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.
It's unfair to pin all the blame on the coal-using states, said Washington lawyer Jeffrey Holmstead, who as an attorney at Bracewell Giuliani represents coal-intensive utilities and refineries. Holmstead is the former Bush administration air pollution regulator who ruled that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant, a decision that was overturned recently by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Coal-fired generation is the most economical, least expensive way to produce power almost anywhere in the world," he said. He argued that outlawing such plants would have little overall impact globally; however, the U.S. has long been the leading global source of carbon emissions.
Instead of trying to wean themselves from coal, Texas government officials went out of their way to encourage the state's biggest utility, TXU Corp., to plan for 11 new coal-burning power plants that would have produced even more carbon dioxide. The strategy collapsed when an investor group buying TXU cut a deal with environmentalists to drop plans to build most of the coal plants.
The Texas state agency charged with monitoring the environment declined to comment on carbon dioxide emissions. Spokeswoman Andrea Morrow said the gas "is not a regulated pollutant." Frank Maisano, a lobbyist and spokesman for Bracewell Giuliani, which also has offices in Texas, defended the state saying, "these net exporters of energy are always going to produce more carbon dioxide."
Emissions from generating electricity account for the largest chunk of U.S. greenhouse gases, nearly 40 percent. Transportation emissions are close behind, contributing about one-third of U.S. production of carbon dioxide. States with mass transit and cities, such as New York, come out cleaner than those with wide expanses that rely solely on cars, trucks and airplanes, like Alaska.
Alaska, which stands out for its carbon dioxide production, also stands out as one of the early victims of climate change. Its glaciers are melting, its permafrost thawing, and coastal and island villages will soon be swallowed by the sea. Alaska ranked No. 1 in per-person emissions for transportation, which includes driving, flying, shipping and rail traffic.
That's not the state's fault, says Tom Chapple, director of the state Division of Air Quality. Its sheer expanse requires a lot of air travel. And Anchorage ranked No. 2 nationally in air cargo traffic.
For people who want to reduce their household emissions, or their "carbon footprint," the state where they live really does matter.
After seeing Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," Gregg Cawley used one of the many calculators available online to determine his "carbon footprint." The University of Wyoming professor lives in a small one-bedroom apartment and drives a moderately efficient Subaru, so he figured he contributes less to global warming than the average American.
But the calculations showed otherwise. They suggested Cawley produces more carbon dioxide than most Americans. Even if he reduced his energy consumption, the numbers would hardly budge. "My God," he thought, "what do I have to do to my lifestyle to change this?"
Then he changed his home state in the equation. He took out Wyoming and plugged in Washington state.
"I came in way low. I said, 'That's the problem. I live in the wrong damn state."'
That simple hypothetical change of address cut his personal emissions by nearly three tons of carbon dioxide a year.
By Seth Borenstein, Associated Press Science Writer; The AP's Bob Moen in Cheyenne, Wyo.; Paul J. Weber in Dallas; Dan Joling in Anchorage, Alaska; Terence Chea in San Francisco; and Mike Hill in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.
Continue For State Rankings Of Total And Per Capita CO2 Emissions
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From SciTech
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 49 CommentsOf 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."
"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.
"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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
And regarding Fox - they are clearly right-wing cheerleaders. It is kinda silly to say otherwise....
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 49 Comments