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.
Unfortunately, environmentalists follow an equally unrealistic approach to energy policies. The clean technologies touted by environmental organizations and activist groups might be clean, but they also carry an astronomical price tag and don't produce the same amount of power as other technologies. Wind power - which, ironically, Texas leads the nation in - might be 100 percent clean, but it's not going to power a large city on its own.
Moreover, a large majority of Texas' carbon emissions come not from electricity generation but from the refining of oil into gasoline. Newer technologies could help reduce that industry's carbon emissions, but I don't think anyone wants to start paying $5 a gallon for gasoline.
Could Texas and other polluting states cut down on emissions? Of course, but such measures certainly would raise energy and gas prices across the country. People would lose jobs and the economy would suffer. Throwing your economy into turmoil in exchange for a small reduction in your carbon emissions hardly seems worth the cost.
Yet, reality be damned. Those seeking reductions in carbon emissions will continue to fight against common sense and reason. Thankfully, most of them don't live in our state. Until reason prevails, though, let us revel in cheaper prices, a sane state and in being No. 1.
Be the first to comment on this article!