those data later. You are right in saying that we are investing in cleaner technologies and I have heard the 'N' (nuclear) word being brought up again (and I am not so sure that it would be such a bad idea). What concerns me is that we are still building coal plants to generate electricity. The coal plants that TXU is planning to build in Texas will generate alot more CO2. They should be required to use the existing technology to capture the CO2, but Perry doesn't it see this as important. Without Federal regulations on CO2 we will continue to invest in dirty energy and imo that's a really bad energy plan.