on the positive side: big percentage changes from zero are easily achieved.
nice to know that our news writers and the EPA have separated water from the realm of chemicals.
pathetic. They are alluding to a well documented case of unusual weather circumstance and a single sampling event (no sampling over different seasons).
only the facts ma'am. where are they?
i sense a tinge of well deserved skepticism by the writer. at least that's a start at decent reporting.
uh uh. $30M differential. anybody want to guess what the error bars are on those 2 numbers? I'd bet body parts that they're a lot more than 5%. Yet somehow "extremely cost-effective" is the conclusion.
from wikipedia's methane entry: "Rice fields also generate large amounts of methane during plant growth. ... Cattle belch methane accounts for 16% of the world's annual methane emissions to the atmosphere."
maybe the EPA should put a stop to Budweiser, Rice Crispies, and hamburgers.
isn't a standard supposed to be standard? maybe they should get to work on suing somebody over the meter and kilogram. Why the inference that a regulation is bad just 'cause it was put in place 26 yrs ago?
uh, uh. this from a guy in NM where a good chunk of the state's "GDP" and tax revenues are drawn from oil, gas and coal production. Maybe he should take a trip over to the Grand Canyon where he can experience the smog caused by burning NM coal in Nevada and Utah power plants which export their electrical power to California so Los Angelinos can breathe better. ahh, hypocrites. gotta love'em.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.