I'm so proud to be a Texan Options

[pebkac]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070602/ap_on_...Bn.11QIDtYPLBIF

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.

[James]

Did you even read the entire article or just that sentence? There's a valid explanation for it.

[pebkac]

Did you even read the entire article or just that sentence? There's a valid explanation for it.

Yes I did. Did you?

The only two explanations I'm seeing are:

1) Texas is a populous state. The problem is that we produce a lot more C02 than California who has more people than we do.

2) That we export energy to other states, which is probably because we use cheap atmosphere polluting coal.

[impala454]

we have more chemical and oil refining than any other state by far... how is that not a factor? I'm no expert for sure (paging dogmeat) but I'd venture to guess refining chemicals for the rest of the country would put out quite a bit of pollution compared to powering 4-5 major cities.

i'm sick of the f'n hippies being so terribly naive thinking they're helping the pollution so much by getting a hybrid. as soon as they give up everything and go live in the woods with nothing but their birthday suit, I'll give them props for not polluting.

[James]

Yes I did. Did you?

The only two explanations I'm seeing are:

1) Texas is a populous state. The problem is that we produce a lot more C02 than California who has more people than we do.

2) That we export energy to other states, which is probably because we use cheap atmosphere polluting coal.

Yes, I read it. Let me bold the explanations since you missed them.

The one in red is because Texas was its own country before and even today is still considered to be in the same association, being compared with other nations consistently. That alone makes this a perfectly valid explanation.

WASHINGTON - 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

_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 1 1/2 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.

States that shun coal — Vermont, Idaho, California, Rhode Island — and turn to nuclear, hydroelectric and natural gas, produce the least carbon dioxide but often at higher costs for consumers.

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.

[James]

Oh yeah, and this...

Texas is the largest producer of wind power in the United States, with about 1,600 wind farms installed in West Texas alone.

[pebkac]

Of course, it could also be this:

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."

Could that perhaps be why we export so much energy to other states and produce so many chemicals?

[James]

You're right. We should shut down all the coal-burning power plants, all the refineries, all the vehicles. Yup, that'll fix it. Oh yeah, we should stop breathing too. That damn carbon dioxide. Grrr.

[Mommy]

James- 2
Pebkac -0

I gave James 2 points for this one... Job well done

[pebkac]

You're right. We should shut down all the coal-burning power plants, all the refineries, all the vehicles. Yup, that'll fix it. Oh yeah, we should stop breathing too. That damn carbon dioxide. Grrr.

In the long run, yes we should (or rather find technologies to replace them). In the short term, we should cut back our dependency on coal and make cars more efficient.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Jun 4 2007, 08:25 AM

[Mommy]

In the long run, yes we should (or rather find technologies to replace them). In the short term, we should cut back our dependency on coal and make cars more efficient.

how do you propose we cut back in the short term???? That makes absolutely zero sense to me

[impala454]

we should cut back our dependency on coal

then you'd cry about your electric bill doubling

and make cars more efficient.

sure no problem, just wave the magic wand and that one's done. this is the typical democratic response to issues...

"we need more fuel efficient cars"
"we need to stop pollution"
"we need to stop the war"
"we need a better health care system"

instead of

"here's how we get more fuel efficient cars"
"here's how we stop pollution"
"here's how we stop the war"
"here's how we improve the healthcare system"

[Hartmann]

I am not sure how relevant the data is that they are presenting. Coal is dirty but the recent mandatory scrubbing regulations have brought down the output of carbon dioxide by multitudes. When I was at a client last week (large electrical company) they were talking about how much they were cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions.

The big thing right now is refineries and figuring out how to efficiently make them less pollutant.

I would venture to guess that part of the reason Texas and Wyoming have a larger footprint than VT (which is a terrible case study BTW) is simply because of distance. Number of people matters when you are in a city but when you are a massive state with wide open spaces, you have to have more plants to supply people in rural areas with power.

Just drive on 71 to Austin and there is the Fayetteville facility which basically serves most of the rural hill country. They don't need that in VT, I mean, it's a tiny state. Just think of the distances involved in Wyoming, come on engineers (especially you electrical ones), tell me how far electricity can travel without becoming inefficient.

We only have a few rivers available for hydroelectric power and a lot of people do not want to see those dammed up. Solar power is used in some places out west but it does not work in a state where weekly hailstorms are the norm during the summer. Wind power is huge here and it's getting bigger, right up until the point where activists realize it's killing birds or something then it will be shot down. Then again, the wind power is perfect for west Texas with the rural populations, however, to serve somewhere like Lubbock a lot of land would have to be taken over to make it possible. Those are farms which are supplying cotton for export and making this country money... Yeah, everyone wants their cake and eat it too.

[pebkac]

I am not sure how relevant the data is that they are presenting. Coal is dirty but the recent mandatory scrubbing regulations have brought down the output of carbon dioxide by multitudes. When I was at a client last week (large electrical company) they were talking about how much they were cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions.

The big thing right now is refineries and figuring out how to efficiently make them less pollutant.

I would venture to guess that part of the reason Texas and Wyoming have a larger footprint than VT (which is a terrible case study BTW) is simply because of distance. Number of people matters when you are in a city but when you are a massive state with wide open spaces, you have to have more plants to supply people in rural areas with power.

Just drive on 71 to Austin and there is the Fayetteville facility which basically serves most of the rural hill country. They don't need that in VT, I mean, it's a tiny state. Just think of the distances involved in Wyoming, come on engineers (especially you electrical ones), tell me how far electricity can travel without becoming inefficient.

We only have a few rivers available for hydroelectric power and a lot of people do not want to see those dammed up. Solar power is used in some places out west but it does not work in a state where weekly hailstorms are the norm during the summer. Wind power is huge here and it's getting bigger, right up until the point where activists realize it's killing birds or something then it will be shot down. Then again, the wind power is perfect for west Texas with the rural populations, however, to serve somewhere like Lubbock a lot of land would have to be taken over to make it possible. Those are farms which are supplying cotton for export and making this country money... Yeah, everyone wants their cake and eat it too.

WOW

An actual analysis of what was posted and not another "damn hippies" response.

[impala454]

every now and then you have to actually let those damn hippies know just how wrong they are

[Junsui]

When they come out with more efficient cars, I hope someone is going to buy everyone a new car since most people can't afford it.

[impala454]

well not only that, but what's all this "we need to come out with more efficient cars" crap!? someone take a look at the mileage that cars get nowadays compared to what they were twenty years ago and tell me we're not building more fuel efficient cars.

[jwttu]

well not only that, but what's all this "we need to come out with more efficient cars" crap!? someone take a look at the mileage that cars get nowadays compared to what they were twenty years ago and tell me we're not building more fuel efficient cars.

I want to say they have a 51mpg Civic out now.

Granted I think the problem is trucks/suvs. They should raise the minimum mpg for those vehicles.

[impala454]

my V8 300hp pickup gets 17mpg in the city and 20mpg on the highway, this is still way better than the trucks of the past. we have an 1979 chevy pickup with a 454 and the thing gets about 7-8mpg (on a good day). granted not everyone had a big block, but still, broncos, suburbans, etc of the past will def not even come close.

[Hartmann]

my V8 300hp pickup gets 17mpg in the city and 20mpg on the highway, this is still way better than the trucks of the past. we have an 1979 chevy pickup with a 454 and the thing gets about 7-8mpg (on a good day). granted not everyone had a big block, but still, broncos, suburbans, etc of the past will def not even come close.

My 1992 Bronco got ~19mpg but that was after some heavy modifications.