Oct 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Idaho, Carbon Hero
CAP’s got a map up tracking the per capita carbon emissions of each state:
There’s something of a dog-bites-man quality to most of these findings, but most people will probably, like me, have been totally unaware that Idaho gets 78 percent of its energy from hydroelectric dams. This makes me a bit surprised that Idaho politicians aren’t more supportive of carbon pricing initiatives. I understand that it’s a very conservative state, but their per capita emissions are only about half of the national average — Idahoans ought to come out way ahead under a plan where permits are sold (or emissions are taxed) and the revenue is either rebated or else spent on something useful.
77 Responses to “Idaho, Carbon Hero”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I don’t quite understand why a state would get “credit” for the fact that it happened to get a lot of its energy from hydro. Except for bottlenecks in the electric grid, it’s a fungible commodity, no? If Idaho didn’t use the power, it would go into the grid and back out non-hydro use in some other state, right? Point being, it’s energy consumption that matters, isn’t it, not what modes of generation you happen to be connected to.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Does the greenhouse benefit of so much hydropower offset the damage it does to the salmon?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Jesus H Christ, is this “How to Mislead with statistics week”?
Montana and West Virginia have little population, so if someone lights a damm cigarette, that makes a spike.
In contrast, California and New York are loaded with people –so it doesn’t matter how damm green they are, they are emitting a shitload of crap.
Plus there’s the detached farmhouse vice skyscrapping apartment building thing.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Yes, we’re Pennsylvania, we burn coal by the trainload, and if our nuke plants meltdown like Three Mile Island, the acid rain will become radioactive acid rain. And it all goes downwind to New York City and Massachusetts.
That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. It’s why the Red States like us and forgive us for voting Democratic occasionally.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Don,
per capita.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
How do CA and NY end up in the bottom? Shouldn’t absolute levels of population and economic activity swamp out density and good intentions?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Hm. Not sure about that “swamp out.” How about “cancel out”?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Someone already addressed the per capita thing, but Mr Williams has a point.
The reason Kentucky and West Virginia are darker are all those coal plants providing power to the southern part of Megalopolis cooridor (and North Carolina)
The DC area is getting credit for ‘outsourcing’ its carbon emmisions to West Virginia.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I am also bit confused… is this based on per-capita emmissions, or per-capita consumption of emissions-producing energy. In other words does WV get charged for the power it produces for Maryland, or does Maryland get charged?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Oh, “per capita.” Then of course density wins.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Using the spreadsheet provided by the EIA, you’ll notice something else. Only one place in the US reduced its emissions from 1990 levels (the “Kyoto test”); it’s DC. But, among the top 5 contenders, the district is joined by DE (+0.3%), NY and MA (+1.4%) and a “large per capita emitter”, LA (+1.7%).
Don Williams will be happy to hear that his state of Pennsylvania is among the top 10 with an increase of 6.7% (they’re 9th). So there is still hope for the birthplace of the oil industry.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Can you spell Bonneville Power Administration (a wholly government owned entity within the Dept. of Energy)? SOCIALISM! COMMUNISM TOO! BUILT BY LIBRULS! Created by the great devil: Franklin Delano Roosevelt – in the mid-1930s.
About 45 percent of the power consumed in the Pacific Northwest comes from BPA. Northwest utilities and a few large industries buy BPA power; utilities resell it to homes, businesses, and other consumers.
BPA operates and owns one of the nation’s largest high voltage transmission systems.
There’s a good argument that some of the northwest dams should not have been built because of their effects on the fisheries, but OR, WA and ID (and sometimes CA too when BPA sells power to CA in shortages) greatly benefit from the commie pinko hitler-loving anti-American terrorist-belonging US Congress all filled with Democrats. TVA too!
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I’m curios also about Vermont making the list… I know they’re all a bunch of hippies up there, but it’s also a very rural state with practically nobody living in aparment buildings and taking the metro to work. Makes me think this is based on straight emissions? I give up, I guess I’ll break down and go look for myself.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Matt, you can transmit electricity. There’d be much higher demand for hydropower outside of WA, OR, ID, NV, etc if there were more incentive to use clean power, and at some point it’d overwhelm the price of transmission and raise the price of electricity in Idaho.
What I’d like to see is a map detailing which states *generate* the most carbon-free power per capita and which of those have public or quasi-public utilities companies. There will inevitably be a lag between passing a carbon cap bill and incresaing carbon-free or low-carbon generating capacity, and the states that are on the right side of that equation will see at least a temporary boom.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
@Buskertype:
Vermont buys 1/3 of its electricity from Hydro-Québec (which is 95% hydro, of course) and another 1/3 from the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. That explains why they do so well.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Re theCoach’s comment “Don, per capita”
———–
That’s my point. Make the map into “Emissions per square kilometer”.
Then who then do you think secretes more — New York City or Intercourse, PA?
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I see no source for per capita emissions by state in the CAP piece, only for total emissions by state. They also provide no evidence to support their claim about the relationship between emissions and renewable energy initiatives.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Re JimPortlandOR’s comment “OR, WA and ID … greatly benefit from the commie pinko hitler-loving anti-American terrorist-belonging US Congress all filled with Democrats. TVA too!”
——————
Er .. would that be why the Manhattan Project put its plutonium plant in Hanford , Washington? To take advantage of all that free commie hydroelectricity?
And why the uranium refineries were located in Oak Ridge Tennessee and Paducah Kentucky — to take advantage of that good Commie TVA electricity?
Early on, Hanford and Oak Ridge were “Closed Cities” with controlled access — similar to ones Stalin set up in Russia.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Make the map into “Emissions per square kilometer”.
Er, what would be the value of “emissions per square kilometer?”
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Failing to commit a wrong for lack of ability isn’t being a hero, fool.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Idaho also has a lot of coal and mixed feelings about exploiting it. A couple of years ago Sempra, best known as a San Diego energy company selling electricity generated by burning natural gas, planned to build a huge coal plant in Idaho and send the power to SoCal. Some Idaho locals were happy about this, some were not. Despite being hugely conservative, Idaho has some of the best air and water in the country…but what killed the deal, as near as I can tell, was California’s legislative effort efforts to block in-state energy producers from selling power from new coal plants built out of state.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Oh, “per capita.” Then of course density wins.
If that’s supposed to mean that higher population density implies lower per capita emissions, it’s false.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
@Mixner
It takes some work but it’s not that hard to come up with reasonable numbers. Qp. cap = Q2005/Pop.
Here’s a rough estimate for New York State
212.2 MtCO2/19.3 M = 10.99 t per capita. (which is close enough to 11.02 t listed in the graphic, imho).
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Williams,
Per capita still matters. All those people have to live somewhere, if hey all moved from NY City to suburban PA their per capita usage would go up to match.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Actually the CAP chart doesn’t give any clear indication, but I’m assuming that power plant emissions are charged where they occur, not where the power is consumed, which explains how my compatriots in WV manage to out-emit all of our neighbors by a factor of 2-4 and the district of columbia by a factor of 10!
(and how we still produce less than half as much carbon per capita as Wyoming.)
It would be interesting to see a chart based on consumption.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
ClaudeB,
I know how to calculate per capita emissions from total emissions and population, thanks. I’m saying the authors of the piece do not provide the data to support their claim about per capita emissions.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Re Mixner’s comment “If that’s supposed to mean that higher population density implies lower per capita emissions, it’s false.”
———-
In “Mixner World”, people commuting 3 to 10 miles on electrical trains/subways equate to rural blue collar workers driving 80 miles/day to work in their SUVs.
In “Mixner World”, New York City’s electricity is all generated by coal burning plants located in mid-Manhattan.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Don Williams
False and false. Do you have a response to what I actually wrote, or are you just going to keep tilting at windmills?
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
It is problematic how to assign that. WV is putting the CO2 in the air and getting money from DC residents. Gasoline producers transport their product across state lines before it is burned. Is that really more virtuous?
Another possibility is the CH4 released in coal mining. That is almost certainly charged to the mining states rather than their customers. I think that is somewhat responsible for Wyoming’s high emissions. I don’t imagine there is all that much energy generated in Wyoming even with convenient coal sources.
It really is better to just go by energy used as far as electricity is concerned. If you’re getting your energy from non-carbon producing sources, it means someone else isn’t. For transportation, direct assignment is fine.
I suppose you could compare CO2 generated by on peak electricity generation to off peak generation and see which states use more of one or the other. That would be legit.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Don Williams,
I’m less interested in per capita emissions (it’s an interesting metric) than by the reductions (or the reduction of growth) achieved in the last 15 years. In this regard, WV (+6.1%) and PA (+6.7%) did better than your neighbor, OH (+10.9%). And these three states overperform the US as a whole (+19.2%) over 1990 levels.
Mixner,
Sorry if it felt like I was patronizing. It was not my intention.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Njorl,
Emissions are calculated at the place of emission. That’s easier this way and it makes sense, since these emissions are used to generate economic activity in a state/country.
Imagine if you had to add the emissions generated in China or Saudi Arabia for products bought at the local store/gas station.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I suspect that a chart which attributes carbon emissions where the energy is consumed would have a strong leveling effect on the data, but by and large urban areas would be on the Low-emissions end, but for a different reason. Heating on building with 100 apartments is more efficient than heating 100 separate houses, so in this sense, density does imply lower emissions. On the other hand, this chart shows lower emissions in dense areas for the simple reason that we don’t tend to build power plants in dense areas.
As far as cars are consumed, dense areas also have lower emissions on a per capita basis because people have less distance to drive and are more likely to use public transportation.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
There’s also the issue of “Carbon Emissions Per Economic Value Created”.
Would the country be better off if we took the pickups away from low-income, rural Red Staters and made them all live in feudal farming villages?
Or should we instead cut off the electricity to Manhattan’s investment banks?
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
It really is better to just go by energy used as far as electricity is concerned.
Better for what? What is it exactly that they’re trying to measure here?
As you and others have noted, things like mining and electricity generated in one state and consumed in another confound attempts to provide clear attribution of emissions by state. States “outsource” much of their emissions in all sorts of ways. Another confounding issue is climate. One reason California is relatively clean is that it has a mild climate and therefore produces much lower emissions from heating and cooling than states like Texas (lots of power needed for A/C) and New York (lots of home heating oil burned in the winter months).
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
@Njorl:
the CH4 argument seems unlikely, simply because if mining coal released that much gas, we would be going after the gas, not the coal.
Also, NOBODY lives in Wyoming. Seriously, it makes WV look like NJ! Wouldn’t take many power plants to create a huge per-capita difference.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Strangely enough, high carbon taxes would automatically drive out high-emission/low-value-added activities.
Although it might depopulate the rural countryside in a manner resembling the Highland Clearances.
But if you’re a urban plutocrat wanting to set up a country estate without the white trash, that’s a positive.
Think of it as Better Ethnic Cleansing via Economics.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
@claudeb:
They are just different measurements, one isn’t “better” than the other, but a spike in demand for power in DC doesn’t create more emissions there, it creates it in WV, MD, or VA. I would love to see WV force it’s power plants to be more clean, but as with the CA/ID example, another way to achieve that is for the customers to demand action.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Re buskertype’s comment “if mining coal released that much gas, we would be going after the gas, not the coal. ”
———-
We do. I get a check every month for “coal bed methane” extracted from some land down in Southwest Virginia.
Have you looked at the price of natural gas lately? It makes the Russian oligarchs look like altruistic socialists, by comparison.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
For what it’s worth, I cobbled together the DOE spreadsheet linked by CAP with a Census Bureau population-by-state spreadsheet to create this emissions per capita spreadsheet including associated rankings. Enjoy.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Don-
point being that when it’s piped out, it does’t get released (at least not until it’s burned somewhere)
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
As far as cars are consumed, dense areas also have lower emissions on a per capita basis because people have less distance to drive and are more likely to use public transportation.
Overall, average household emissions are lower for households in the higher-density central city portion of a metropolitan area than for households in the lower-density suburbs, but the difference is small and in about a quarter of cases average household emissions are higher in the city than in the suburbs.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Re Buskertype’s comment “point being that when it’s piped out, it does’t get released (at least not until it’s burned somewhere)”
————
Yes, but the only reason it’s being piped out is that someone somewhere is buying it to burn.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Buskertype: “Imagine if you had to add the emissions generated in China or Saudi Arabia for products bought at the local store/gas station.”
That would probably be a good idea, since China and Saudi Arabia are more focused on economic activity than being green. If consumers knew how much CO2 went into making that doohickey, or had to pay the true cost of production and shipping (via some sort of carbon tax), then they’d be more likely to demand greener products.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Sorry, I’d like to say that indicating emissions because of economic activity is well and good, but it’s consumption that really needs to be addressed.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
If consumers knew how much CO2 went into making that doohickey, or had to pay the true cost of production and shipping (via some sort of carbon tax), then they’d be more likely to demand greener products.
Demanding greener products is one possible response. Another is that consumers would decide the benefits of the tax weren’t worth the drop in their standard of living and vote to repeal it. Much would depend on the size of the tax.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Jeremy-
just to be clear, I didn’t write that bit about china or saudi arabia, and I agree with your conclusions.
Mixner-
When I say “less dense areas” I’m generally thinking about rural areas as opposed to metropolitan areas. But out of curiosity, can you link me to the data you’re referencing?
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/rappaport/downloads/policybriefs/greencities_final.pdf
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Re ClaudeB’s comment “Imagine if you had to add the emissions generated in China or Saudi Arabia for products bought at the local store/gas station. ”
————
That’s the MAJOR problem with the carbon tax. We ultimately will suffer as much from carbon emissions in China and Saudi arabia as from emissions in the USA.
But if we unilaterally levy a carbon tax onto US producers , that will merely drive production to China and Saudi Arabia. Increasing their wealth, reducing ours, and doing nothing to reduce carbon.
But we have NO power to levy carbon taxes onto Chinese producers –or to detect/punish them if they cheat in a massive way.
You could tax at point of sale –based on an estimate of how much carbon was generated to produce a consumer product. But then you also penalize the virtuous US producer who has emissions control over the Chinese producer who has no emissions controls.
Notice how the whoring advocates of globalization never address these details.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
This reminds me of a story Stanley Karnow tells in his history of the Vietnam War:
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
let’s shift away from “carbon” to “greenhouse gas.” dams cause algae build-up, and algae being churned up releases methane, which is 20x worse as a greenhouse case than CO2.
always remember to think through indirect effects when you’re proposing policy solutions, matt.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
As a former Idahoan I would also point out that Idaho would benefit from raising taxes on rich people and spreading the wealth around. The reason Idaho politicians don’t support Cap and Trade is because there is an extreme anti government attitude in Idaho which results from the Federal Government managing so much of the land in Idaho and not letting certain industries do what they want with it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
That’s the MAJOR problem with the carbon tax … Notice how the whoring advocates of globalization never address these details.
Er, you mean the whoring advocates of the carbon tax.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Re Mixner’s comment “Er, you mean the whoring advocates of the carbon tax.”
———–
Er..No , I mean the whoring advocates of globalization. Who went on a money hunt without EVER mentioning the “Externalities” to the common US citizen.
The need to spend a $Trillion/year to maintain order and keep the sea lanes open.
The inability to control greenhouse emissions –or petroleum prices –when you encourage several billion Asians to consume like Americans.
The loss of US jobs — and outflow of wealth. As well as advanced technology.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Er..No , I mean the whoring advocates of globalization.
Well, make up your mind. You claimed to be describing a problem with the carbon tax, not globalization.
Globalization has lifted tens of millions of people in the developing world out of poverty. And it is very difficult to determine the effects of globalization on carbon emissions. Due to economies of scale and other factors, making a product in one country and shipping it half way around the world for sale in another country may be greener than producing the product in the country of purchase.
Who went on a money hunt without EVER mentioning the “Externalities” to the common US citizen.
The need to spend a $Trillion/year to maintain order and keep the sea lanes open.
The inability to control greenhouse emissions –or petroleum prices –when you encourage several billion Asians to consume like Americans.
The loss of US jobs — and outflow of wealth. As well as advanced technology.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Buskertype: that’s what I get for reading before coffee.
Don: “You could tax at point of sale –based on an estimate of how much carbon was generated to produce a consumer product. But then you also penalize the virtuous US producer who has emissions control over the Chinese producer who has no emissions controls.”
Actually, that wouldn’t be so hard. If it says, Made in China, add tax. If not, don’t. Not that a POS sales tax would be the best method, I’m sure there are other possibilities. But at the moment, China doesn’t care how they produce their goods. If consumers were made aware of the true costs of their purchases, you’d see a lot more grassroots efforts. Here in Japan, people are refusing to buy Chinese produce due to health concerns, until they clean up their act. I’d much rather buy Japanese vegetables that aren’t grown in toxic soil, even if it costs a bit more.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:03 am
“The need to spend a $Trillion/year to maintain order and keep the sea lanes open.”
Oh, Christ.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:11 am
A major reason that the west coast does well on this is that they actually have paid attention to greenhouse gas emissions, water and air quality as similar issues. That means that regulations and building codes take this into account. Does it mean that the air quality in the LA basin is wonderful, no, but it is much better than it would have been without the regulations.
New York is low, among other things, because it buys a lot of electrons from Hydro-Quebec also.
Mixner is simply throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks and trolling for red herrings on the sea lanes.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Funny how the map of top emitters looks like McCain’s projected electoral map.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Since Carbon pricing is clearly associated with Islamosocialism, ReaL America will never accept it.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Idaho Power is a client of mine, and I’ve been to most of their hydro generation facilities. They take immaculate care of the rivers they use for power generation. Also, they encourage land owners to build windmill famrs, and will buy the power generated in that manner. It’s a very clean state, lovely country.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Matt Rainey/The Star-Ledger Workers from The American Water Company work to turn off and divert water from the broken main on Weston Canal Rd. to other lines to provide water to affected areas Tuesday. There is a
March 1st, 2009 at 5:52 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:28 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:29 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra