« Topsy-Turvy | Main | CEO compensation: the latest results »
Which states have the highest carbon dioxide emissions?
In millions of metric tons:
Texas: 688
California: 394
Pennsylvania: 275
Ohio: 262
Florida: 256
Illinois, Indiana, and New York come next. I didn't know that Texas would rank so high on the list. And it's interesting that #3, 4, and 5 are among the major swing states in many presidential elections. That's not good news for a lot of reform ideas.
This information is from the fun to browse The Measure of America: American Human Development Report 2008-2009, a Colombia/SSRC book.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 10, 2008 at 12:37 PM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
Texas has a lot of refineries, which emit a lot of CO2, and drilling sites, which wouldn't surprise me if they emit a lot of CO2. It's also a huge and relatively spread-out state, which means a lot of driving.
Posted by: Lisa L. at Aug 10, 2008 12:51:14 PM
Texas is also HUGE. They should have reported emissions per capita
Posted by: jsalvati at Aug 10, 2008 12:54:18 PM
"That's not good news for a lot of reform ideas."
I don't know, I think that depends upon whether or not the emissions come from industry or from consumers, and whether or not voters know it - people have to first equate themselves with the those who will be affected by CO2 reform policies before they can be annoyed about it. I suspect that all most people know is that the drive to and from work has gotten a lot more expensive lately.
Posted by: Renee at Aug 10, 2008 12:54:21 PM
Hmmm. I guess California doesn't emit CO2 from the power plants supplying them electricity from adjacent states or the refineries supplying them their special blend.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 10, 2008 1:03:05 PM
And Texans use lots of air conditioning. For that reason, I'm surprised Florida is so low on the list.
Posted by: AC at Aug 10, 2008 1:04:16 PM
If you really want to delve into the numbers (as of 2004) you will see most of the CO2 is industrial or power (coal) generation. >60% in Texas example. Also Makes since that PA & OH would have high numbers also with all of their factories.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/state/state_emissions.html
Posted by: Zack Handley at Aug 10, 2008 1:09:09 PM
States ranked by population (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population)
California 36.5K
Texas 23.9K
New York 19.2K
Florida 18.2K
Illinois 12.8K
Pennsylv. 12.4K
Ohio 11.4K
Indiana is way down at #15 with 6.3K people and yet they're #7 in terms of carbon emissions. I had no idea the Indy 500 produced that much carbon.
Posted by: d at Aug 10, 2008 1:09:15 PM
Jsalvati emissions per capita:
http://greenmarkets.blogspot.com/2007/01/us-co2-emissions-by-sector-and-state.html
Posted by: Zack Handley at Aug 10, 2008 1:12:21 PM
And it's interesting that #3, 4, and 5 are among the major swing states in many presidential elections. That's not good news for a lot of reform ideas.
Aww, those pesky voters getting in the way of Prof. Cowen's plans for saving the planet through higher taxes and regulations. Is there an emoticon to denote a violin playing? :)
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Aug 10, 2008 2:36:39 PM
Tyler, I think a fair reading of the data is actually good news for reformers (assuming the facts get out).
For instance, here's an interesting quote from Zack Handley's link above, which refutes the right wing talking point that increasing GDP requires increasing power use:
"Power use per person has remained roughly stable in [California] since the 1970s, even as it has doubled in the rest of the country (see chart above)."
http://greenmarkets.blogspot.com/2007/01/us-co2-emissions-by-sector-and-state.html
The link points out that if the rest of the U.S. had improved efficiency to match California, then our nations emissions per capita would be as low as Denmark (which is now actually self-sufficient in energy).
Speaking of which, see Tom Friedman's column in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html?scp=2&sq=denmark&st=cse
We have several "existence proofs" that clean growth is possible and profitable.
If economists get the word out, that should only help reformers.
Posted by: a student of economics at Aug 10, 2008 3:05:32 PM
California is a good example that if you want to drive down per capita emissions, you should outsource your power generation and drive out your manufacturing. Then, you look nice and eco-friendly.
If we could just put all our coal plants in Mexico and outsource all business activity, the US could do the same...
Posted by: Foobarista at Aug 10, 2008 3:07:51 PM
After a cursory view, it does look like energy production correlates to CO2 emissions. And, this, the obvious question is not parsed out, so yes, I do wonder if they are calling the energy transmitted to CA from NV as used by NV. That is what it is, but it may not be what they're sellin' it as.
http://greenmarkets.blogspot.com/2006/12/electricity-gasoline-and-ethanol-by.html
"High gasoline usage is probably due to the use of farm equipment and trucks."
This chart from greenmarkets link sure does engender confidence in a lack of an agenda. Greedier?
http://bp2.blogger.com/_ezKFjbZAXiw/Rb_EB8Mey7I/AAAAAAAAAFI/2IXduahBJV4/s1600-h/electricity_per_capita.jpg
And here's one response
http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/generosity0512map.gif
As I sit in my house with nothing but my computer and the A/C running, I don't see the average Californian using half the electricity. I'm still looking for the catch on the electricity, but they may actually have a leg up on this one.
Here's a cautionary one on these state-by-state aggregates - SC better at evolution than nearly all blue states!
http://stconsultant.blogspot.com/2007/11/where-evolution-is-well-taught-red-vs.html
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 10, 2008 4:35:31 PM
Foobarista
USA is already doing that.
The government is selling nuclear technology to India and nuclear fuel to Rusia. So they will lower theirs co2 emmisions .Also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/31/AR2008073102824.html
Posted by: k at Aug 10, 2008 5:00:20 PM
a student of economics,
California's numbers are low because they have high energy prices which has driven heavy industry out of the state.
They have exported their pollution and they are bragging about. California's attempts to go green provides an interesting set of negative externalities for you to reflect on.
I Do Not Think Your Data Means What You Think It Means
So rather than try to correlate electricity consumption to local energy regulations, it is clear that the per capita consumption numbers by state are a much better indicator of the presence of heavy industry. In other words, the graph Drum shows is actually a better illustration of the success of CA not in necessarily becoming more efficient, but in exporting its pollution to other states. No one in their right mind would even attempt to build a heavy industrial plant in CA in the last 30 years. The graph is driven much more by the growth of industrial electricity use outside CA relative to CA.
Posted by: TJIT at Aug 10, 2008 6:46:48 PM
a student of economics,
Surprising that folks who are supposed to be environmentally aware assert that California's policy of exporting pollution to other states provides a good example of effective environmental policy.
California's Energy Colonialism
The blunt secret is this: California now imports lots of energy from neighboring states to make up for having too few power plants.Up to 20% of the state's power comes from coal-burning plants in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Montana.
"California practices a sort of energy colonialism," says James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners, a Washington, D.C.-area investment group. "They leave those states to deal with the resulting pollution."
California's proud claim to have kept per-capita energy consumption flat while growing its economy is less impressive than it seems. The state has some of the highest energy prices in the country – nearly twice the national average – largely because of regulations and government mandates to use expensive renewable sources of power. As a result, heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing the Golden State in droves.
Posted by: TJIT at Aug 10, 2008 7:03:38 PM
Tsk, tsk Tyler. You linked to a $60 hardcover when there's a paperback edition for less than $20.
Posted by: Jeff H. at Aug 10, 2008 7:28:20 PM
TJIT.
Thanks for the interesting link. It clearly is trying hard to refute California's energy efficiency, and makes a few good points about how raw averages may overstate California's advantages because of things like climate and industry mix.
However, did you read to the end of the article? It concludes:
"Because even when you correct for these numbers, California is pretty efficient vs. the average on electricity consumption."
And goes on to explain:
"The 8 states with the highest prices are the eight states with the lowest per capita consumption."
Meanwhile, these same states, are all above average in income and productivity per capita.
In other words, a carbon tax would be a pretty effective way to improve America's energy efficiency.
So, thank you for the additional evidence demonstrating that
Yes, wealth creation and energy efficiency can, and do, go hand in hand.
Posted by: a student of economics at Aug 10, 2008 7:54:19 PM
By the way, changing the industry mix is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a myth to believe that we must consume a certain quota of energy-intensive products like aluminum and that someone else will simply make them if we don't.
Instead, the way markets work is that energy intensive industries will decline as energy prices rise. Instead, consumers and business will get shift to using other goods and services instead.
Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: a student of economics at Aug 10, 2008 8:01:10 PM
"Nothing wrong with that."
Ummm, there's a lot wrong with that. It's a cost. Maybe there is a benefit. Maybe you can even have a net positive benefit by forcing people to do what they haven't chosen to do freely. But, I doubt it.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 10, 2008 9:29:38 PM
a student of economics,
You need to do some more studying because you are whistling right past the fact that destroys your point about california.
You say,
"The 8 states with the highest prices are the eight states with the lowest per capita consumption."Unfortunately for your point, california still uses the products produced by the power intensive industries they have forced to move out of the state.Meanwhile, these same states, are all above average in income and productivity per capita.
Those who brag about california's numbers without bothering to understand what is driving them are cheering on california's successful efforts to impose the negative environmental externalities of california's economy on to other states.
Posted by: TJIT at Aug 10, 2008 9:51:38 PM
a student of economics wrote:
Meanwhile, these same states, are all above average in income and productivity per capita.
In other words, a carbon tax would be a pretty effective way to improve America's energy efficiency.
So, thank you for the additional evidence demonstrating that
Yes, wealth creation and energy efficiency can, and do, go hand in hand.
Hang on a second. I don't think anybody is denying that if you tax energy, energy efficiency will go up. If you tax broccoli, the amount of broccoli per unit of GDP will go down too.
But if you are trying to say the high energy prices are causing above-average incomes, I think you have it backwards. Rich places can afford to impose more regulations on their people. In the same way, the US has more pork barrel spending than Bangladesh, and higher private sector R&D. That doesn't prove pork spending increases private sector R&D.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Aug 10, 2008 9:53:37 PM
TJIT, you fiercely criticize "Those who brag about california's numbers without bothering to understand what is driving them". and go to suggest that it's all due to the industry mix.
Yet, in the article YOU reference and I quoted (in bold, no less), the analysis concluded that "even when you correct for these numbers, California is pretty efficient vs. the average on electricity consumption."
Well, I must agree with you that it's important to understand what's driving California's numbers.
Apparently, shifting to more energy efficient industries is part of the story but (one more time now) even when you correct for that, California is still more efficient.
Is there some part of that you disagree with?
By the way, if other states don't like the "negative environmental externalities" I strongly suggest that they imitate or improve on California's policies, rather than whining about them.
Nothing, save ideology or perhaps ignorance, prevents them from doing so. Indeed many economically-literate states have done so, apparently with similar results .
Posted by: a student of economics at Aug 10, 2008 10:29:29 PM
Bob,
The point I was making a was a simpler, more modest one. Critics of policies like energy taxes typically demagogue that they "destroy jobs" or slow economic growth, etc. We hear that governments that burden their companies and people with such policies will lag behind other laissez-faire states.
The evidence is overwhelming that this has not been the case, whether you look at states (e.g. CA, MA, NY, WA, etc) or nations (e.g. Scandinavia). This doesn't necessarily mean that such policies contribute to higher GDP (although they do increase parts of welfare that don't show up in GDP, like air quality). But it does strongly suggest that they don't hurt GDP enough to change the wealth and productivity rankings.
Posted by: a student of economics at Aug 10, 2008 10:38:16 PM
Andrew, you say "Maybe you can even have a net positive benefit by forcing people to do what they haven't chosen to do freely."
People will maximize welfare when they choose freely, as long as the prices they face reflect the full costs of their actions.
A basic principle of economics, is that when there are negative externalities, such as those that concern TJIT and many others, then on the margin, raising the price, e.g. via energy taxes, will result in "a net positive benefit". This is the idea behind Pigouvian taxes.
Posted by: a student of economics at Aug 10, 2008 10:45:13 PM
State by state comparisons are a bit ridiculous considering that markets are not limited by state lines. Rather they seem to serve angry people's need to vent and bluster.
Posted by: Jen at Aug 10, 2008 11:31:02 PM
