I can't say I agree with the methodology. The emissions for CO2 emitting activities like oil refining, etc should be allocated at the end-use point, not at the specific location of the activity.

TreeHugger should know how to present data better than this. Los Angeles has rather many people; a useful statistic would be per capita carbon emissions.

And although more difficult to quantify, is LA polluting because we drive more and heat and cool our houses more, etc.; or because we have a large port and refineries which supply much of the country? Houston has similar issues.

is there really a Carbon, PA on that chart? ha

You can't blame Houston that much - we run a shipping industry here.

If you look at LA's data, 50% of their carbor emissions come from motor vehicles. That's truly sad.

Facts vs blaming...different activities. Texas also is number one in wind energy production. California number two.

And California would also be #1 in solar energy production and development. Also #1 in electric car development (see Tesla Motors and Aptera Typ-1).

And California would also be #1 in solar energy production and development. Also #1 in electric car development (see Tesla Motors and Aptera Typ-1).

Wow my county is 3rd up on there.Whoa didn't think Cook was so bad.*tee hee* I have to email this to other peeps.Ciao!

Hey come on guys! We know the U.S & China are the worst in the world for polution. Let's not get our feelings hurt. This is just letting us know where we have the greatest problem. No matter what the reason; it lets us know in general we need to keep striving to get things better. No we probably won't ever get polution free! Everybody, not just these counties, need to help clean up the earth!

I would also like to see breakdowns by population. I live in NYC, and we split up the city across several counties, one of which is a whopping 20 square miles. We've gotten off pretty easy on this list, but I wonder if that would hold up if you factor for population. It would definitely change things -- I looked it up on the census site and Houston has 3.8m people vs. 9.9m for LA.

Somewhat in line with Anon., in order to properly identify a problem so that you can correct it, you have got to use an objective measure. Per Capita CO2 emissions would be much more enlightening. Harris and Los Angeles are two of the most populous counties in the US, so one would expect them to be at the top.

A more useful look at this data would have us examine the places that are lowest in per capita emissions to see what they are doing differently that other locations can emulate.

I forgot where I saw it but on a per person basis, NYC is one of the greenest in the world.

And those were 2002 emissions... I'm guessing it hasn't got any better in the last six years... in fact I guess it got a lot worse.
As for all the 'they're worse than we are'; 'he started it'; 'it's not per capita' nonsense. Just concentrate on reducing your bit.

Somewhat misleading. Los Angeles County is incredibly huge and encompasses almost the whole LA area.

New York City alone is made up of FIVE counties (NY, Kings, Queens, Bronx, Richmond) Plus the various suburban counties.

I'm willing to bet anything NY has just as bad a footprint as LA if you aggregated this data along metropolitan lines.

THe surprising stuff is rural counties in New Mexico - that shows the power of the massive coal burning plants there.

CO2 is the new black! Sure this is a contributing problem but it is far from the only problem.

I think that many (the author included) may be missing an important aspect of the data: the degree to which the massive urbanized counties are NOT included. After the top five (which cover Houston, LA, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit), it is interesting to note how many are counties with relatively smaller urban areas. Cities like Birmingham (Jefferson County) and San Antonio (Bexar County) aren't names that come to mind when you think about CO2. And there are some outright shocks, like Wilcox County, AL (population 13,183) and Titus County, TX (pop. 28,118). That suggests that the problem of CO2 is more than just population.

If you're wondering why you're city/county isn't top 20, consider that this data is at county level, not by Metro areas.

For those of you competing for Browner-Than-Thou status, this is NOT a carbon FOOTPRINT chart. This is a carbon emissions chart. EMISSIONS. From three sources: Point sources, Mobile sources, and Area sources.

The graph would be more helpful if it delineated the sources of those emissions. The study would be more helpful by aggregating data by MSA (metropolitan statistical area) instead of by county. Maybe next time.

Look at their project site for downloads. There's some interesting slides with maps of area, point, and mobile sources.

Wow...you guys have no sense of humor.

Go to the site, find your detailed info, cross-reference it with whatever census data you like, and submit it to treehugger for publication. Stop whining. It's an interesting set of statistics. Use it for what it's worth....and stop blaming the folks at treehugger. They just bring us the news. And they're always responsible about disclosing their sources.

There's not much point to this kind of ranking other than to "blame" a few of the worst offenders and get some headlines. The list probably spreads the blame more than is justified because I'd expect more than a few large cities generate much of their power outside county lines.

Being from Alabama, I can say that the honor (?!) of having 10% of the list is not appealing. Just the same, I can cruise over to the DSIRE website and look at what state level incentives for renewable energies are in place and find none. Our governor is too busy taking field trips overseas hunting for more auto industry to come to our fair state. (Any treehugger want a new Honda / Hyundai / Mercedes SUV?) We build them here. I've written my elected officials about renewable energy and the response from them is absolutely underwhelming also.

You could say that I am envious of the states who have renewable energy credits for their citizens.

This falls into the category of "interesting but not relevant". Of course the areas that produce energy for the rest of us to consume have a high CO2 footprint. And of course large populations produce more CO2. The facts are interesting, but per capita statistics would be more relevant. Has anyone seen per capita statistics for various countries?
Kent
www.ecounit.com

Why is suffolk county ny on here? Do they know towns in this county like babylon now require commercial buildings to be leed certified?

We have solar power in our colleges (suny farmingdale has a small solar plant). So whith all these green innitiatives here how did it make the list?