Carbon Emissions Across the United States

UXO · Post by **UXO** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:47 pm

Since this topic is part of some of the members consciousness here, I thought it would be interesting if we could transpose the MB member map on top of this. Totally incongruous, I know.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008 ... APHIC.html#

Wow, would ya look at texas!

Alix B · Post by **Alix B** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:50 pm

I tallied my CO2 emissions the other day.
It was just a quarter compared to that of a vehicle getting 20 mpg's
5,380.1 lbs on the scooter vs. 21,512.04lbs

To calculate I used:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.htm

My plan is to plant an acre of trees in the next year, to balance the emissions I created in 22,000 miles. http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm
Because I'm thoughtful.

My stance:
People won't and don't always have to eliminate things which create emissions. However, they can take responsibility for their emissions by doing something like planting trees once a year, and/or like us, reduce their emissions by driving a scooter--or walking and biking.

UXO · Post by **UXO** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:44 pm

Thats great Alix. Thanks.

I planted one tree about a little over year and a half ago . . . I'm afraid you don't want to know the deficit I created.

You might also be interested in this article:

(Beyond Carbon: Scientists Worry About Nitrogen’s Effects)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/scien ... =permalink

Post by **illnoise** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:51 pm

Note that the default on that map is displaying energy production emissions, you need to click on the other factors to see them. There's no "total" that I see.

Also, it's sort of misleading to show the state total, because it's obvious that emissions are heavier in more populated states. I'd love to see the stats per capita rather than by state total, I bet some of the frontier states wouldn't look so "green" then, and some of the northern states would look better (especially CA and NY, who have fairly low emissions overall AND a huge population)

Post by **ericalm** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:14 pm

Wow—an acre is a lot of trees!

So, for all the talk about California, with the most cars and biggest population, look at the number of much smaller states with higher emissions. Yes, I'm talking about you, Arizona! Tennessee, what the heck are you guys doing out there? Georiga, North Carolina, and Missouri?

The West Coast is lookin' pretty good, I'd say, in comparison.

(Yes, I know that much of the difference is industry that keeps the engines of the American economy running. Fine.)

Post by **jmazza** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:32 pm

ericalm wrote:Wow—an acre is a lot of trees!

So, for all the talk about California, with the most cars and biggest population, look at the number of much smaller states with higher emissions. Yes, I'm talking about you, Arizona! Tennessee, what the heck are you guys doing out there? Georiga, North Carolina, and Missouri?

I, too, was amazed at California's number. The biggest emissions states could be guessed pretty much due to population and industry.

Scooter Hoot · Post by **Scooter Hoot** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:47 pm

Yah, not to defend Texas's energy policy or anything, but we do have a LOT of industry, on top of being the second most populated, second largest in area, and second largest in gross state product state. That's a lot of people, money, and land to fuel.

UXO · Post by **UXO** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:18 pm

It seem to me that being on the east coast we get totally dumped on by points west due to prevailing winds and all. I know that for years in the past they've talked about some of the lakes in upstate NY being dead from Acid Rain. I think they blamed it on Michigan. You bashdoms!

toddrw2251 · Post by **toddrw2251** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:28 pm

I live in an overlap between two red circles (both in top five) and one very large blue circle. What do I win?

bunny · Post by **bunny** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:07 pm

So it just proves everything in Texas really is bigger. your point?

Texas is more than twice the size of most states, yet the emissions is only twice the second worst offender...not a bad thing, actually.

7eregrine · Post by **7eregrine** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:13 pm

Say what you will about Cali not being as big on that list. I have never seen a haze over my city like I have seen in LA and I do live in one of those red circles.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:30 pm

toddrw2251 wrote:What do I win?

Mullet wig.

toddrw2251 · Post by **toddrw2251** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:34 pm

I wash it with panteen proV to protect it from enviromental polution. So far so good.

Post by **ericalm** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:47 pm

UXO wrote:It seem to me that being on the east coast we get totally dumped on by points west due to prevailing winds and all. I know that for years in the past they've talked about some of the lakes in upstate NY being dead from Acid Rain. I think they blamed it on Michigan. You bashdoms!

Well, this is how much each state emits, not how much smog is sitting over it. You can only blame Michigan for so much.

7eregrine wrote:Say what you will about Cali not being as big on that list. I have never seen a haze over my city like I have seen in LA and I do live in one of those red circles.

Yeah, not to start a debate over which cities or states are the dirtiest, but what people often see and think of as smog in LA is often a natural occurrence called June Gloom that casts a grey cloud over the whole city. Can't deny we have smog, but it's better than it used to be, reduced by 1/3 over past decade, which is more than most cities can brag. Of course that only drops us to #2, under Pittsburgh, and we're still #1 in some measures, so we still have a ways to go.

As far as Texas goes, well, let me just say that you couldn't see the smog over DFW until sometime in the '90s. I remember when it became more and more visible with urban sprawl and so on. Having grown up there, it was pretty sad to see that. Then we'd get ozone alerts, which to me were this giant red flag but that most people seemed not to think twice about.

But comparisons are pretty relative, considering that it's pretty much just bad all over if you live in a city or suburb or industrial rural area, just worse in some places.

taile84 · Post by **taile84** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:15 pm

Alix B wrote:I tallied my CO2 emissions the other day.
It was just a quarter compared to that of a vehicle getting 20 mpg's
5,380.1 lbs on the scooter vs. 21,512.04lbs

To calculate I used:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.htm

My plan is to plant an acre of trees in the next year, to balance the emissions I created in 22,000 miles. http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm
Because I'm thoughtful.

That is a great idea!! I never even knew or thought that people could do this to balance out the emissions. You are amazing.

taile84 · Post by **taile84** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:17 pm

ericalm wrote:what the heck are you guys doing out there? Georiga, North Carolina, and Missouri?

Sitting in damn Atlanta traffic that's what

I hate Atlanta traffic

k1dude · Post by **k1dude** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:34 pm

A more meaningful number would be how much smog is produced per capita. California has a low number combined with a high population. So, per capita we're doing pretty damn good. I'd like to see the population numbers for the worse offenders compared to California. I'll bet the per capita numbers are ridiculously high. Oh hell, I'll do the numbers myself (2004 numbers):

1. California: 1.32 metric tons per person per year.

2. Florida: 7.31 metric tons per person per year.

3. Pennsylvania: 9.68 metric tons per person per year.

4. Texas: 9.99 metric tons per person per year.

5. Ohio: 10.86 metric tons per person per year.

6. Indiana: 19.16 metric tons per person per year.

Out of curiosity, I checked a couple other states:

Wyoming has the smallest population but produces a whopping 87.32 metric tons per person per year.

Idaho produces only 0.47 metric tons per person per year.

MikieTaps · Post by **MikieTaps** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:28 pm

I think with Wyoming... the interstates 80 AND 90 running through it with LOTS of Truck traffic is probably at least partly to blame.

ScootingInTheRain · Post by **ScootingInTheRain** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:39 pm

OFF TOPIC -

Dude, I just noticed MikieTaps's signature:

Ride Safe : Ride ATTATT

MikieTaps · Post by **MikieTaps** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:42 pm

nice!

ScootingInTheRain · Post by **ScootingInTheRain** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:46 pm

MikieTaps wrote:nice!

Technically, it is "AT-AT" if you are a purist, but it works nonetheless.

BeetleGoose · Post by **BeetleGoose** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:27 pm

k1dude wrote:1. California: 1.32 metric tons per person per year.

And most of that coming from all these hotbags we call actors!

Go California! with your Badass self!!!

Syd · Post by **Syd** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:18 pm

ericalm wrote:...Yes, I'm talking about you, Arizona! ...

See Illnoise's comment just above your post?

Illnoise wrote:Note that the default on that map is displaying energy production emissions...

That's us hard-working Arizonan's making electricity for you slacker Californians! And the fairly big Transportation number for AZ? That's us hard-working Arizonans getting the hell out of Dodge in the summer!

UXO · Post by **UXO** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:06 am

MikieTaps wrote:I think with Wyoming... the interstates 80 AND 90 running through it with LOTS of Truck traffic is probably at least partly to blame.

In keeping with your honest and completely scientific study I would like to add that with Florida its all of "us"

undervalued humans that are circling the Walmart trying to find the best parking spot.

"2. Florida: 7.31 metric tons per person per year. "

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:12 am

Syd wrote:
ericalm wrote:...Yes, I'm talking about you, Arizona! ...
See Illnoise's comment just above your post?
Illnoise wrote:Note that the default on that map is displaying energy production emissions...
That's us hard-working Arizonan's making electricity for you slacker Californians!

Only so that we can provide the rest of the world with movies, tv, the Internet, scooter forums and… uh… avocados.

Well, avocados are quite good.

ScootingInTheRain · Post by **ScootingInTheRain** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:15 am

ericalm wrote: Only so that we can provide the rest of the world with movies, tv, the Internet, scooter forums and… uh… avocados.

Well, avocados are quite good.

...Cuz we all know the BEST internet comes from California!

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:34 am

ScootingInTheRain wrote:
ericalm wrote: Only so that we can provide the rest of the world with movies, tv, the Internet, scooter forums and… uh… avocados.

Well, avocados are quite good.
...Cuz we all know the BEST internet comes from California!

Oh, I left out porn! Duh!

gt1000 · Post by **gt1000** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:16 am

Wyoming has the smallest population but produces a whopping 87.32 metric tons per person per year.

This was a big surprise for me. I mean, metro Denver has a larger population than the entire state. I just can't see Wyoming's highway traffic being the difference maker. I've been all over those interstates (80, 90 and 25), from one end of the state to the other, and traffic is typically nonexistent. On some trips I've definitely seen more antelope than cars.

According to the map, the highest percentage of emission totals comes from generating electricity. Seems pretty obvious that with the western and southwestern states, the big culprit might be coal. Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming have some seriously huge powerplants and many still rely on coal.

UXO · Post by **UXO** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:15 pm

Alix B wrote: {Its up there if you want to read it.}

Alix,

although I'm not certain we share quite the same enthusiasm, we do however share a common interest and I thought you and a very few others might find this article of interest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/garde ... =permalink

By the way, yahoo has a group for those who might have this option in their future: