• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • CO2's Political Fingerprint

    Unless they had explicitly named them, the Senate’s Kerry-Boxer and the House’s Waxman-Markey global warming bills could not have been better designed to inflict more pain on the states that swung red in the last election than on those that went blue. The American Clean Energy and Security Act in the Senate and House’s Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act both call for dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, eventually 83%. (Isn’t it curious that neither bill is titled after the impending global warming catastrophe that they are supposedly designed to avert?)

    When EPA’s data for carbon dioxide emissions by state is compared with state populations and the 83% reduction called for in both bills is applied, a particularly eerie pattern emerges for those who live in the states that President Obama failed to carry last November. Namely, the pain inflicted upon them is likely to be much greater as the work that their citizens do, the things that they make (one being energy) and the circumstances of their day to day lives result in higher per capita CO2 emissions from fossil fuels for their state. See the chart below…
    Why any elected office holders in the hardest hit states – regardless of partisan affiliation – would consider being party to laws so onerous to their constituency may be puzzling to the average Joe. Politicians, however, know that after enacting onerous laws with one hand, they – and regulators abetting them – can accrue even more power by arranging special treatment of favored constituencies with the other.

    Clearly, this approach to looking at emissions per person per state can’t reflect all sorts of realities that would affect and be created by such massive and complex legislation. For example, some of the costs imposed on Texas or Louisiana oil refineries and tagged onto fuel sold across state lines will ripple well beyond those state’s economies. Overall however, that Texas and Louisiana would be hit harder than, say, Massachusetts and California is pretty clear. Non-too-coincidentally, Massachusetts and California happen to be, respectively, in 43rd and 49th place for per capita emissions as well as the states from which both global warming bills’ authors hail. While there would be huge costs under this legislation for these liberal, urban and coastal blue states as well, CO2 fingerprints would be all over the battered economic bodies of the red state victims.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to CO2's Political Fingerprint

    1. Freedom of Speech TX says:

      A red state in the last election vice a blue state.

      Of course, this is entirely "coincidental", right?

      I guess we will see if congressmen are willing to throw their constituents under the bus for political party favors.

      If we all try REALLY hard, soon we can be just like progressive California. I can hardly wait.

    2. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Isn't funny how red states have the highest CO2 output? Or are you actually trying to imply that just cause your a republican you need to reduce more Co2 than a Democrat.

    3. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Nicolai, Nicolai, Nicolai…

      Nice play with words. You and our fearless leader are very good with that.

      However, and to the point, California is the most populous state, right? Do you really believe that graph? What about Chicago? With its teaming millions and heated politics; there is enough for the entire state.

      I am not implying anything.

      I am stating that Americans cannot trust this government. Lie after Lie after Lie. And, when they are not lying, they hide by "omitting' and "neglecting" to tell the truth.

      Some Americans are very ignorant, but even an idiot will eventually recognize when he/she is being lied to – if repeated enough.

      So, no. This Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer graph does not surprise me at all.

    4. Larry, Louisiana says:

      Yeah that makes sense, tax the rural states, while the populated states consume more energy and food, and produce less.

      It's part of Obama's great new plan to hamstring our economy into greatness.

      Smug Americans don't have it bad enough, so the Government and the Federal Reserve are going to show us just how bad the economy can get.

      Then they'll probably blame the cost increase on Capitalism.

    5. TonyfromOz, Coomera, says:

      I hope you don't mind if I take some space for a better explanation of what I'm trying to say.

      Compare that graph above with the actual figures for electrical power consumption and costings at the Government's own site at Energy Information Administration at this link.


      These figures are the most recent released in 2009 for the statistical year 2007, and for figures like this from so huge a source, they are always a year behind, but figures have been the same as averaged over the previous reporting year, and are close to what is still being consumed right now. Here I am referring to the Residential sector (37% of all consumed power) but figures are the same for the Commercial sector (35%) and the Industrial sector. (27%)

      A simple comparison between the above chart and the EIA figures here shows for:

      The left side of the graph.

      10 States. 9 Republican. 5 of those 10 have the cheapest electrical power in the U.S. All are under, (most well under) the U.S. average, the exception being Alaska which has to import virtually all its coal, passing that cost on to consumers.

      Right side of the graph.

      10 States. 9 Democrat. 6 States of those 10 have the most expensive electrical power in the U.S. All bar one are over (most significantly well over) the average. The other 4 most expensive are in the next 5 Sates on the right side of the chart. (All Democrat)

      Both CT and NY (right side) pay almost three times as much as WV, (left side)

      Those States where it is cheapest (left side) have coal fired plants sited with coal mines, hence no transportation costs. Those States where it is expensive (right side) have to transport all their coal in.

      Another startling example of those who have (left side) subsidising those who have not. (right side)


    6. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    7. Ella, DC says:

      Someone needs to show this to the Begich, Conrad, Dorgan, Landrieu, et. al.

      It should also be shown to those in the House that voted for cap-and-tax that come from the states that will pay the heaviest price. Voters in their districts need to be made aware of this!

    8. B. Johnson, USA says:

      Given that the federal Constitution is silent about climate issues, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to address such issues to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. So illegal C & T legislation is based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.

    9. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Hey Texas-

      I was saying the author was implying that the author of this blog. I can't really dispute anything you said. Your post hadn't been posted when I wrote that.


      Coal is cheap on the front end that is why WV is so cheap. It is harmful to the environment when mining harmful for the miners and harmful for any of the water sheds downwind from these ancient coal plants that were reactivated under George Bush's clean air act. Which basically eliminated emissions on the plants. It is not because they have no incentives for Renewable Energy. I would be interested in seeing what industry contributes the most campaign funds in WV.

      I would also like to note that the State of Louisiana has the best subsidies for Renewable Energy systems in the Country. Louisiana will pay for 50% of system cost for Residential or Commercial. However we pay some of the lowest flat rates in the country. And Louisiana is Red and Proud to be!

      California for the most part only has Utility Rebates for Renewable Energy. Some of the corporate rates for electricity exceed 65 cents a kW. Anaheim California has the best renewable energy incentives in California and a moderate rate for their electricity which is far below the state average. Most interestingly the city of Anaheim runs their own utility.

      Basically this information totally contradicts what you are implying.

    10. Stephanie, Washingto says:

      The non-partisan World Resources Institute recently analyzed the allowances under Waxman-Markey, and many of these states get the highest allowances, BECAUSE they are C02 intensive. http://pdf.wri.org/analysis_of_allowances_to_stat

    11. Freedom of Speech TX says:

      Dear Nicolai,

      My apologies.

    12. Pingback: Dirty Democrats » Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 689 — Targeting Red States.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.