Carbon emissions: We're No. 1 (and with plenty of room to spare)
Trey Caliva
Issue date: 6/5/07 Section: Opinions
Over the weekend, The Associated Press released a story ranking individual states according to the amount of carbon they emit per year. If you haven't seen the story, I'll spare you from the traditional cliché "Everything's bigger in Texas," but suffice it to say: We're No. 1.
Not only are we No. 1, we did so with plenty of room to spare. Our 670 billion metric tons of carbon per year out-did the next two states, California and Pennsylvania, combined. If we were our own country, we'd rank sixth in the world for carbon emissions behind the United States, China, Russia, Japan, India and Germany.
It should be noted Texas came in 10th on the list for per-capita carbon emissions. The energy-producing giants of Wyoming and North Dakota came in first and second, respectively. Ultimately though, my biggest impression from the story is: So what?
California, the state with the nation's largest population, has an energy demand to match. However, whereas Texas keeps its energy production unhindered, California cripples its ability to create its own energy by instituting ridiculous emissions standards. Since the state evidently isn't reducing its energy usage - the liberals out there sure like to use up energy - California must purchase energy from other states, such as Wyoming and North Dakota.
Similar situations occur across the country; small states that have high carbon production per capita are also the largest producers of energy in the nation.
The article praised California for being tougher on carbon emissions compared to the rest of the top states on the list. Yet, tough restrictions on emissions do absolutely nothing to help the environment and drive up energy and gas costs.
Californians are not using less energy; they just buy it from other states. In essence, they get all the benefits of having energy without the emissions to go along with it. The "use here, pollute there" policy in regard to energy is irresponsible, both morally and economically.
Not only are we No. 1, we did so with plenty of room to spare. Our 670 billion metric tons of carbon per year out-did the next two states, California and Pennsylvania, combined. If we were our own country, we'd rank sixth in the world for carbon emissions behind the United States, China, Russia, Japan, India and Germany.
It should be noted Texas came in 10th on the list for per-capita carbon emissions. The energy-producing giants of Wyoming and North Dakota came in first and second, respectively. Ultimately though, my biggest impression from the story is: So what?
California, the state with the nation's largest population, has an energy demand to match. However, whereas Texas keeps its energy production unhindered, California cripples its ability to create its own energy by instituting ridiculous emissions standards. Since the state evidently isn't reducing its energy usage - the liberals out there sure like to use up energy - California must purchase energy from other states, such as Wyoming and North Dakota.
Similar situations occur across the country; small states that have high carbon production per capita are also the largest producers of energy in the nation.
The article praised California for being tougher on carbon emissions compared to the rest of the top states on the list. Yet, tough restrictions on emissions do absolutely nothing to help the environment and drive up energy and gas costs.
Californians are not using less energy; they just buy it from other states. In essence, they get all the benefits of having energy without the emissions to go along with it. The "use here, pollute there" policy in regard to energy is irresponsible, both morally and economically.
Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of The Daily Toreador, the department of Student Media or Texas Tech University. Student editors have the authority to make all online content decisions without censorship or advance approval and are solely responsible for the content of this Web site. None of the opinions expressed on this page are previewed by any university official. Any postings, SPAM or otherwise, considered by the editorial staff to be campaign endorsements for political candidates other than opinions of users attached to articles pertaining to election issues will be deleted immediately.
View the online policy here.
To report questionable content, send an email to dtonlineeditor@gmail.com
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 17
TK
posted 6/04/07 @ 4:50 PM CST
You are absolutely right. Reason doesn't enter into the picture for the activists. Just look at Al Gore. Apparently he thinks it's perfectly fine to live as irresponsibly as he wants as long as he buys "carbon credits" to offset his hypocritcal, wasteful lifestyle. (Continued…)
Pranay
Pranay
posted 6/05/07 @ 7:19 AM CST
This is a completely disappointing article. Texas, with an economy of about a trillion dollars (about the same as India's economy) and with only about 28. (Continued…)
Skip
posted 6/05/07 @ 10:21 AM CST
As is typical, the good ol Texas attitude shines in this article. This apparently is "we're proud to be the most ignorant people, damn it!" Of course this jackass doesn't speak for all Texans, just a large majority. (Continued…)
Pranay
posted 6/05/07 @ 11:16 AM CST
Lehm, I do not want to discount the contribution that India and China will potentially make to global CO2 levels. We must definitely address these countries before we can achieve environment sustainability. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 6/06/07 @ 10:02 AM CST
Let's not compare India and Texas with CO2 emissions. Oil is one of our state's great exports, but that isn't the case in India. For starters, we are the home of Valero and Exxon. (Continued…)
George Gant
posted 6/06/07 @ 4:09 PM CST
Trey Caliva really has it in for both California and Liberals in general. Trey seems to find the whole concept of use here but pollute there as both immoral and unethical, driving up the cost of energy and doing nothing for the environment. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 6/06/07 @ 5:04 PM CST
Mr Gant's words: "California, which has enacted tough pollution standards on its manufacturers, refineries, utilities, etc. can now buy from polluters in other states to makeup for the energy shortfall created by its pollution control. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 6/07/07 @ 2:27 PM CST
So, rather than simply agreeing on the possibility that California is in the wrong, you'd rather dig up a topic that was not even mentioned in the article in order to make the Golden State not look so bad? Although you may not realize it, that is yet another point of Mr. (Continued…)
JW
posted 6/17/07 @ 6:02 PM CST
This is hillarious!!! The Bushies are feeling sorry for the oil companies who only make 7 cents per gallon yet they are still managing to produce record profits from it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment