Graphic Of The Day: Top-Ten Per Capita (Greenest) US States For Carbon Emissions
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 07.20.08
This is an update of the post from 2007 titled: Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Who Are The Greenest (States) Of All. That earlier post graphic was based on a multi-parameter index ranking. This new one is simpler:- the graphic you see here shows state ranking based on per capita emissions. The greener the bar, the better they are.
Via::Eredux, United States Energy Usage Comparison Chart
Which ten states are at the bottom of the heap, so to speak, in terms of per capita carbon emissions?
Here they are. The states whose Congressional delegations will fight climate action tooth and nail. The states where coal lobbyists will spend a lot on TV and radio advocacy campaigns.
More fun with ranking.
California Ranks Transit Fuels On Lifecycle Merits
Entire State Of Oklahoma Auditioning For Wind Power Play...
US State & Municipal LEEDers Identified:- Who'd Have Thought ...
America's 50 Greenest Cities: Popular Science Ranks 'Em
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- "Clean Coal" Has Prospered With Totalitarian Rule And Oil Shortage
- Climate Contributes To Lahore Pakistan's Daily Power Blackouts - Australian Coal To The Rescue?
- Could I Reduce My Carbon Emissions By Moving South For the Winter?
- Four Ways To Give The U.S. A 'Clean Slate'
John McCain Takes a Look at the Chevy Volt
|
How Three Bicycles Touring from Alaska to Panama Equal a Herd of Cattle
|
Ummm... I think you should have shown the final State Ranking column (and ranked them in that order, too), or reiterate why you are looking at per-capita.
Wyoming gets its ranking in part because of all the coal power plants generating power for the rest of the country.
Go Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant!
Vermont has NO utility operated fossil fuel electrical generation plants.
That bar labeled 'per capita carbon output' is almost certainly incorrect. It looks more like perhaps a number from 1 to 50 of the order. It doesn't tell you anything about how much carbon a person emits, only that larger ones are... larger.
You would be right to assume that the people in New Jersey emit 5 times as much carbon as people in New Mexico from the graphics, but that will not be correct in the end.
This graphic is useless for any purpose other than baseless finger pointing and an excellent example of failed communication.
That graphic is lame. Why is there the total million tons of carbon AND the state ranking? They're the same thing. Why is the per capita carbon output a straight progression? I haven't looked up the real data, but I guarantee you that if you chart the per capita carbon info it isn't a perfectly straight line.
It sure is a pretty graphic, but it's also useless for making real comparisons, poorly thought out and unsourced.
Don't necessarily agree. Part of Indiana's emissions (for example) are from the Toyota factory that builds Camry's for the rest of the American market. Is it really fair to tag them as less green? Or tag West Virginia for carbon emissions from coal mining, when other states (like my Virginia) use the WV coal to fuel their power plants? What about another fact that electricity gets exported from one state to another. Why should the generating state look bad for it, instead of the consuming state?
Lets just accept that we are all in it together.
YEAH! Go VT! Represent!
That said, a lot of the other posters do have a point about emissions being shared. But GMP has been pretty pioneering in that they have a renewable energy investing program, and just about all of our reps are into the idea of going green. (except for #$## Governor Douglas...)
Huh? I don't get this table. Wouldn't a higher per-capita carbon output be worse? The link to the source page doesn't shed any light on that either.
The good thing about this is that the 2 largest states (texas and california) have the most room for improvement. I think that's good because since there are so many people, incremental improvements by the population will result in major changes in efficiency and carbon usage.