[Dr.Zoidberg]

That’s also my opinion purplefrog. Furthermore the GDP of USA from 1990 (5.803,3 billions US Dollar) till 2000 (9.824,7 billions US Dollar) has a much bigger growth than the gain of greenhouse gases (look here: http://www.grida.no/Emissions.aspx?m=36&countryiso=US) and because of that the chart logically will go down. This doesn´t surprise me as this is a statistic from the US government.

Following, some stats of the development of emissions for USA and worldwide:

Distribution between Oil, coal and gas of the CO2 emissions in a chart: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/co2_...lected_regions

CO2 emission per capita relating to the income average: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/nati...ons_per_capita

CO2 emission per country and the change of emission: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environme..._emissions.htm

Greenhouse gas emission per country and the change of the emission: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environme..._emissions.htm

It´s not the point to find alternative energy sources, despite this is very important (would be nice to find something, but at the moment there is no alternative technology to cover the whole need of energy). So the best way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases is to cut the consumption of energy and use emission reducing technologies.