How Do States Compare On Global Warming?

A State-By-State Analysis Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions, From Most (Texas) To Least (Vermont)

(AP) 















States Ranked By Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions
In parentheses are each state's total CO2 emissions in million metric tons.
(Each metric ton = 2,204.6 pounds.)

1. Texas (670)
   
2. California (389)
   
3. Pennsylvania (271)
   
4. Ohio (266)
   
5. Florida (244)
   
6. Indiana (235)
   
7. Illinois (230)
   
8. New York (214)
   
9. Michigan (185)
   
10. Louisiana (179)
    
11. Georgia (168)
    
12. North Carolina (146)
    
13. Kentucky (143)
    
14. Missouri (137)
    
15. Alabama (136)
    
16. New Jersey (124)
    
17. Virginia (123)
    
18. Tennessee (120)
    
19. West Virginia (114)
    
20. Wisconsin (105)
    
21. Oklahoma (103)
    
22. Minnesota (102)
    
23. Colorado (90)
    
24. Arizona (89)
    
25. Massachusetts (87)
    
26. Kansas (80)
    
27. South Carolina (79)
    
28. Iowa (79)
    
29. Maryland (79)
    
30. Washington (79)
    
31. Wyoming (63)
    
32. Arkansas (62)
    
33. Utah (62)
    
34. Mississippi (62)
    
35. New Mexico (58)
    
36. North Dakota (51)
    
37. Alaska (45)
    
38. Nevada (43)
    
39. Nebraska (43)
    
40. Connecticut (42)
    
41. Oregon (40)
    
42. Montana (33)
    
43. Maine (23)
    
44. Hawaii (22)
    
45. New Hampshire (21)
    
46. Delaware (17)
    
47. Idaho (14)
    
48. South Dakota (14)
    
49. Rhode Island (11)
    
50. Vermont (7)

States Ranked By Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions
In parentheses are each state's per capita CO2 emissions in million metric tons. (Each metric ton = 2,204.6 pounds.) The national average is 20 metric tons.

1. Wyoming (125)
   
2. North Dakota (80)
   
3. Alaska (69)
   
4. West Virginia (63)
   
5. Louisiana (40)
   
6. Indiana (38)
   
7. Montana (36)
   
8. Kentucky (35)
   
9. New Mexico (31)
   
10. Texas (30)
    
11. Alabama (30)
    
12. Oklahoma (29)
    
13. Kansas (29)
    
14. Iowa (27)
    
15. Utah (26)
    
16. Nebraska (25)
    
17. Missouri (24)
    
18. Ohio (23)
    
19. Arkansas (23)
    
20. Pennsylvania (22)
    
21. Mississippi (22)
    
22. Delaware (21)
    
23. Tennessee (21)
    
24. Minnesota (20)
    
25. Colorado (20)
    
26. Nevada (19)
    
27. Georgia (19)
    
28. Wisconsin (19)
    
29. South Carolina (19)
    
30. Michigan (18)
    
31. Illinois (18)
    
32. South Dakota (18)
    
33. Maine (18)
    
34. North Carolina (17)
    
35. Hawaii (17)
    
36. Virginia (17)
    
37. New Hampshire (16)
    
38. Arizona (16)
    
39. Florida (14)
    
40. New Jersey (14)
    
41. Maryland (14)
    
42. Massachusetts (14)
    
43. Washington (13)
    
44. Connecticut (12)
    
45. Oregon (11)
    
46. New York (11)
    
47. California (11)
    
48. Rhode Island (11)
    
49. Vermont (11)
    
50. Idaho (10)

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2003 figures.

[hawksprings]

I feel so dirty.

[hypnotoad72]

Coal vs oil; if we ran light rail for passengers and ground rail for goods transport, it'd still be less polluting than (how many millions of) automobiles belching expended gas into the atmosphere.

We could run this country so much more effectively, if people gave it a chance. Ground rail hasn't been abandoned, and we're even seeing ads on TV. And I've seen more light rail outlets appear, albeit slowly.

[erasmus6]

hawksprings

Considering where you live, you should!:)

[erasmus6]

hawksprings

That is actually funny, your state is one of the dirtiest but your city is the cleanest.

[middleman8]

If you cut down on pollition per capita,good

but if the worlds per capita increases every

year its a loseing fight yiou can't win.

[hawksprings]

erasmus,
They say Cheyenne has the cleanest air, but they also tell us because it's so dry and windy here with high altitude that it's hard on asthmatics. My wife is always griping about how quickly the house gets dusty.

I think the reason the air is so "clean" here is because with all of our wind, the air changes over every 2 or 3 minutes.

[cdfoxtrot]

Note it's all the red-necky places that are the worst offenders.

[jimfinster]

hawksprings:

Ironic, huh?

[shanev137]

Global warming is the price we've paid for not building a nuclear power plant in the US for 35 years.

Nice going.

[ubrew12]

Maybe Wyoming could use a mega-investment in WindMills. I know there's an 'eyesore' component to that (as if open-pit mining isn't an eyesore), but when you're looking over a high plains area, windmills don't exactly detract the eye, but enhance the view. Wyoming has LOTS of wind, according to the posters here, and wind power is actually one of the cheapest sources of power anywhere (comesurate with coal). Yeah, and more nuclear. But, its obvious coal is going to be 'under attack' in the near future. Need technologies that turn coal into natural gas, which produces alot less CO2 when burned.

[michellem99-2009]

I feel so sick in the nasty air. Wait for a bus and the car passing by is so sick I fight for clean air. There are days I don't leave the house due to poor air out.

[sparks224]

I was starting to get concerned about global warming.
But then I turned on the Fox Noise Channel and they said it was all a big hoax.
What a relief!

[richdog_57]

Global warming, what a joke!!

[hawksprings]

Wyoming has had companies putting up windmill farms. By Rawlins there's a farm of about 200 of them you can see from I-80. South of Cheyenne just into Colorado there is a farm of about 40 you can see from I-25.
And just south of Pine Bluffs they are currently working on a wind farm that they say will have just shy of 1000 windmills!

My hope is that they will put up so many windmills around Cheyenne that it will slow the wind down some. That would be nice. Ha.

[hawksprings]

Is the Global Warming Consensus starting to disentigrate? Or was the "Consensus" just some doublespeak in Algore's Brave New World?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

[socrates392]

I have a question for hawksprings and all those other people who think global warming is a giant liberal conspiracy-- even if you are right, what harm can there be in switching over to cleaner sources of power? What do you have against windmills? If we can power our cars off electricity from wind and solar plants, why not? Do you like high gas prices? Do you like that we are so dependant on the Saudis for oil? Do you like high power bills?

The sun and the wind are free. Hydrogen is abundant. Even nuclear power is safer and cleaner than what we have. So what's the big problem? Why do you conspiracy theorists like fossil fuels so much? Please, please, just humor us crazy liberals. Even if you are right and global warming is a fantasy, you will still end up paying less for your power. You will propbably also feel better since there will be less environmental pollutants in the air. What do you have to lose?

[toddpw01]

100 years ago Edison and Ford reacted to gasoline price spikes by committing to build an electric car and transit infrastructure, but this was sabotaged in creative ways.

The battle to keep the world addicted to the fuel of the era has been going on for millennia. Look up the Hostmen of Newcastle, for example.

[culligancan]

The Republcans don't believe in Science. They only trust superstition. Republicans still believe the world is flat and located at the center of the Universe. If you don't believe me, check their mouthpiece of a *** news agancy Fox News or maybe it should be Faux News. Heil Bush.

[hawksprings]

MCVet, you must be a young pup to make the statements you do. Either that or you refuse to learn from history.

In the 70's we were going in to an Ice Age that would end life as we know it.
Back in the 40's doctors would do ads telling how healthy cigarettes were for us.
Then there have been all the epidemics that were going to kill us: Swine flu, bird flu, and so many other epidemics I can't remember them all, probably because of all the alar on my apples.
In the early 1970's I was told that by the end of the 1990's there would be no more drinking water left and the atmosphere would be too poisonous to breath and that we would not have enough food for the world's projected population.

The "experts" have been predicting doom and gloom so many times for so many years, and Global Warming Hysteria is just another one in a long line of them.

And I bet you that as time goes on, more and more scientists like the ones in the link I gave are going to come out and dissagree with "The Consensus."

[micma-2009]

The National Academy of Sciences surveyed every published, peer-reviewed global warming study done in the last ten years.


Without exception, they all agreed on three fundamental facts:


1) GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL


2) GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN


3) THE CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE CATASTROPHIC



The SCIENTIFIC debate has long been over. Climate experts have been in agreement on this for a long time.


The POLITICAL debate rages on thanks to the millions of dollars that the fossil-fuels industries are poring into a disinformation campaign.


Global warming is not a political issue, it's a survival issue.


The time for lies and spin is over.


The time for action is now if we are to protect our and our childrens future.

[ucellis]

Yah Vermont! Weeehooo! Gotta love our fake south :D

joking aside..
I hope we can all wake up and start doing something about this... I hate meeting people who don't believe that global warming isn't an issue..
they should turn off their AC for a week and see how the world feels...

[omega39-2009]

It figures that Bush and Cheney's adopted home states would be the biggest offenders.

[erasmus6]

socrates392

hawksprings may be in a bit of denial on the reality of global warming BUT I think if you were to go back and read his post AGAIN, you would find that he isn't AGAINST windmills, in fact it is the opposite. Do you need glasses?

[erasmus6]

"My wife is always griping about how quickly the house gets dusty."

hawksprings, hawksprings, hawksprings, I am having problems with the word "griping". Us wives do not want to hear that we are "griping".

[sparks224]

I think global warming would go away if we could all just agree to pretend it isn%u2019t happening.

Also, did you know Barack Obama is a terrorist? His name rhymes with Osama you know.

Thank God for the Fox Noise channel.

[jimfinster]

And I bet you that as time goes on, more and more scientists like the ones in the link I gave are going to come out and dissagree with "The Consensus."
Posted by hawksprings at 12:34 PM : Jun 03, 2007

I thought we had this settled before.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. we are adding huge volumes of CO2 each year
3. direct measurements show the resultant temp increase

Now, remind me again what part of this you don't believe???

[cdfoxtrot]

Yes, like some of the other contributors, I do feel quite relieved now that the Fox Noise Channel has begun to expose the hoax that is so-called "Global Warming". As is the case with evolution, all those thousands of respected scientists must be wrong -- or, even worse, they have some lefty, socialist agenda. I think they're trying to get us all to ride bicycles. *** commies. If we don't fight them there we'll be fighting them here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to la-la-land, and watch the rest of the Fox Noise updates.

[richdog_57]

What idiots believe in Global Warming?

[erasmus6]

jimfinster

"I do feel quite relieved now that the Fox Noise Channel has begun to expose the hoax that is so-called "Global Warming". posted by cdfoxtrot

Do you know what they are talking about? What is the Fox Noise Channel?

[hawksprings]

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."

[sparks224]

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.

[hawksprings]

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.)

[sparks224]

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.

[hawksprings]

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.

[sparks224]

Hang in there hawksprings, don't let all these lefties, with all thier facts and stuff, change your opinion.

[jimfinster]

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!

[jimfinster]

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....

[jimfinster]

hawksprings:

And regarding Fox - they are clearly right-wing cheerleaders. It is kinda silly to say otherwise....

[toddpw01]

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.

[oxmyx-2009]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."