WASHINGTON, D.C., June 2, 2007
How Do States Compare On Global Warming?
A State-By-State Analysis Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions, From Most (Texas) To Least (Vermont)
-
(CBS/AP)
-
Photo Essay A Warming Effect A behind-the-scenes look at the 60 Minutes team's trip to Patagonia, Chile and Antarctica.
-
Interactive Global Warming The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
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:
"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.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From SciTech
Add a Comment See all 49 Comments
- 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." - Reply to this comment
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
"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.- Reply to this comment
"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.- Reply to this comment
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."- Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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? - Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
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.- Reply to this comment
- Shocker- the redneck states are the biggest polluters. Atleast ignorance is consistent. The bar is so very low.
- Reply to this comment
- Anyone who thinks the media is "Liberal" should realize just how many stories are simply buried by the corporate ownership.
And the "framing" of topics which favor right-wing perspectives on issues is rampant in news today. A couple decades ago we used to call that Labeling the Issues. But the effect is the same, to put a specific side on the defensive merely by not challenging the question.
Of course if you agree with the viewpoint presented, you don't see what's wrong with it. But it's poisoning our ability to have a truly fair and balanced discussion. - Reply to this comment
- hawksprings:
And regarding Fox - they are clearly right-wing cheerleaders. It is kinda silly to say otherwise.... - Reply to this comment
- And as I recall, your other arguement is: "how can a little molecule hurt anybody?" Well, put your head in a bucket of water for an hour, it won't hurt you! After all, it is just little molecules of H2O....
- Reply to this comment
- hawksprings:
Your reasoning is not very reasonable.
By your logic, I could put 1/4 of 1% arsenic in your glass of water, all is well. Drink up hawksprings, it won't hurt you!! Why, it is just a tiny fraction of the total volume in your glass! - Reply to this comment
- Hang in there hawksprings, don't let all these lefties, with all thier facts and stuff, change your opinion.
- Reply to this comment
Yeah Sparky, and now the MSM is falling all over itself for how it should not have supported anything.
Danny Boy lost his job because he willfully used false documents in his reporting. You seem to have neglected that little detail.
I was also watching CBS News back in '88 when he had George Bush Sr live for an interview and got into an incredibly revealing arguement with him.
Then there's Rita Braver who's lawyer husband was on Clinton's staff while she continued as the White House Correspondent.
I could go on and on, but you should read Benard Goldberg's book "Bias and Arrogance". He used to be part of the liberal MSM, and he's revealed all of the insider info about the truth about the liberal, lefty slant of CBSNBCABCCNN.
Again I repeat: Because Fox News doesn't lean hard left like the rest of the Big Media, you think they're biased.
What's funny about you Sparky, is that you are so used to crooked, left-leaning media, that when you see something like Fox News you think Fox is biased. It's quite ironic... and sad.- Reply to this comment
- hawksprings,
The "Liberal Media" is a laugh. They were cheerleading almost as loud as Fox Noise Channel for the disastrous Iraq invasion.
Dan Rather, oh yes, I remember him he did a story about W's skipping out on his National Guard service that turned out to be true. Did you see the interview with the secretary who was there? Oh, that's right, it wasn't shown on Fox Noise. - Reply to this comment
Sparks224: Don't be such a crybaby!
Keep whining away about the ONLY major news organization that isn't owned lock, stock, and barrel by the DNC. Just because Fox doesn't toe the Dembot Party Line you call it misleading and owned by the GOP.
You've probably never heard of a guy named Dan Rather.
Besides, why are you so worried about Fox News when there's CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN who daily do your bidding.
(That's another classic liberal tactic: "Balance" in the newsshows is 3 or 4 liberals to 1 conservative.)- Reply to this comment
- Do you know what they are talking about? What is the Fox Noise Channel?
Posted by erasmus6
We are referring to the Fox News Channel. We call it the Noise channel because its purpose is to mislead the public with half truths, false equivalences and sometimes outright lies. They work very hard to create confusion where there is clarity and to cloud the issues. They have to do this to get working people to vote Republican. It%u2019s owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by Roger Ales, both unapologetic hard core right wing zealots.
If you have any more questions feel free to ask. - Reply to this comment
- I don't know why some of you posters are dragging Fox News into this. My link was to a Canadian source: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
But your rants against Fox continue to reveal a similar theme with Libs: "If it's ain't slanted left, it's biased."
Erasmus, I didn't realize you were of the fairer sexx! At least when she's griping about the dust, it's not because of something I did. That's always nice for a change.
Dr. Finster,
I still take issue with these facts:
1. CO2 comprises only 1/4th of 1 percent of the atmosphere (That's 0.25%).
2. Humans have contributed about 1/4 of that 1/4 of 1 percent (Which is 0.0625 of the 0.25).
3. Scientists are saying at our current increases we will increase CO2 by twenty five percent over the next century. That will raise the CO2 levels to 0.315%
4. The Consensus would have us believe that if that increase happens, the Earth will become this hellish place.
I just don't think that such a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of an increase in CO2 is going to lead to mass exitinction, drought, 20 feet rises in sea levels, etc.
I do think there is a certain amount of "mob mentality" with some of the scientists in The Consensus, in that there is a fair amount of peer pressure to conform to the latest fad of the day, which currently is: "Human-Caused Global Warming's gonna kill us all." - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
