How Do States Compare On Global Warming?

(AP)  America may spew more greenhouse gases than any other country, but some states are astonishingly more prolific polluters than others — and it's not always the ones you might expect.

The Associated Press analyzed state-by-state emissions of carbon dioxide from 2003, the latest U.S. Energy Department numbers available. The review shows startling differences in states' contribution to climate change.

The biggest reason? The burning of high-carbon coal to produce cheap electricity.

Among the states studied:

Wyoming's coal-fired power plants produce more carbon dioxide in just eight hours than the power generators of more populous Vermont do in a year.

Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice Texas' population.

In sparsely populated Alaska, the carbon dioxide produced per person by all the flying and driving is six times the per capita amount generated by travelers in New York state.

"There's no question that some states have made choices to be greener than others," said former top Energy Department official Joseph Romm, author of the new book "Hell and High Water" and executive director of a nonprofit energy conservation group.

The disparity in carbon dioxide emissions is one of the reasons there is no strong national effort to reduce global warming gases, some experts say. National emissions dipped ever so slightly last year, but that was mostly because of mild weather, according to the Energy Department.

"Some states are benefiting from both cheap electricity while polluting the planet and make all the rest of us suffer the consequences of global warming," said Frank O'Donnell, director of the Washington environmental group Clean Air Watch. "I don't think that's fair at all."

He noted that the states putting out the most carbon dioxide are doing the least to control it, except for California.

Several federal and state officials say it's unfair and nonsensical to examine individual states' contribution to what is a global problem.

"If the atmosphere could talk it wouldn't say, 'Kudos to California, not so good to Wyoming'," said assistant energy secretary Alexander "Andy" Karsner. "It would say, 'Stop sending me emissions."'

Some coal-burning states note that they are providing electricity to customers beyond their borders, including Californians. Wyoming is the largest exporter of energy to other states, Gov. Dave Freudenthal told The Associated Press.

He said two-thirds of the state's carbon footprint "is a consequence of energy that is developed to feed the rest of the national economy. That doesn't mean that somehow then it's good carbon, I'm just saying that's why those numbers come out the way are," Freudenthal said.

And the massive carbon dioxide-spewing and power-gobbling refineries of Texas and Louisiana fuel an oil-hungry nation, whose residents whine when gasoline prices rise.

However, some of the disparities are stunning.

On a per-person basis, Wyoming spews more carbon dioxide than any other state or any other country: 276,000 pounds of it per capita a year, thanks to burning coal, which provides nearly all of the state's electrical power.

Yet, just next door to the west, Idaho emits the least carbon dioxide per person, less than 23,000 pounds a year. Idaho forbids coal power plants. It relies mostly on non-polluting hydroelectric power from its rivers.

Texas, where coal barely edges out cleaner natural gas as the top power source, belches almost 1½ trillion pounds of carbon dioxide yearly. That's more than every nation in the world except six: the United States, China, Russia, Japan, India and Germany.

Of course, Texas is a very populous state. North Dakota isn't, but its power plants crank out 68 percent more carbon dioxide than New Jersey, which has 13 times North Dakota's residents.

And while Californians have cut their per-person carbon dioxide emissions by 11 percent from 1990 to 2003, Nebraskans have increased their per capita emissions by 16 percent over the same time frame.

Officials in Wyoming, North Dakota and Alaska say numbers in their states are skewed because of their small populations. But Vermont, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia are similar in size and have one-12th the per-capita emissions of Wyoming.

A lot of it comes down to King Coal.

Burning coal accounts for half of America's electricity. And coal produces more carbon dioxide than any other commonly used U.S. fuel source. The states that rely the most on coal — Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Indiana — generally produce the most carbon dioxide pollution per person, but also have the cheapest electric rates.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page »

[octavianfdlr]

rheola asks what in the **** the situation on Mars, etc. has to do with the debate. As rheola well knows, the allegedly scientific debate centers on the claim that there is no possible explanation for the recent increase in temperatures on Earth except for anthropogenicaly produced greenhouse gases. If the claim were true, there would not also be global warming on Mars and Jupiter. There is. Therefore, the recently measured increase in global temperatures on Earth does not lead to the conclusion that there is a problem which increased government regulation can fix.

Of course, some people always wish to give governments more power. Such people will always see refutations of their arguments as "white Elephants."

For the record, life on Earth has not only survived but also thriven in higher carbon dioxide concentrations than we have now.

For the record, the Earth has experienced more sudden warming episodes of greater magnitude than we have seen in the last few decades, back when there were no anthropogenically produced greenhouse gases.

For the record, those who claim that there is no other explanation for the current warming have not yet given any explanation for the previous episodes. But some would also brand the previous episodes as "white Elephants."

[erasmus6]

Arnold came up from California the other day to visit us here in British Columbia. He was here to give our Premiere some tips on Global Warming, wasn't that nice of him? We need all the help we can get.

[rheola-2009]

"As to the "redneck" state comment, every time you turn on something that uses electricity, thank a Wyoming Coal Miner."
Posted by hawksprings at 09:48 AM : Jun 04, 2007

Hawksprings

Does that mean, we can also thank a Wyoming miner if, or should I more correctly say, WHEN, the Global warming sheep, are shown to be very much less the sheep, than are those fools who are so very willing to place in jeopardy, the wellbeing of ourselves and those who follow in future.

How is all upe in the high country.

[rheola-2009]

"socrates392 will provide me with clean and safe power which is as inexpensive as what I am currently using, I will gladly use it. As long as socrates392 tries to make me pay more, I will continue to object."
Posted by octavianfdlr at 12:36 PM : Jun 04, 2007

Octavianfdlr

I do not feel as does Socrates 392, that green power can be produced at least in the earlier stages,at an equal or lower cost than can our present sources, however, nor do I agree at all with your suggestion that you would prefer to stay with the cheaper source, appare3ntly, at the risk of possibly causing irrepairable damage to this one and only world of ours, for the purely selfish reasons inherent in what you state.

Further what in hell has the situation on Mars or Jupiter or maybe Sirius have to do with the present debate, except to throw a white Elephant into the ring,

I notice these analogies have been used reguarly of late in an attempt to distract people from the real meanings of this debate, by throwing in an argument that has no relationship whatsoever.

[hawksprings]

Octavian, you cannot reason with the Global Warming Sheep. They've already started to stampede and there's no stopping them until they let Big Brother have even more control over us in the name of saving our lives.

Like Jimfinster says, "Follow the money."

[octavianfdlr]

At 01:39 AM on June 3, socrates392 asked an interesting question: "...what harm can there be in switching over to cleaner sources of power?" this question was followed by the assertion "...you will still end up paying less for your power."

I, personally, do not consider "dirtyness" as a desirable attribute when shopping for power. I suspect that very few people do. Indeed, if the assertion about paying less were true, most people would have switched over already. I would have.

However, the Global Warming debate is not about how to make "cleaner" technologies more affordable, developing these technologies, or even about ending any prohibition against using them.

The Global Warming debate is about forcing poeple not to use low-cost well-known technologies because of the concern that the use of these technologies is causing global temperatures to increase on Mars. Oops! I mean on Jupiter. Oops! Missed again! It's on Earth that we are being told that the warming cannot be explained by any other cause than anthropogenic greanhouse gases. After all, if there were another explanation, we would likely see global warming on Mars (we do) or Jupiter (we do).

If socrates392 will provide me with clean and safe power which is as inexpensive as what I am currently using, I will gladly use it. As long as socrates392 tries to make me pay more, I will continue to object.

[octavianfdlr]

This was an interesting story about information and various comentators' reactions to the information that we were not given. It would be nice if the article contained more actual information, such as a table of per capita carbon dioxide emission by state.

Even more interesting statistics would be the quantity of carbon dioxide blowing out from (and compared to the quantity blowing into) various states, nations, etc. That is, what is the net emission? I heard on a public radio program many years ago, that the US is a net carbond dioxide sink! The host of the show was flabergasted, and tried to shut up and then explain away the guest, who had billed himself (if I remember correctly) as a "hard-nosed environmentalist."

If Anthropogenic Global Warming is ever to be a science, and not merely a public relations activity, actual measurements are needed, not just conclusions drawn from endless calculations and philosophical statements.

How about it, CBS? Can you find anyone who has actually measured the net emisisons of one or more of the US, Austrailia, Canada, the Netherlands, etc? Would you give us the results?

[infidel_us]

China is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter after the United States.

Global warming -- just "hysteria"?

Meanwhile, former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt called for an end to the "hysteria" over global warming in the lead-up to the summit. The topic is "hysterical, overheated, and that is especially because of the media," Schmidt told Germany's Bild daily.

There has always been climate change on earth, Schmidt said.

"We've had warm- and ice-ages for hundreds of thousands of years," he said, and added that the reasons behind the multiple climate changes have been "inadequately researched for the time being."

To assume that global climate change can be altered by any plans made at the Heiligendamm summit is "idiotic," he said.

[hawksprings]

CO2 is not a poisonous gas like arsenic. Ask any plant. And its contribution to the greenhouse effect is a lot smaller percentage than water vapour's is. And if you look at what fraction of CO2 is human caused, and what fraction of human caused CO2 is going to increase by, you're talking of a pretty small percentage.

Take some time away from the hysteria and think about the math of it.

The Global Warming SHeep seem to give the impression that if humans could only magically dissappear today, that the Earth's weather would always be a sunny 72.

And there are some scientists who say that CO2 levels go up BECAUSE the climate is warming, and that the climate is not warming because CO2 levels are increasing.


As to the "redneck" state comment, every time you turn on something that uses electricity, thank a Wyoming Coal Miner.

[oxmyx-2009]

Shocker- the redneck states are the biggest polluters. Atleast ignorance is consistent. The bar is so very low.