Seeking Alpha

Report: Top 50 polluters emit 75% of greenhouse gases

  • Fifty of the world's 500 largest publicly traded companies are responsible for nearly three quarters of the group’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report by a group that compiles data on climate change.
  • The big emitters are not doing enough to reduce emissions, and the top 50 have increased their emissions since 2009, the report says.
  • U.S. companies in the top 50 include oil majors such as Exxon (XOM), Chevron (CVX) and ConocoPhillips (COP), and other giants such as Wal-Mart (WMT), FedEx (FDX), Dow Chemical (DOW), AT&T (T) and Duke Energy (DUK).
  • Exxon, Shell (RDS.A, RDS.B), Sasol (SSL), BP and Petrobras (PBR) are the five biggest emitters in the energy sector.
From other sites
Comments (70)
  • doc47
    , contributor
    Comments (1310) | Send Message
     
    How many, unmentioned here, are in China and Russia?
    12 Sep 2013, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • darkmark
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    why don't we take care of the problems we cause and maybe example will help more than, "I am not cleaning my room if he doesn't clean his first." we are adults, right?
    12 Sep 2013, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • mogman
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    You used the word 'we' three times. I am not a member of your personal 'we'. You do not know me and still refer to me as part of 'we'.
    Not only is it a truly arrogant use of a word but also incorrect, as in 'it is we/us or them/they/their. Use the word 'I'. Assume your own personal 'I' responsibility. At least you will be factually correct.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • Brian Bobbitt
    , contributor
    Comments (2007) | Send Message
     
    Please define 'adults'.
    Capt.Brian
    The Lost Navigator
    13 Sep 2013, 02:10 AM Reply Like
  • auto44
    , contributor
    Comments (3282) | Send Message
     
    No Kidding???? The biggest companies are the biggest polluters? I mean, who knew? Al I invented the internet Gore is probably the largest private polluter.
    12 Sep 2013, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • darkmark
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    another person pointing their finger and not helping to fix the problem. there are thousands of ways to help.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • mogman
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    Just what I said to you in the above reply to 'we'. .....pointing 'their' finger.... talk about pointing fingers, my heavens. Please do stick with the word 'I'. Once you have that 'personal responsibility' thing nailed down, you my embark on the use of 'my', as in.... may I help by using my talents? Your first talent might be to name the first one thousand of the 'thousands' you claim are ways. After that thousand (no citing a reference book either) you might have some credibility.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • arthur_bishop1972
    , contributor
    Comments (2775) | Send Message
     
    <<Al I invented the internet Gore is probably the largest private polluter.>>

     

    Lol...only if he gives a speech...or tries to dance.
    13 Sep 2013, 12:53 AM Reply Like
  • BlueOkie
    , contributor
    Comments (6983) | Send Message
     
    Gore probably still is! That personal jet takes more than his fair share
    13 Sep 2013, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • arthur_bishop1972
    , contributor
    Comments (2775) | Send Message
     
    Wow...Walmart and AT+T??? The energy names I coulda guessed, but not WMT and T.

     

    Huh.
    12 Sep 2013, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (2836) | Send Message
     
    Fine.
    Let's have the world do without all the products these companies produce.
    What is your cave address ?
    12 Sep 2013, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • darkmark
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    why do you even bother to write such tripe? have you not been aware of all the ways we can help end the problem of global warming/climate change. if you are an adult its time for you to start worrying about what we are leaving our children.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • mogman
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    see my reply to you above
    12 Sep 2013, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • BlueOkie
    , contributor
    Comments (6983) | Send Message
     
    Ask Japan what causes more pollution, Mother Nature!
    13 Sep 2013, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • morrism1
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    A cradle to grave evaluation would tell you that these companies are not responsible for the emissions but the people buying their products are. So, cut your gasoline and diesel consumption by 50% and the greenhouse gas emissions will go down.

     

    Oh, you want to keep doing what you're doing and have someone else make the cuts? I see, it's someone else's problem to fix......
    12 Sep 2013, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • darkmark
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    at one time there were mass transit systems around the usofa. the auto industry went to major cities and bought up many of those systems and then broke them up and sold off their part to small towns. at the same time the auto industry lobbied state and federal gov'ts to build highways, freeways. all worked according to their plan and now we have the mess that is causing the problem. cars and more cars, roads, parking lots, driveways and wrecking yards. that's part of the real history of this country.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki
    , contributor
    Comments (1405) | Send Message
     
    
Its accepted fact that our environment here in the US is far cleaner today than it was at the turn of the last century. As much as cars pollute, that pollution is nothing compared to the pollution associated with horse-drawn carriages and woodburning fire places and coal burning boilers..we have as many trees today as when Columbus landed, the air is cleaner now than it was in 1900, etc. Most of the improvements in these measurables occurred before the EPA was even created. They occurred because, as our nation got richer, it was better able to pay the costs associated with such positive externalities as "clean air". Given the options of starving to death or engaging in environmentally destructive practices like slash and burn agriculture, most people throughout history have put their immediate survival over long-term environmental consequences. In other words, to put it in simple terms, putting the environment ahead of survival is a "luxury". That is why Kyoto was an abject failure. That is why every other so-called "climate conference" has failed. Namely, that its impossible to get China and India and Brazil to agree to restrictions on their ability to modernize their society and improve the standard of living of their own people. Humanity will not choose to freeze in the dark and any hydrocarbons you don’t burn will be gladly burned by those less fortunate than you. Given the options of starving to death or engaging in environmentally destructive practices like slash and burn agriculture, most people throughout history have put their immediate survival over long-term environmental consequences. In other words, to put it in simple terms, putting the environment ahead of survival is a "luxury". That is why Kyoto was an abject failure. That is why every other so-called "climate conference" has failed. Namely, that its impossible to get China and India and Brazil to agree to restrictions on their ability to modernize their society and improve the standard of living of their own people. Humanity will not choose to freeze in the dark and any hydrocarbons you don’t burn will be gladly burned by those less fortunate than you. Since the planet only has one atmosphere, the idea that moving emissions from Point A to Point B is somehow "virtuous and green" has all the intellectual integrity of a no peeing zone in a swimming pool.

    13 Sep 2013, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • Sonia
    , contributor
    Comments (379) | Send Message
     
    Go to India or Nepal and walk through the fog of acrid smoke as people cook food over fires burning camel dung. Go to Beijing and breath the air, if you can call that air. Put a handkerchief over your nose and try to breathe through it. Of course, all this pollution is caused by US companies...!
    12 Sep 2013, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • financeminister
    , contributor
    Comments (971) | Send Message
     
    I didn't know that "US companies" are to blame for people cooking food using camel dung, cow dung, fire wood etc . This habit of blaming the west for every ill in third world countries is getting lousy. Much of the inefficiencies in these countries are caused by stupid government shortsightedness and corruption coupled with people who don't care about the environment - lack of infrastructure planning leading to congested roads, no proper drainage or sewer systems and people burning their trash in their backyards and the road because there isn't a proper disposal and sanitary system in place. Free market concepts are not encouraged that would give individuals the freedom to solve a lot of problems these centers face. Supply of essentials is restricted leading to people having to burn fire wood, plastics and trash. Please, if anything, developing countries should replicate how the west have a far cleaner environment even in their urban areas when they encouraged free market spirits with checks and balances to solve many of the environmental problems that we no longer worry about by creating efficient systems.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    You need to separate the pollution. Noxious gases, heavy metals, particulate matter should not be on the same page as CO2 "pollution". CO2 pollution at this point is still theory.
    The pollution you speak of is horrific and yes, needs to be addressed. CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas and can not be blamed
    for the acrid smoke. Climate Change theory is dependent on CO2
    being labeled as a pollutant.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • Leeskyblue
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Very glib,
    airy theories are always correct and safe as long as they are never applied. -- Just let the "free market" somehow do it's thing and a thousand flowers will bloom. That is not sound anything, it is just blowing wind. When applied at all and those theories screw up, you always have someone else to blame -- we just didn't do it enough, you say. Your theory is never wrong because it is never honestly tested or evaluated.
    13 Sep 2013, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • timddeb
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    Yup Sonia you are right, but don't you have to fix your own mess as well?
    12 Sep 2013, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • slash32is4
    , contributor
    Comments (161) | Send Message
     
    lets close WMT stores like we have had coal plants shut down... war on business
    12 Sep 2013, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • Bbloomlu
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    And who is the writer of this report and where does the info come from. Today it was reported that of the 117 reports of global warming 114 were overstated.
    12 Sep 2013, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • AZ Desert Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (256) | Send Message
     
    that "result" with the 114 out of 117 overstated is the interpretation of the person that Faux News interviewed. If you actually read the conclusion of the study by Nature Climate Change you will see the following:

     

    "Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability."

     

    If you look up the warming trend over the last 100 it's a stair step pattern.

     

    Move along now
    13 Sep 2013, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • JMS12
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I thought cow flatulence was the biggest contributor...
    12 Sep 2013, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • RWMostow
    , contributor
    Comments (1528) | Send Message
     
    JMS-

     

    Are you confusing cows with bulls? :)

     

    -rwm
    12 Sep 2013, 08:40 PM Reply Like
  • Veritas1010
    , contributor
    Comments (1685) | Send Message
     
    Let's all get our stone knives and axes ready. Oh, yeah I forgot to mention that forge you'll need in the backyard - has to use coal or downed trees...

     

    Gotta face facts, an imperfect world and species has to rely on imperfect means of survival.

     

    Just imagine a world with 6 billion people quickly approaching 10 billion without reliable and cost efficient energy!
    12 Sep 2013, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • RWMostow
    , contributor
    Comments (1528) | Send Message
     
    Veritas-

     

    How about everyone constructing / digging their own peat bog. We omit coal and save trees!

     

    -rwm
    12 Sep 2013, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Veritas1010
    , contributor
    Comments (1685) | Send Message
     
    Now maybe that's the ticket! Our friends in Canada will be happy with us at least.
    14 Sep 2013, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    The report was issued by CDP, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project, it is an international nonprofit group that compiles data on climate change. Their jobs depend on CO2 being labeled as a pollutant !! If CO2 is removed from the greenhouse gas emissions, these fifty companies are some of the most environmentally responsible out there.

     

    12 Sep 2013, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • darkmark
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    all one has to do to read comments from the uninformed is come to a web site based on stocks. the ignorance here is only matched at the most basic conservative web sites.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • mogman
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    see my replies above
    12 Sep 2013, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    http://on.wsj.com/17X6gNi

     

    It is also totally implausible for me to accept that climate science can predict such small changes in temperature over decades. The "climate change model" isn't working.
    14 Sep 2013, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • mogman
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    In the 1980's the top climate professors were screaming (literally) about a global deep freeze coming. I watched as Jimmy Carter threw public funds at a series of solar and eco solutions and saw many good science fellows bet their life savings on tech inventions/companies that were defunded by.... yep... Carter and the liberal House and Senate (as they could 'inside invest' and short sell legally) reaped profits and raped the tax payer. No different from now with the phony science and Solyndra and GM Volt debacle. Now it is not even Global Warming but it is now Global Climate change! Of course the climate changes..... Sonia would have learned that in my high school in 1963. She will learn that after her third PHD and for the writer of the article...... I have forgotten more than all of the author's knowledge base to date. What a silly article. Put your name on the article or withdraw the article. Grow some character.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • BlueOkie
    , contributor
    Comments (6983) | Send Message
     
    A inconvenient truth is a lie!
    13 Sep 2013, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • slyolefox
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    AT&T has been converting all their vehicles to CNG so this article is misconstruing the facts. I know that they have a lot of vehicles on the road at any given time but their carbon footprint is decreasing with each one converted. How about mentioning this in your article next time?
    12 Sep 2013, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • coyote21
    , contributor
    Comments (37) | Send Message
     
    Question: if you had 10,000 marbles in a fishbowl, and the fishbowl represented the earth’s atmosphere, how many of the marbles would represent CO2?

     

    Of course you know that the answer is 4

     

    Question: in the past hundred years, how many marbles of the 10,000 total would represent the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

     

    Of course you know that the answer is 1

     

    Global Warming... Climate Change....

     

    The Glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years... FACT

     

    Only fools predict the weather....

     

    Only Idiots believe them... LOL
    12 Sep 2013, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    Spot on
    12 Sep 2013, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • RWMostow
    , contributor
    Comments (1528) | Send Message
     
    Coyote-

     

    I could not have said it better! When all else fails, try engaging the brain.

     

    -rwm
    12 Sep 2013, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • marketalgs
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Before I accept that Wal-Mart is polluting more than Target or other companies, I would like to see the measurements normalized such as CO2 per unit of GDP, or CO2 per dollar of revenue for comparing retail stores, etc.
    12 Sep 2013, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (861) | Send Message
     
    Why bother - climate change is junk science.
    12 Sep 2013, 11:43 PM Reply Like
  • maudie
    , contributor
    Comments (482) | Send Message
     
    as the earth cools.
    12 Sep 2013, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (2836) | Send Message
     
    darkmark-
    see mogman's replies above.

     

    Also if you don't like the cars,roadways,highways, freeways, parking lots, etc., how do u live and why do u live here?

     

    To broad brush a country like the U.S. is insulting.

     

    To broad brush a stock website that" only shows our ignorance" ,leads me to ask why did u even come here in the 1st place.
    Seems u and ur argument have been resigned to labeling all of us on this site"ignorant and uninformed" and calling us names. Seems u need to become more adult !

     

    see mogman's reply above.
    12 Sep 2013, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • IndioBravo
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    Too many angry, non-sense comments about undeniable facts!
    12 Sep 2013, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (861) | Send Message
     
    Enlighten everyone.
    12 Sep 2013, 11:44 PM Reply Like
  • mr chris
    , contributor
    Comments (25) | Send Message
     
    Indiobravo.
    Undeniable facts? Morelike madeup science to gouge another research grant!
    13 Sep 2013, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • IndioBravo
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    Worthless.
    13 Sep 2013, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • NoVABIll
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    This report comes from a London-based organization that is promoting "...disclose their impacts on the environment and natural resources and take action to reduce them".
    Not an unbiased source. Their methodology relies on self-reporting statistics that do not cover all companies in any of the sectors. This is just an amalgam of what some people report, wrapped in the "non-profit" cover of an advocacy group. The CEO is a business and finance graduate with no discernible background on climate sciences. Seems to be the usual Brit Met Office "believer". Of course the Met Office has now been proven wrong on so many of their climate 'horror' predictions that they are no longer to be believed.
    The entire report should be taken with a grain of salt or ignored. Usual climate change rubbish!
    12 Sep 2013, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • BlueOkie
    , contributor
    Comments (6983) | Send Message
     
    How are they funded? If they said no global warming would they be out of business - yes!!!
    13 Sep 2013, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • mikeyji
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    The biggest problem is the solar eruptions as well. The world climate was at its worse in the last century during the 1930's that was before all the hype.
    12 Sep 2013, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • seedaview
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    So being a giant means you are bad. Who wrote this? Sierra Club?
    12 Sep 2013, 11:23 PM Reply Like
  • RDSwindells
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    I already read of this study today in MarketWatch. Herewith I repeat the same comments I made to that article:

     

    "This looks like an entirely agenda-driven study, clearly aimed at accusing only privately-held companies. Since we don't see who is on the list, even the top 50, much less the entire 500, I would like to ask the following questions.

     

    As to the Energy Industry world-wide, were numbers developed for any of the following companies; Rosneft, Gazprom, CNOOC, Sinopec? Where do Saudi Aramco and National Iranian Oil Co. sit in the list? Iraq Petroleum?

     

    Were any companies from China even looked at considering that China is arguably by far the worst polluted country in the world."

     

    It would appear that only American, German and other free world privately owned companies were of interest to those who did the study. That makes it an obvious hatchet job.
    13 Sep 2013, 03:50 AM Reply Like
  • BlueOkie
    , contributor
    Comments (6983) | Send Message
     
    The Dept of Energy was suppose to make us energy independent - 40 years ago!
    13 Sep 2013, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • IndioBravo
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    Reagan, Bush, Bush II, 20 years going backward...
    13 Sep 2013, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • FastCash
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Ummm, I think it's actually cow farts that cause most of the pollution!
    13 Sep 2013, 07:24 AM Reply Like
  • NoVABIll
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    I would like to know who deemed this POS article worthy of publishing under the Seeking Alpha website?
    There are evidently no standards of what is and is not published.
    The same applies to some of the so-called "analysts" who publish their own opinions as "analysis'.
    Articles of this sort severely bring the value of continuing to reed this website into question.
    13 Sep 2013, 08:03 AM Reply Like
  • Joe A. MacDonald
    , contributor
    Comments (109) | Send Message
     
    I TOTALLY agree with this posting!!
    13 Sep 2013, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • CoSyBob
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Egregious BS propaganda .

     

    CO2 + H2O = LIFE . It's where the carbon in all things organic comes from . The earth itself has now thoroughly proven its only measurable effect is greening the planet as visible from space .

     

    It's far scarier that the world has been cooling for more than a decade .
    13 Sep 2013, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • BlueOkie
    , contributor
    Comments (6983) | Send Message
     
    I say those who truly believe, go back and live in caves. It'll save the planet from their trash
    13 Sep 2013, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (2836) | Send Message
     
    indio-
    You want to see backward ?
    Wait till you witness when all the"free stuff" this regime has doled out ...stops.
    This will give a new meaning to backward.
    Be prepared...be wealthy,you're gonna need it.
    14 Sep 2013, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • mogman
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    In the end, this article has benefitted me mightily. I now know who is out there in la-la land, having no scientific basis of arguable content, steeped in self righteous indignation at those who actually toil to earn a better life and resent any semblance of success. Sonia, darkmark and their ilk have self-convinced their mind that investing in one's self and in others is bad. That good character is bad, because it grows from effort, ingenuity, self reliance, independence and individuality, all of which are anathema to the very government controls IndioBravo, darkmark and Sonia (and ilk) wish to impose on a nation formed for individual liberty. Such sycophantic followers of the elitist Gore-bage are now out in front of the camera, recording their rant and indelibly placing their life and thought process (lack of) before the very world each claims to detest, while that same world feeds and clothes each sycophant. There comes a time when those, so malcontent, may have irreversibly diminished their fretless life, only to recoil aghast, at what each truly deserves.... nothing.
    14 Sep 2013, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (861) | Send Message
     
    Yes sir.
    14 Sep 2013, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (2836) | Send Message
     
    Read mogman above...!
    TaDa !!!
    14 Sep 2013, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Sonia
    , contributor
    Comments (379) | Send Message
     
    Mogman, read blogs more carefully! The ending to my comment on the filthy air in India, Nepal, China, "of course, all this pollution is caused by American companies," was satirical! l'm a lifelong libertarian - worked all the hours God gave me for many years to build a successful business before selling due to ever-increasing and invasive government regulation. Climate has always varied. I take no stock in dire predictions made by people who make a living or gain publicity by spouting them, such as Gore. Wasn't it the 80's when the climate was cooling and another Ice Age was predicted?
    15 Sep 2013, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • RDSwindells
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    I think that was the 70's, Sonia. After all it was Jimmy Carter who responded with all the gimmicks back then.
    16 Sep 2013, 03:38 AM Reply Like
  • mogman
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    Sonia, write more carefully! Always consider the prospective audience. As for your life's work, supreme kudos for starting and running a business. You have displayed great talent in being able to create a profit for yourself as well as provide an income for many others. You are so correct in naming the government 'invasive'. Keep the faith.
    16 Sep 2013, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • LtPF
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    For the Energy section the answer is simple. Hydrocarbons are a natural resource. Charge a fee/fine/tax for every BEO of emissions based on the daily price of some oil index (Brent). Multiply the fee by 20X if a company is caught under or miss reporting. Call it the Unnecessary Waste of a Natural Resource.
    16 Sep 2013, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • roachr
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Speaking of the seventies. Old Blood Sweat and Tears song, went I can swear there ain't no Heaven, but I pray there ain't no Hell
    18 Sep 2013, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • timddeb
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    US0.0001cents on every barrel of oil donated to an independent body whose only job is to recycle/clean up would go a long way towards clearing up the mess. It would provide jobs as well. That is until the CEO needed a bigger jet.
    18 Sep 2013, 07:57 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs