Thread: Al Gore hates Wyoming

Its not just Dick Cheney's presence

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Sat Jun 2, 12:45 PM ET

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.

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.

[snip]


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.

I can't wait to hear President Gore try to tell Alaskans to forego all that flying and driving.

Bear-mounted cavalry, anyone?

re: hating things

I hate this stupid thread.

Originally Posted by YetiMan

I hate this stupid thread.

Don't worry, I am burdened with guilt, too.

I always knew Alaska Airlines was the source of all evil in the world ...

On a per-person basis, Wyoming spews more carbon dioxide...

You know we only have about 400,000 people, right?

Originally Posted by 72Twenty

You know we only have about 400,000 people, right?

What, so that gives WY a freebie to pollute?

But don't forget, alternative energies have costs as well. Look at the ecosystem changes that have evolved b/c of all the river damming. And wind power will kill thousands of migrating birds...

It's not like we can't develop cheap and equally ambivalent means to help the little critters out. Fish ladders are just so impossible to build, as are visual structures that would help the birds to see the windmills. You know, b/c fossil fuels are the like only the coolest way to go...

Originally Posted by flykdog

What, so that gives WY a freebie to pollute?

Wyoming is actually a very clean state. The author appears to have an agenda of making coal-generated electricity look bad.

The carbon figure is "per capita". Wyoming has a very low population, but they export a ton of coal-generated electricity to neighboring states like Utah and Idaho.

Therefore, as far as Wyoming is concerned, the article is flawed because it only measures internal energy production VS. internal consumption, and does not factor electricity exports AFTER production. The exported energy is counted as intrastate consumption, thus inflating per capita energy usage.

It would appear that the author wants you to believe that the burning of coal for electricity is a bad thing....by making you believe that Wyoming consumes ALL of the coal-generated electricity that it produces...which is a relatively high number.

I also find it rather humerus that the article states that Idaho forbids coal-fired electrical generators. Funny thing though, Idaho doesn't seem to have a problem importing coal-generated MWh's.

Regardless, since you claim to be an Ogden local, maybe you should be made aware that as far as toxic chemical releases go, Utah ranks #6 in the nation, and Wyoming is #39:

http://www.scorecard.org/ranking/ran...a&how_many=100

Wyoming is #46 for air pollutants:

http://www.scorecard.org/env-release...-emissions.tcl

-Astro

Yikes! Reading through the above scorecard link was depressing.

Originally Posted by AstroPax

It would appear that the author wants you to believe that the burning of coal for electricity is a bad thing

So burning coal is a good thing?

Money quote :

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.

Yes. Let's be fair. Go for it, Jeffrey.

I heart Wyoming. They are our good neighbors to the east. Their mountains gather the snow to provide water for growing trout and potatoes. And the coal smoke blows the other way.

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Wyoming is #46 for air pollutants:

http://www.scorecard.org/env-release...-emissions.tcl

-Astro

And Utah is #37 with more than four times the population, kinda what the article was getting at. Whats your agenda?

Originally Posted by philippeR

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.

Yay! America@! Land of the Free!!!

Paging Blurred.

I think Wyoming hates Al Gore.

Actually, Al Gore loves Wyoming, and Alaska, and melting glaciers. It gives him something to make noise about.

Gore loves Global Warming, see above.

Originally Posted by flykdog

And Utah is #37 with more than four times the population, kinda what the article was getting at. Whats your agenda?

I find it interesting that the following was conveniently omitted from the above quoted article as posted by Core Shot:

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.

Here is a link to the entire (un-edited) article:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660226348,00.html

-Astro

Originally Posted by ski_adk

But don't forget, alternative energies have costs as well. Look at the ecosystem changes that have evolved b/c of all the river damming. And wind power will kill thousands of migrating birds...

It's not like we can't develop cheap and equally ambivalent means to help the little critters out. Fish ladders are just so impossible to build, as are visual structures that would help the birds to see the windmills. You know, b/c fossil fuels are the like only the coolest way to go...

Note that there is very little published data on any "kills" of migrating birds . What does exist is mostly conjecture and has likely been inflated because the local residents don't like the eyesore of a wind turbine. There is more solid work regarding raptors who like to hang out in the drafts above ridges colliding, but this is not a migration issue.

</urban myth clarification service>

Originally Posted by flyandski365

Gore loves Global Warming, see above.

No, he doesn't, but he probably thinks you're an idiot.

Thanks telenator, even more reason for me to be angry at the selfish NIMBYs. What's so wrong with the site of windmills? I kinda think they're majestic looking.

Originally Posted by Singel

So burning coal is a good thing?

if you like cheap abundant energy.

The USA is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Originally Posted by ski_adk

Thanks telenator, even more reason for me to be angry at the selfish NIMBYs. What's so wrong with the site of windmills? I kinda think they're majestic looking.

Me too, but they can take over a skyline, there is unique beauty in an undisturbed ridgeline.

They can also be really loud particularly when there are a pack of them and the wind is blowing hard.

Overall, I'd say wind is a promising part of the future of energy production (the one that gets me really excited is tidal).

two of the most prominent nimby's for windmills are walter chronkite (the most trusted man in america?) and teddy ( the alkie killer) kennedy

My former home hill (Jiminy Peak) back in Western MA has been fighting for a while now to get their windmill project up and going b/c of NIMBYs. It looks like they're gonna have it up and running for 07-08. I wonder how much more snow they'll blow now that it should be cheap. Check out their special wind turbine site..it's pretty neat. http://green.jiminypeak.com/page.php?PageID=302