SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 21
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
State-Level Energy-Related
Carbon Dioxide Emissions,
2000-2010 
May 2013 
Independent Statistics & Analysis
www.eia.gov 
U.S. Department of Energy 
Washington, DC 20585 
 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and 
analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are 
independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views 
in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or 
other Federal agencies.
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  iii 
Table of Contents
Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 1 
Total state emission levels ....................................................................................................................... 1 
Emissions by fuel ..................................................................................................................................... 2 
Emissions by sector .................................................................................................................................. 2 
Per capita carbon dioxide emissions ....................................................................................................... 2 
Energy intensity ....................................................................................................................................... 3 
Carbon intensity of the energy supply..................................................................................................... 4 
Carbon intensity of the economy ............................................................................................................ 4 
Electricity trade ........................................................................................................................................ 4 
Appendix A. Comparison of fuel detail for the State Energy Data System and the Annual and Monthly 
Energy Review data systems ................................................................................................................. 15 
 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  iv 
Tables
Table 1. State energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by year (2000 ‐ 2010) ........................................... 6 
Table 2. 2010 state energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel ......................................................... 7 
Table 3. 2010 state energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by sector ..................................................... 8 
Table 4. 2010 state energy‐related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector ............................................ 9 
Table 5. Per capita energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by state (2000 ‐ 2010) ................................ 10 
Table 6. Energy‐intensity by state (2000 – 2010) ....................................................................................... 11 
Table 7. Carbon intensity of the energy supply by state (2000 – 2010) ..................................................... 12 
Table 8. Carbon intensity of the economy by state (2000 – 2010) ............................................................. 13 
Table 9. Net electricity trade index and primary electricity source for selected states (2000 – 2010) ...... 14 
 
 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  v 
Figures
Figure 1. Energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by state, 2010 .............................................................. 1 
Figure 2. Per‐capita energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by state, 2010 ............................................. 3 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  1 
Overview 
Energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions vary significantly across states (Figure 1), whether considered 
on an absolute or per capita basis.  The overall size of a state, as well as the  available fuels, types of 
businesses, climate, and population density, play a role in both total and per capita emissions.   
Additionally, each state’s energy system reflects circumstances specific to that state.   For example, 
some states are located near abundant hydroelectric supplies, while others contain abundant coal 
resources.  This paper presents a basic analysis of the factors that contribute to a state’s carbon dioxide 
profile.  This analysis neither attempts to assess the effect of state policies on absolute emissions levels 
or on changes over time, nor does it intend to imply that certain policies would be appropriate for a 
particular state. 
The term “energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions” as used in this paper, includes emissions released 
at the location where fossil fuels are used.  For feedstock application, carbon stored in products such as 
plastics are not included in reported emissions for the states where they are produced. 
It is also important to recognize that the state‐level carbon dioxide emissions data presented in this 
paper count emissions based on the location where the energy is consumed as a fuel.  To the extent that 
fuels are used in one state to generate electricity that is consumed in another state, emissions are 
attributed to the former rather than the latter.  An analysis that attributed “responsibility” for emissions 
with consumption rather than production of electricity, which is beyond the scope of the present paper, 
would yield different results.   
Total state emission levels 
Over the time period from 2000 to 2010, carbon dioxide emissions fell in 32 states and rose in 18 states 
(Table 1).    The greatest percentage decrease in carbon dioxide emissions occurred in Delaware at 27.9 
percent, (4.5 million metric tons).  The greatest absolute decline was 58.8 million metric tons in Texas 
(8.3 percent).  New York experienced a decline of 38.6 million metric tons (18.3 percent).  The greatest 
percentage increase was in Nebraska at 16.0 percent (6.6 million metric tons), while Colorado 
experienced the greatest absolute increase (11.8 million metric tons or 13.9 percent).   
Figure 1. Energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by state, 2010 
million metric tons carbon dioxide 
 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  2 
From 2009 to 2010, only 14 states saw a decrease in emissions.  The United States was rebounding from 
the recession and emissions from consumption of energy was up in most states.  Because of differences 
in data aggregations it is difficult to compare the total for all states with the total for the United States.  
See the Appendix for  a comparison of levels of data detail between the state and national data systems. 
Emissions by fuel 
States exhibit very different emissions profiles by fuel type (Table 2).  For example, in 2010, coal 
consumption accounted for 80.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in West Virginia.  In California, 
65.2 percent of carbon dioxide emissions came from petroleum, while only 1.4 percent came from coal.  
Rhode Island had no emissions from coal consumption, but 46.1 percent of its emissions were from 
natural gas.  Vermont’s share of carbon dioxide emissions from petroleum was 92.5 percent and 
Hawaii’s share was 91.4 percent in 2010.  No other states exceeded 80 percent in terms of the share of 
emissions from petroleum;  Maine’s petroleum share was 75.6 percent. 
Emissions by sector 
There can also be significant variations in terms of carbon dioxide emissions by sector (Tables 3 and 4) – 
even for states that have similar fuel emissions’ profiles.   These variations are due to factors such as the 
use of different fuels for electricity generation, climate, and sources of economic outputs (e.g., 
commercial versus industrial activity).  For example, in Vermont the largest share of emissions in 2010 
came from the transportation sector (58.7 percent), predominantly from petroleum, but the electric 
power sector share is small (0.1 percent) because of Vermont’s reliance on nuclear power.  Vermont’s 
residential sector share was 22.1 percent – indicative of a relatively cold climate where petroleum is the 
main heating fuel.  Hawaii, where a dominant share of emissions is also from petroleum, has a 
residential share of 0.3 percent – the lowest in the United States because of minimal heating  and 
cooling requirements.  The largest sector emissions share in Hawaii, like Vermont, was from the 
transportation sector (49.3 percent).  However, unlike Vermont, Hawaii’s electric power sector share 
nearly as high (40.1 percent).  The dominant fossil fuel for the generation of electricity in Hawaii is 
petroleum.   
Per capita carbon dioxide emissions 
Another useful way to compare total carbon dioxide emissions across states is to divide them by state 
population and examine them on a per capita basis (Table 5 and Figure 2).  Many factors contribute to 
the amount of emissions per capita, including: climate, the structure of the state economy, population 
density, energy sources, building standards and explicit state policies to reduce emissions.   The 2010 
carbon dioxide emissions in Wyoming were 118.5 metric tons per capita, the highest in the United 
States.  In 2010, Wyoming was the second largest energy producer in the United States.  Unlike the 
largest energy producer, Texas, that has a population of 25 million, Wyoming has less than 600 thousand 
people giving Wyoming the lowest population density in the lower‐48 states.1
 Its winters are cold (the 
average low temperatures in January are in the 5 to 10 degree Fahrenheit range2
 ).  These factors act to 
raise Wyoming’s per capita emissions compared to other states.  The second highest state per capita 
carbon dioxide emissions level was North Dakota at 80.4 metric tons per capita.  Alaska (54.6 metric 
tons per capita),  West Virginia (54.2 metric tons per capita) and Louisiana (49.3 metric tons per capita) 
                                                            
1
 U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Profiles and Energy Estimates: http://www.eia.gov/state/ 
2
 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/WYOMING.htm 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  3 
round out the top five states in terms of per capita carbon dioxide emissions.  All of these are fossil‐
energy‐producing states.  The activity of producing energy is itself energy intensive. 
Figure 2. Per‐capita energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by state, 2010 
metric tons carbon dioxide per person 
 
The State of New York, with a population of 19.6 million people, had the lowest per capita carbon 
dioxide emissions – 8.8 metric tons per capita.  A large portion of the population is located in the New 
York City metropolitan area where mass transit is readily available and most residences are multi‐family 
units that provide efficiencies of scale in terms of energy for heating and cooling.   The New York 
economy is oriented towards high‐value, low‐energy‐consuming activities such as financial markets.  For 
example, in 2010 New York contained 6.3 percent of the U.S. population, but consumed only 1.1 percent 
of the country’s industrial energy.3
   New York’s energy prices are relatively high (the average retail 
electricity price of 16.41 cents per kWh was third highest in the country in 2010), which in turn 
encourages energy savings.4
   The second lowest per capita carbon emitting state (9.7 metric tons per 
capita) was Vermont.  As mentioned above, Vermont had almost no emissions from its electric power 
sector.    Other states with relatively low per capita emissions rates include: California (9.9 metric tons 
per capita), Idaho and Oregon (both 10.4 metric tons per capita). 
Energy intensity 
The energy intensity of a state, as measured by the amount of energy consumed per unit of economic 
output or, specifically, British thermal units per dollar of a state’s gross domestic product  (Btu/GDP), 
plays an important role in its overall emissions profile (Table 6). The states with the highest rates of 
emissions per capita in 2010 also had the higher energy intensity values:  Wyoming (24.6 thousand Btu 
per dollar), North Dakota (22.8 thousand Btu per dollar) and West Virginia (21.6 thousand Btu per 
dollar).  Delaware had the lowest energy intensity (3.3 thousand Btu per dollar), followed by New York 
(3.5 thousand Btu per dollar), Massachusetts, and Connecticut (both 3.7 thousand Btu per dollar).  With 
                                                            
3
 U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data 2010, state population and energy consumption by sector. 
4
 U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Electricity Profiles, Table 1, 2010 Summary Statistics 
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/pdf/New_York.pdf 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  4 
the exceptions of California and Hawaii, the states with the lowest energy intensity are clustered in the 
relatively densely populated New England and Central‐Atlantic.  The 2010 national average is 7.5 
thousand Btu per dollar of GDP.   
Carbon intensity of the energy supply 
The carbon intensity of energy supply (CO2/Btu) is reflective of the energy fuel mix within a state.  As 
with energy intensity, the states with high carbon intensity of energy supply tend to be the states with 
high per capita emissions.  The top five states in 2010 for the energy carbon intensity as measured in 
kilograms of carbon dioxide per million Btu (kg CO2/MMBtu) —West Virginia (81.7 kg CO2/MMBtu), 
Kentucky (77.2 kg CO2/MMBtu), Wyoming (76.8 kg CO2/MMBtu), Indiana (75.1 kg CO2/MMBtu), and 
North Dakota (73.6 kg CO2/MMBtu)— are all states with coal as the dominant fuel (Table 7).  The 
national average carbon intensity of the energy supply in 2010 was 57.6 kg CO2/MMBtu.  The states with 
lower carbon intensity tend to be those states with relatively substantial non‐carbon electricity 
generation such as hydropower or nuclear.  These states include, for example, Vermont (34.5 kg 
CO2/MMBtu), Washington (37.4 kg CO2/MMBtu), Oregon (39.1 kg CO2/MMBtu), Idaho (41.2 kg 
CO2/MMBtu) and New Hampshire (41.5 kg CO2/MMBtu). 
Carbon intensity of the economy 
Another measure, the overall carbon intensity of the economy (CO2/dollar of state GDP), combines 
energy intensity with the carbon intensity of that energy supply.   As one would expect, the states with 
the highest carbon intensity of their economies (Table 8) as measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide 
per million dollars of state GDP (mt CO2/million dollars of GDP) are also the states with the highest 
values of energy intensity and carbon intensity of that energy supply.  In 2010 these states included:  
Wyoming (1,886 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), West Virginia (1,767 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP) 
North Dakota (1,681 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), Louisiana (1,145 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), 
and Montana (1,098 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP).  The 2010 U.S. average is 430 mt CO2/ million 
dollars of GDP.  The states with the lowest carbon intensity of economic activity are also states that 
appear on the lower end of both energy intensity and the carbon intensity of that energy supply.  These 
states include:   New York (167 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), Connecticut (175 mt CO2/ million dollars 
of GDP), Delaware (209 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP), Massachusetts (213 mt CO2/ million dollars of 
GDP), and California (214 mt CO2/ million dollars of GDP). 
Electricity trade 
Because this analysis does not account for electricity trade, it is important to understand how much this 
can influence a state’s carbon dioxide emissions profile.  The Net Electricity Trade Index (Table 9) 
indicates whether a state is self sufficient in the generation of electricity in a given year (a value of 1.0); 
is a net importer of electricity in a given year (a value of less than 1.0); or is a net exporter of electricity 
in a given year (a value greater than 1.0).  As indicated in Table 9, over half of the 10 states with the 
highest per capita emissions the states are net exporters of electricity in at least some years.  In 
particular, Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia and Montana are large electricity exporters of power 
produced predominantly with coal.  New Mexico is also a net exporter of electricity.   Oklahoma is a net 
exporter, but its dominant fuel is natural gas.  Indiana is a small exporter in some years, but was export‐
neutral in 2009 and 2010.  Kentucky, like Indiana is a coal‐fueled generation state, but has been export‐
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  5 
neutral in recent years.  Louisiana, the only state of high per capita emitters that is consistently a net 
importer of electricity, and Alaska  a state that is an importer in some years, but export‐neutral in most, 
are both fossil‐fuel producing states with a large energy‐intensive component of their economies.     
Four of the ten states with the lowest per capita carbon dioxide emissions are consistent importers of 
electricity:  Idaho, California, Massachusetts, and Florida.  Rhode Island was an electricity exporter in 
2001 and was self sufficient in 2000, 2008, 2009, and 2010. In the other years Rhode Island was an 
importer of electricity (about 40 percent in 2004).  Idaho generates its electricity principally with 
hydroelectric power and has historically imported 50 percent or more of its electricity from other states.  
California consistently imports about 30 percent of its electricity and natural gas is the dominant fuel for 
the electricity that it generates internally.  Both Massachusetts and Florida also use natural gas as the 
dominant fuel for electricity generation. 
New York, which is self sufficient many years and a slight importer in other years, generates a dominant 
share of its electricity with nuclear power.   Vermont, which is a consistent exporter of electricity, is also 
a state dominated by nuclear power generation.  Connecticut, also a nuclear power producer, is a slight 
exporter in some years, an importer in others and self sufficient in yet others.  Both Oregon and 
Washington are usually either self sufficient or net exporters.  However, in 2001, which was a 
particularly bad year for hydroelectric generation in the Pacific Northwest, both states were net 
importers of electricity. 
If the emissions associated with the generation of electricity were allocated to the states where that 
electricity is consumed, in many cases, the emissions profiles of both the producing and consuming 
states would change. 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  6 
Table 1. State energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by year (2000 ‐ 2010) 
million metric tons carbon dioxide 
State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent Absolute
Alabama 140.4 132.0 136.7 137.2 139.7 141.5 144.0 146.1 139.2 119.8 132.7 ‐5.5% ‐7.7
Alaska 44.3 43.4 43.6 43.5 46.8 48.1 45.8 44.1 39.5 37.9 38.7 ‐12.6% ‐5.6
Arizona 86.0 88.3 87.7 89.3 96.6 96.7 100.0 102.2 103.1 94.6 95.9 11.6% 9.9
Arkansas 63.2 62.4 60.9 61.3 61.9 59.7 61.6 63.1 63.7 61.6 66.1 4.6% 2.9
California 381.3 385.8 384.9 389.5 391.5 389.0 397.5 403.7 389.8 375.9 369.8 ‐3.0% ‐11.4
Colorado 84.7 92.8 90.9 90.0 93.1 95.4 96.4 99.2 97.6 93.7 96.5 13.9% 11.8
Connecticut 42.8 41.5 39.9 42.3 44.4 43.9 40.9 40.3 38.2 36.5 36.9 ‐13.7% ‐5.8
Delaware 16.3 15.7 15.5 16.1 16.1 17.0 15.8 16.7 15.9 11.8 11.7 ‐27.9% ‐4.5
District of Columbia 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 ‐23.6% ‐1.0
Florida 239.2 238.1 241.3 244.9 257.3 260.9 259.5 257.8 240.2 226.3 246.0 2.8% 6.7
Georgia 167.9 160.3 165.1 167.5 173.3 183.9 181.5 184.6 173.5 163.4 173.7 3.4% 5.8
Hawaii 18.8 19.2 20.5 21.5 22.6 23.2 23.5 24.4 19.7 18.9 18.9 0.7% 0.1
Idaho 15.6 15.5 14.9 14.2 15.5 15.7 15.8 16.3 15.8 15.4 16.2 4.0% 0.6
Illinois 232.1 223.1 225.1 227.7 235.2 242.0 233.9 242.1 240.7 226.1 230.4 ‐0.7% ‐1.7
Indiana 238.2 228.6 231.7 236.9 237.8 236.7 235.0 234.7 231.5 208.5 219.1 ‐8.0% ‐19.1
Iowa 77.7 76.6 77.2 76.4 78.9 78.9 80.2 85.7 88.3 83.8 88.7 14.1% 11.0
Kansas 76.1 71.8 76.6 78.4 75.8 72.0 72.1 80.1 76.9 75.0 75.0 ‐1.3% ‐1.0
Kentucky 144.7 148.1 148.3 143.9 150.9 153.2 156.1 156.4 153.7 143.7 150.7 4.2% 6.1
Louisiana 239.9 211.9 219.8 214.6 226.2 221.7 236.0 234.5 221.7 203.9 223.5 ‐6.8% ‐16.4
Maine 22.3 22.4 24.0 23.4 24.0 23.1 21.3 21.0 19.4 18.6 18.5 ‐17.1% ‐3.8
Maryland 77.5 78.0 77.9 80.4 82.0 83.9 77.5 78.1 74.7 71.4 70.5 ‐9.0% ‐7.0
Massachusetts 82.2 82.1 82.9 83.8 82.6 84.3 76.4 80.0 77.2 71.0 73.0 ‐11.2% ‐9.2
Michigan 192.6 188.5 187.9 184.7 187.4 189.3 178.2 181.2 175.2 164.4 165.9 ‐13.9% ‐26.7
Minnesota 97.7 94.7 97.3 101.0 100.6 101.7 99.1 100.9 100.6 93.1 93.4 ‐4.4% ‐4.3
Mississippi 60.6 69.4 61.9 63.2 64.8 63.2 65.4 67.7 64.1 60.4 65.5 8.0% 4.9
Missouri 125.4 131.1 131.8 138.3 140.0 143.0 141.6 140.8 137.9 131.6 135.7 8.2% 10.3
Montana 31.3 31.9 30.7 32.7 34.5 35.5 35.8 37.8 36.1 32.5 34.9 11.4% 3.6
Nebraska 41.4 42.7 42.2 43.0 43.1 43.5 44.1 44.5 46.5 46.8 48.0 16.0% 6.6
Nevada 45.3 44.6 41.4 43.4 47.7 49.8 41.5 41.8 41.2 39.7 38.1 ‐15.9% ‐7.2
New Hampshire 17.5 16.9 17.6 20.8 21.9 21.3 19.4 19.3 19.1 17.3 17.0 ‐2.8% ‐0.5
New Jersey 121.1 118.5 118.9 119.8 122.6 127.6 120.2 128.6 124.3 110.4 115.4 ‐4.7% ‐5.7
New Mexico 58.0 58.2 55.2 57.3 58.5 59.1 59.9 59.1 57.6 58.5 54.8 ‐5.5% ‐3.2
New York 211.4 206.7 200.8 210.1 213.9 210.7 192.5 199.4 190.5 175.5 172.8 ‐18.3% ‐38.6
North Carolina 147.7 143.1 144.3 144.7 148.2 152.7 147.4 153.6 149.0 132.9 142.9 ‐3.3% ‐4.8
North Dakota 50.8 51.7 51.4 50.9 49.5 52.4 50.8 52.6 53.1 51.4 52.5 3.3% 1.7
Ohio 264.0 254.5 260.3 267.4 262.5 269.7 263.0 268.9 261.9 237.6 249.1 ‐5.6% ‐14.9
Oklahoma 100.1 101.4 101.6 103.5 99.8 106.9 110.2 109.6 113.1 104.9 103.4 3.4% 3.4
Oregon 41.2 40.6 39.1 39.3 40.6 41.0 40.3 43.8 43.2 41.2 40.3 ‐2.4% ‐1.0
Pennsylvania 276.3 263.4 270.1 273.0 276.6 280.0 274.1 277.6 264.9 246.0 256.6 ‐7.1% ‐19.7
Rhode Island 11.6 12.1 11.6 11.3 10.8 11.0 10.4 11.0 10.6 11.3 11.0 ‐4.8% ‐0.6
South Carolina 79.3 78.0 79.2 79.5 87.1 85.7 86.4 87.0 85.5 80.7 84.0 5.9% 4.7
South Dakota 14.1 13.4 13.7 13.6 13.7 13.2 13.3 13.9 15.1 14.9 15.1 7.3% 1.0
Tennessee 125.2 124.2 123.2 120.9 123.0 124.6 127.0 126.7 120.3 100.3 107.1 ‐14.5% ‐18.1
Texas 711.3 704.1 715.8 706.4 709.7 677.8 675.2 676.7 653.3 624.9 652.6 ‐8.3% ‐58.8
Utah 65.1 62.9 62.1 62.7 65.3 67.0 68.3 70.4 69.9 65.0 64.2 ‐1.3% ‐0.9
Vermont 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.5 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.1 6.3 6.0 ‐10.8% ‐0.7
Virginia 122.3 120.0 118.5 122.2 126.5 128.5 122.0 127.7 117.4 106.3 109.8 ‐10.2% ‐12.5
Washington 82.8 79.4 72.8 74.5 76.7 78.3 76.3 81.8 79.6 77.5 76.1 ‐8.1% ‐6.7
West Virginia 113.4 103.5 116.2 112.5 109.8 111.9 112.2 114.6 110.6 89.1 98.9 ‐12.7% ‐14.4
Wisconsin 107.5 105.5 106.7 104.3 107.1 110.5 102.7 104.7 105.7 96.7 99.2 ‐7.7% ‐8.3
Wyoming 62.7 63.0 61.7 63.4 63.4 62.8 63.7 66.1 66.8 63.7 64.9 3.5% 2.2
Total
1
5,879.9 5,772.4 5,810.0 5,857.5 5,968.8 6,000.4 5,921.6 6,029.0 5,842.9 5,441.8 5,631.3 ‐4.2% ‐248.6
Note:  The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state.
Source:  U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), State Energy Data System and EIA calculations made for this analysis.
the data series differences.
1
For the United States as a country see, EIA, Monthly Energy Review, Section 12: Environment.  Differing methodologies between the two data series causes
the total for all states to be slightly different from the national‐level estimate.  The amount varies no more than 0.5 percent.  See Appendix A for details on 
Change
 2000 to 2010 
 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  7 
Table 2. 2010 state energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel 
million metric tons carbon dioxide 
                      Shares 
State Coal Petroleum Natural Gas  Total Coal Petroleum Natural Gas
Alabama 67.8 36.0 29.0 132.7 51.1% 27.1% 21.8%
Alaska 1.4 19.6 17.8 38.7 3.5% 50.6% 45.9%
Arizona 43.2 34.8 17.9 95.9 45.1% 36.3% 18.6%
Arkansas 27.7 23.8 14.6 66.1 41.9% 36.0% 22.0%
California 5.2 241.3 123.4 369.8 1.4% 65.2% 33.4%
Colorado 36.1 33.5 26.8 96.5 37.4% 34.7% 27.8%
Connecticut 2.7 23.4 10.8 36.9 7.3% 63.4% 29.3%
Delaware 2.9 5.9 3.0 11.7 24.3% 50.4% 25.3%
District of Columbia 0.0 1.5 1.8 3.3 0.2% 45.2% 54.6%
Florida 60.2 123.2 62.6 246.0 24.5% 50.1% 25.5%
Georgia 72.5 72.5 28.7 173.7 41.7% 41.8% 16.5%
Hawaii 1.6 17.3 0.0 18.9 8.5% 91.4% 0.0%
Idaho 0.8 10.9 4.5 16.2 4.9% 67.2% 27.8%
Illinois 100.9 79.9 49.6 230.4 43.8% 34.7% 21.5%
Indiana 136.8 52.3 30.0 219.1 62.4% 23.9% 13.7%
Iowa 46.6 27.4 14.8 88.7 52.5% 30.9% 16.7%
Kansas 34.0 25.8 15.3 75.0 45.3% 34.3% 20.4%
Kentucky 95.3 42.8 12.6 150.7 63.2% 28.4% 8.4%
Louisiana 24.4 121.4 77.7 223.5 10.9% 54.3% 34.8%
Maine 0.2 14.0 4.3 18.5 1.2% 75.6% 23.2%
Maryland 25.1 34.1 11.3 70.5 35.6% 48.3% 16.1%
Massachusetts 7.9 41.4 23.6 73.0 10.8% 56.8% 32.4%
Michigan 70.7 54.9 40.2 165.9 42.6% 33.1% 24.2%
Minnesota 29.8 41.0 22.7 93.4 31.9% 43.9% 24.2%
Mississippi 14.0 28.2 23.2 65.5 21.4% 43.1% 35.5%
Missouri 75.7 45.1 15.0 135.7 55.8% 33.2% 11.0%
Montana 19.2 11.8 3.9 34.9 55.0% 33.9% 11.1%
Nebraska 24.0 15.0 9.0 48.0 50.1% 31.2% 18.7%
Nevada 7.6 16.3 14.2 38.1 19.9% 42.8% 37.3%
New Hampshire 3.2 10.5 3.3 17.0 18.8% 61.6% 19.6%
New Jersey 6.8 73.2 35.5 115.4 5.8% 63.4% 30.7%
New Mexico 25.3 16.5 13.1 54.8 46.1% 30.1% 23.8%
New York 15.8 92.2 64.9 172.8 9.1% 53.3% 37.6%
North Carolina 70.7 55.8 16.3 142.9 49.5% 39.1% 11.4%
North Dakota 38.6 10.5 3.4 52.5 73.5% 20.0% 6.5%
Ohio 127.9 78.3 42.9 249.1 51.4% 31.4% 17.2%
Oklahoma 32.7 33.8 37.0 103.4 31.6% 32.7% 35.8%
Oregon 4.0 23.4 12.9 40.3 10.0% 58.0% 32.0%
Pennsylvania 123.7 85.7 47.1 256.6 48.2% 33.4% 18.4%
Rhode Island 0.0 5.9 5.1 11.0 0.0% 53.9% 46.1%
South Carolina 38.2 33.9 11.9 84.0 45.5% 40.4% 14.2%
South Dakota 3.7 7.6 3.8 15.1 24.4% 50.5% 25.2%
Tennessee 48.6 44.8 13.7 107.1 45.4% 41.8% 12.8%
Texas 151.6 318.0 183.0 652.6 23.2% 48.7% 28.0%
Utah 33.6 18.5 12.1 64.2 52.3% 28.7% 18.9%
Vermont 0.0 5.6 0.5 6.0 0.0% 92.5% 7.5%
Virginia 32.6 56.7 20.4 109.8 29.7% 51.7% 18.6%
Washington 9.0 51.5 15.6 76.1 11.8% 67.7% 20.5%
West Virginia 80.0 12.5 6.4 98.9 80.8% 12.7% 6.5%
Wisconsin 43.3 36.0 20.0 99.2 43.6% 36.3% 20.1%
Wyoming 45.7 11.3 7.9 64.9 70.4% 17.4% 12.1%
Total
1
1,969.0 2,377.2 1,285.0 5,631.3 35.0% 42.2% 22.8%
Note:  The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state.
Source:  U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), State Energy Data System and EIA calculations made for this analysis.
1
For the United States as a country see, EIA, Monthly Energy Review, Section 12: Environment.  Differing methodologies between the two data series causes the total for all 
states to be slightly different from the national‐level estimate.  The amount  varies no more than 0.5 percent.  See Appendix A for details on the data series differences.
 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  8 
Table 3. 2010 state energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by sector 
million metric tons carbon dioxide
State Commercial Electric Power Residential Industrial Transportation Total
Alabama 2.1 76.7 2.8 17.7 33.4 132.7
Alaska 2.5 3.0 1.8 16.6 14.8 38.7
Arizona 2.4 54.4 2.3 4.8 32.1 95.9
Arkansas 2.6 32.3 2.3 8.6 20.3 66.1
California 15.9 43.5 28.9 67.5 214.0 369.8
Colorado 4.2 39.9 7.8 14.9 29.7 96.5
Connecticut 3.4 7.7 7.7 1.9 16.2 36.9
Delaware 0.8 4.2 1.1 1.1 4.5 11.7
District of Columbia 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.0 1.1 3.3
Florida 5.4 119.6 1.6 12.4 107.0 246.0
Georgia 4.0 79.1 8.3 14.5 67.8 173.7
Hawaii 0.3 7.6 0.1 1.7 9.3 18.9
Idaho 1.1 0.7 1.6 3.4 9.4 16.2
Illinois 11.5 94.0 23.7 33.9 67.2 230.4
Indiana 5.4 114.3 8.7 48.5 42.2 219.1
Iowa 4.1 40.6 4.5 18.0 21.6 88.7
Kansas 2.0 35.4 4.5 15.1 18.0 75.0
Kentucky 2.4 94.2 3.7 18.0 32.4 150.7
Louisiana 1.9 42.6 2.6 128.1 48.2 223.5
Maine 1.8 2.6 2.7 2.9 8.6 18.5
Maryland 5.0 24.9 6.6 4.2 29.8 70.5
Massachusetts 6.8 18.2 13.7 3.4 30.8 73.0
Michigan 9.4 70.4 19.0 17.4 49.7 165.9
Minnesota 5.7 29.3 8.3 17.3 32.7 93.4
Mississippi 1.5 26.4 2.0 10.4 25.2 65.5
Missouri 4.1 76.0 7.0 9.3 39.4 135.7
Montana 1.2 19.8 1.6 4.5 7.7 34.9
Nebraska 1.9 23.1 2.7 7.8 12.6 48.0
Nevada 1.8 16.8 2.4 2.7 14.3 38.1
New Hampshire 1.3 5.4 2.3 0.8 7.3 17.0
New Jersey 10.9 17.7 14.7 6.5 65.6 115.4
New Mexico 1.6 29.0 2.3 8.2 13.7 54.8
New York 25.2 38.1 31.7 9.1 68.7 172.8
North Carolina 5.2 72.2 6.5 10.1 48.9 142.9
North Dakota 0.9 29.5 1.0 14.2 6.9 52.5
Ohio 10.5 120.8 17.7 34.8 65.3 249.1
Oklahoma 2.7 47.4 4.1 20.7 28.5 103.4
Oregon 1.9 9.8 2.5 4.4 21.6 40.3
Pennsylvania 10.5 119.6 20.4 39.5 66.5 256.6
Rhode Island 0.9 3.1 2.3 0.5 4.2 11.0
South Carolina 1.8 40.9 2.3 7.6 31.6 84.0
South Dakota 0.8 3.5 1.1 3.3 6.5 15.1
Tennessee 3.9 43.3 4.9 13.7 41.4 107.1
Texas 12.2 220.4 13.7 211.4 194.9 652.6
Utah 2.4 34.8 3.8 7.0 16.2 64.2
Vermont 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.5 3.5 6.0
Virginia 5.0 34.3 7.2 12.6 50.7 109.8
Washington 3.8 13.1 5.1 12.0 42.1 76.1
West Virginia 1.6 74.3 1.9 9.6 11.6 98.9
Wisconsin 5.2 42.6 8.6 12.6 30.2 99.2
Wyoming 1.0 42.8 0.9 11.8 8.4 64.9
Total
1
222.3 2,240.0 337.1 957.8 1,874.1 5,631.3
Note:  The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state.
1
For the United States as a country see, EIA, Monthly Energy Review, Section 12: Environment.  Differing methodologies between the two data series causes the 
total for all states to be slightly different from the national‐level estimate.  The amount varies no more  than 0.5 percent.  See Appendix A for details on the 
data series differences.
Source:  U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), State Energy Data System and EIA calculations made for this analysis.  
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  9 
Table 4. 2010 state energy‐related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector 
percent of total 
Shares
State Commercial Electric Power  Residential Industrial Transportation
Alabama 1.6% 57.8% 2.1% 13.3% 25.1%
Alaska 6.4% 7.9% 4.6% 42.9% 38.2%
Arizona 2.5% 56.7% 2.4% 5.0% 33.4%
Arkansas 3.9% 48.9% 3.5% 13.1% 30.7%
California 4.3% 11.8% 7.8% 18.2% 57.9%
Colorado 4.3% 41.3% 8.1% 15.5% 30.8%
Connecticut 9.2% 20.8% 20.9% 5.2% 43.9%
Delaware 7.1% 36.0% 9.0% 9.1% 38.8%
District of Columbia 35.5% 5.6% 25.2% 1.0% 32.7%
Florida 2.2% 48.6% 0.7% 5.0% 43.5%
Georgia 2.3% 45.5% 4.8% 8.3% 39.0%
Hawaii 1.3% 40.1% 0.3% 9.0% 49.3%
Idaho 6.6% 4.1% 10.0% 21.0% 58.3%
Illinois 5.0% 40.8% 10.3% 14.7% 29.2%
Indiana 2.4% 52.2% 4.0% 22.1% 19.3%
Iowa 4.7% 45.7% 5.1% 20.2% 24.3%
Kansas 2.7% 47.2% 6.0% 20.1% 24.0%
Kentucky 1.6% 62.5% 2.5% 11.9% 21.5%
Louisiana 0.9% 19.1% 1.2% 57.3% 21.6%
Maine 9.6% 14.0% 14.6% 15.6% 46.3%
Maryland 7.0% 35.3% 9.4% 5.9% 42.3%
Massachusetts 9.3% 24.9% 18.8% 4.7% 42.3%
Michigan 5.6% 42.4% 11.4% 10.5% 30.0%
Minnesota 6.2% 31.4% 8.9% 18.6% 35.0%
Mississippi 2.4% 40.3% 3.0% 15.9% 38.4%
Missouri 3.0% 56.0% 5.1% 6.9% 29.0%
Montana 3.6% 56.8% 4.7% 13.0% 22.0%
Nebraska 3.9% 48.1% 5.6% 16.2% 26.2%
Nevada 4.8% 44.2% 6.2% 7.2% 37.6%
New Hampshire 7.5% 31.8% 13.5% 4.5% 42.7%
New Jersey 9.5% 15.4% 12.7% 5.6% 56.8%
New Mexico 2.9% 52.9% 4.2% 15.0% 25.0%
New York 14.6% 22.0% 18.3% 5.3% 39.8%
North Carolina 3.6% 50.6% 4.5% 7.1% 34.2%
North Dakota 1.7% 56.2% 1.9% 27.0% 13.1%
Ohio 4.2% 48.5% 7.1% 14.0% 26.2%
Oklahoma 2.7% 45.8% 4.0% 20.0% 27.6%
Oregon 4.7% 24.2% 6.3% 11.0% 53.8%
Pennsylvania 4.1% 46.6% 8.0% 15.4% 25.9%
Rhode Island 8.5% 28.0% 20.5% 4.7% 38.4%
South Carolina 2.1% 48.6% 2.7% 9.0% 37.6%
South Dakota 5.2% 23.2% 7.0% 22.0% 42.7%
Tennessee 3.6% 40.4% 4.5% 12.7% 38.7%
Texas 1.9% 33.8% 2.1% 32.4% 29.9%
Utah 3.8% 54.1% 5.9% 10.9% 25.3%
Note: The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System and EIA calculations made for this analysis.  
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  10 
Table 5. Per capita energy‐related carbon dioxide emissions by state (2000 ‐ 2010) 
metric tons carbon dioxide per person 
Change
2000 to 2010
State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent Absolute
Alabama 31.5 29.6 30.6 30.6 31.0 31.1 31.3 31.5 29.8 25.4 28.1 ‐11.0% ‐3.5
Alaska 70.6 68.5 67.9 67.2 70.9 72.0 67.8 64.9 57.6 54.6 54.6 ‐22.6% ‐16.0
Arizona 16.6 16.7 16.1 16.0 16.8 16.2 16.2 16.1 15.9 14.4 14.4 ‐13.7% ‐2.3
Arkansas 23.6 23.2 22.5 22.5 22.6 21.5 21.9 22.2 22.2 21.3 22.7 ‐3.7% ‐0.9
California 11.2 11.2 11.0 11.1 11.0 10.9 11.1 11.2 10.7 10.2 9.9 ‐11.5% ‐1.3
Colorado 19.6 20.9 20.2 19.8 20.3 20.5 20.3 20.5 19.8 18.7 18.9 ‐3.2% ‐0.6
Connecticut 12.5 12.1 11.6 12.2 12.8 12.6 11.7 11.6 10.9 10.4 10.5 ‐16.5% ‐2.1
Delaware 20.7 19.8 19.3 19.7 19.5 20.2 18.5 19.3 18.2 13.4 13.1 ‐36.4% ‐7.5
District of Columbia 7.5 7.1 7.2 6.8 6.9 6.7 5.5 5.8 5.3 5.3 5.4 ‐28.5% ‐2.1
Florida 14.9 14.6 14.5 14.4 14.8 14.7 14.4 14.1 13.0 12.2 13.2 ‐11.7% ‐1.7
Georgia 20.4 19.0 19.2 19.2 19.5 20.2 19.5 19.4 17.9 16.6 17.5 ‐14.1% ‐2.9
Hawaii 15.5 15.8 16.7 17.5 18.1 18.4 18.5 19.2 15.4 14.7 14.5 ‐6.1% ‐0.9
Idaho 12.0 11.7 11.1 10.4 11.2 11.0 10.8 10.9 10.3 9.9 10.4 ‐13.3% ‐1.6
Illinois 18.7 17.8 17.9 18.1 18.6 19.1 18.4 19.0 18.8 17.5 17.8 ‐4.6% ‐0.9
Indiana 39.1 37.3 37.7 38.3 38.3 37.9 37.3 37.0 36.2 32.5 34.0 ‐13.1% ‐5.1
Iowa 26.6 26.1 26.3 26.0 26.8 26.7 27.1 28.7 29.5 27.8 29.4 10.6% 2.8
Kansas 28.2 26.6 28.2 28.8 27.8 26.3 26.2 28.9 27.5 26.6 26.4 ‐6.5% ‐1.8
Kentucky 35.7 36.4 36.3 34.9 36.4 36.6 37.0 36.8 35.8 33.3 34.7 ‐2.8% ‐1.0
Louisiana 53.7 47.5 49.2 48.0 50.4 49.3 55.7 53.6 49.8 45.4 49.3 ‐8.1% ‐4.3
Maine 17.5 17.5 18.5 18.0 18.4 17.6 16.2 16.0 14.8 14.1 14.1 ‐19.3% ‐3.4
Maryland 14.6 14.5 14.3 14.6 14.8 15.0 13.8 13.9 13.2 12.6 12.3 ‐15.8% ‐2.3
Massachusetts 12.9 12.8 12.9 13.0 12.8 13.1 11.8 12.3 11.8 10.8 11.0 ‐14.8% ‐1.9
Michigan 19.3 18.8 18.7 18.3 18.6 18.8 17.7 18.0 17.5 16.5 16.7 ‐13.7% ‐2.6
Minnesota 19.8 19.0 19.4 20.0 19.8 19.9 19.3 19.4 19.2 17.7 17.7 ‐10.8% ‐2.1
Mississippi 21.3 24.3 21.7 22.0 22.5 21.8 22.6 23.2 21.8 20.5 22.1 3.9% 0.8
Missouri 22.4 23.2 23.2 24.2 24.3 24.6 24.2 23.8 23.2 22.0 22.6 0.9% 0.2
Montana 34.7 35.2 33.7 35.6 37.2 38.0 37.8 39.5 37.3 33.4 35.6 2.6% 0.9
Nebraska 24.1 24.8 24.5 24.8 24.7 24.8 25.1 25.2 26.1 26.1 26.5 9.8% 2.4
Nevada 22.4 21.3 19.1 19.4 20.5 20.7 16.6 16.3 15.8 15.1 14.3 ‐36.1% ‐8.1
New Hampshire 14.1 13.5 13.9 16.2 17.0 16.4 14.8 14.6 14.4 13.1 12.8 ‐8.9% ‐1.3
New Jersey 14.4 14.0 13.9 13.9 14.2 14.8 13.9 14.9 14.4 12.7 13.2 ‐8.0% ‐1.2
New Mexico 31.9 31.8 29.9 30.6 31.0 30.9 30.8 30.1 29.0 29.2 27.0 ‐15.4% ‐4.9
New York 11.1 10.8 10.5 10.9 11.1 10.9 9.9 10.3 9.8 9.0 8.8 ‐20.7% ‐2.3
North Carolina 18.3 17.4 17.4 17.2 17.4 17.6 16.6 17.0 16.1 14.2 15.1 ‐17.4% ‐3.2
North Dakota 79.3 81.3 81.1 80.5 77.9 82.6 79.8 82.5 82.8 79.6 80.4 1.3% 1.1
Ohio 23.2 22.3 22.8 23.4 22.9 23.5 22.9 23.3 22.7 20.6 21.6 ‐7.0% ‐1.6
Oklahoma 29.0 29.3 29.2 29.6 28.4 30.3 30.9 30.4 31.1 28.5 27.8 ‐4.1% ‐1.2
Oregon 12.0 11.7 11.1 11.1 11.4 11.3 11.0 11.8 11.4 10.8 10.4 ‐13.2% ‐1.6
Pennsylvania 22.5 21.4 21.9 22.1 22.3 22.6 22.0 22.2 21.1 19.5 20.3 ‐9.7% ‐2.2
Rhode Island 11.0 11.5 10.8 10.5 10.0 10.3 9.7 10.3 10.1 10.7 10.4 ‐5.3% ‐0.6
South Carolina 19.7 19.2 19.3 19.2 20.8 20.2 19.9 19.7 19.0 17.7 18.3 ‐7.3% ‐1.4
South Dakota 18.7 17.7 18.0 17.7 17.7 17.0 16.9 17.5 18.8 18.3 18.5 ‐1.1% ‐0.2
Tennessee 22.0 21.6 21.2 20.6 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.5 19.3 15.9 16.9 ‐23.0% ‐5.1
Texas 34.0 33.0 33.0 32.0 31.7 29.7 28.9 28.4 26.9 25.2 25.9 ‐23.8% ‐8.1
Utah 29.0 27.5 26.6 26.4 26.8 26.8 26.4 26.4 25.7 23.4 22.7 ‐21.8% ‐6.3
Vermont 11.1 10.8 10.3 10.6 11.4 11.0 10.8 10.6 9.9 10.2 9.7 ‐12.6% ‐1.4
Virginia 17.2 16.7 16.3 16.6 17.0 17.0 16.0 16.6 15.1 13.5 13.8 ‐19.8% ‐3.4
Washington 14.0 13.3 12.0 12.2 12.4 12.5 12.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.3 ‐19.4% ‐2.7
West Virginia 62.8 57.6 64.6 62.4 60.9 62.0 62.1 63.2 60.9 48.9 54.2 ‐13.6% ‐8.6
Wisconsin 20.0 19.5 19.6 19.0 19.4 19.9 18.4 18.7 18.8 17.1 17.5 ‐12.5% ‐2.5
Wyoming 127.0 127.8 124.2 127.1 126.1 124.1 124.2 126.4 125.5 117.0 118.5 ‐6.7% ‐8.5
Average all states 20.8 20.3 20.2 20.2 20.4 20.3 19.8 20.0 19.2 17.7 18.2 ‐12.6% ‐2.6
Source:  U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System and EIA calculations made for this analysis.
Note:  The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state.
 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  11 
Table 6. Energy‐intensity by state (2000 – 2010) 
thousand Btu per dollar of GDP 
Change
2000 to 2010
State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent Absolute
Alabama 18.3 17.1 17.4 17.2 16.9 16.4 16.3 16.2 15.9 15.3 16.0 ‐12.6% ‐2.3
Alaska 21.7 20.6 19.8 20.2 20.3 21.1 18.7 17.8 15.9 14.1 14.2 ‐34.5% ‐7.5
Arizona 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.3 7.6 7.2 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.6 ‐12.6% ‐1.1
Arkansas 14.4 14.2 14.0 13.6 13.1 12.2 12.3 12.6 12.5 12.4 13.0 ‐9.9% ‐1.4
California 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 ‐17.8% ‐0.9
Colorado 6.3 6.7 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.1 6.2 ‐1.8% ‐0.1
Connecticut 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.7 ‐19.9% ‐0.9
Delaware 5.0 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.3 3.3 3.3 ‐34.6% ‐1.7
District of Columbia 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 ‐39.4% ‐0.4
Florida 6.9 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 6.1 ‐11.4% ‐0.8
Georgia 8.5 8.1 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.0 7.9 7.6 7.8 8.1 ‐4.6% ‐0.4
Hawaii 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 ‐18.3% ‐1.0
Idaho 10.1 9.0 8.9 8.0 8.0 7.6 8.1 7.5 7.5 7.8 7.8 ‐23.0% ‐2.3
Illinois 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.6 ‐5.9% ‐0.5
Indiana 13.8 13.4 13.4 13.2 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.2 12.3 11.9 11.9 ‐14.1% ‐1.9
Iowa 11.1 11.0 11.0 10.5 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.9 11.6 11.9 12.4 10.9% 1.2
Kansas 12.0 11.4 11.7 11.7 11.5 10.4 10.2 10.9 10.4 10.6 10.6 ‐11.7% ‐1.4
Kentucky 14.5 14.9 14.7 14.1 14.5 14.4 14.2 14.2 13.8 13.5 13.5 ‐7.0% ‐1.0
Louisiana 26.0 22.6 23.2 21.3 21.4 20.1 21.6 22.6 21.5 18.9 20.4 ‐21.6% ‐5.6
Maine 11.9 11.6 11.8 11.0 11.1 11.2 10.3 10.3 10.3 9.4 9.5 ‐20.0% ‐2.4
Maryland 6.1 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.5 ‐26.1% ‐1.6
Massachusetts 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.7 ‐18.3% ‐0.8
Michigan 8.3 8.5 8.4 8.1 8.4 8.5 8.0 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.1 ‐1.8% ‐0.2
Minnesota 7.9 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.1 ‐9.8% ‐0.8
Mississippi 14.5 15.5 14.3 13.8 14.0 13.6 13.8 13.9 12.7 12.7 13.5 ‐6.8% ‐1.0
Missouri 8.7 9.0 8.9 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.8 8.8 1.7% 0.1
Montana 20.4 18.3 18.9 18.4 18.6 18.9 19.0 18.8 18.4 16.9 17.7 ‐13.1% ‐2.7
Nebraska 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.0 10.3 10.0 9.9 10.1 10.5 10.6 11.1 5.1% 0.5
Nevada 7.7 7.5 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.5 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.9 5.8 ‐24.7% ‐1.9
New Hampshire 7.5 7.3 7.4 8.3 8.6 8.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.3 7.5 ‐0.3% 0.0
New Jersey 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.1 ‐12.0% ‐0.7
New Mexico 13.8 13.4 12.4 12.4 11.9 12.1 12.1 12.2 11.9 12.1 11.0 ‐20.1% ‐2.8
New York 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 ‐24.7% ‐1.1
North Carolina 7.8 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.6 ‐16.4% ‐1.3
North Dakota 29.5 29.5 27.9 25.9 25.5 26.2 24.9 24.9 23.8 23.0 22.8 ‐22.5% ‐6.6
Ohio 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.2 8.5 ‐6.0% ‐0.5
Oklahoma 13.5 13.2 13.0 13.2 12.7 13.4 13.2 13.1 13.1 11.1 12.3 ‐9.0% ‐1.2
Oregon 9.0 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.4 7.1 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.2 ‐31.1% ‐2.8
Pennsylvania 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.2 9.2 9.0 8.7 8.8 ‐11.9% ‐1.2
Rhode Island 5.2 5.2 4.7 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.7 4.5 ‐14.1% ‐0.7
South Carolina 12.9 12.4 12.7 12.2 13.0 12.8 12.5 12.3 12.2 12.5 12.5 ‐3.6% ‐0.5
South Dakota 10.0 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.5 8.3 8.7 9.1 9.8 ‐1.6% ‐0.2
Tennessee 10.5 10.5 10.1 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.4 8.4 ‐19.4% ‐2.0
Texas 14.2 13.6 13.6 13.4 12.8 12.1 11.6 11.1 10.8 10.5 10.6 ‐25.5% ‐3.6
Utah 10.8 10.2 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.7 9.4 9.2 9.1 8.6 8.5 ‐21.3% ‐2.3
Vermont 9.1 8.2 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.6 8.1 7.5 7.6 8.1 7.5 ‐16.7% ‐1.5
Virginia 6.9 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.2 5.8 5.9 5.5 5.3 5.2 ‐25.5% ‐1.8
Washington 8.6 7.5 8.0 7.7 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.1 6.9 6.7 6.6 ‐23.1% ‐2.0
West Virginia 27.4 25.0 27.6 26.6 25.6 25.9 25.7 25.9 24.6 20.2 21.6 ‐21.2% ‐5.8
Wisconsin 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.6 7.6 ‐12.3% ‐1.1
Wyoming 33.4 31.3 30.2 30.6 29.5 29.7 27.5 28.0 26.9 23.1 24.6 ‐26.5% ‐8.8
Average all states 8.8 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.0 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.4 7.5 ‐15.2% ‐1.3
Source:  U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System and EIA calculations made for this analysis.
Note:  The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state.
 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  12 
Table 7. Carbon intensity of the energy supply by state (2000 – 2010) 
kilograms energy‐related carbon dioxide per million Btu 
Change
2000 to 2010
State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent Absolute
Alabama 57.9 57.6 57.3 57.0 56.3 57.2 57.5 58.1 55.9 51.3 53.9 ‐6.9% ‐4.0
Alaska 59.7 59.0 59.4 59.4 60.3 60.2 61.3 60.9 60.6 60.1 60.4 1.1% 0.6
Arizona 55.0 56.0 54.8 55.8 56.2 57.0 57.9 56.9 56.0 54.6 55.0 0.1% 0.1
Arkansas 56.8 56.3 54.4 54.6 55.1 55.4 55.2 54.8 55.6 54.3 55.5 ‐2.3% ‐1.3
California 52.8 54.0 53.9 53.4 53.6 53.0 53.1 54.1 54.2 53.7 52.9 0.2% 0.1
Colorado 69.1 68.8 69.4 68.4 68.9 68.5 68.6 67.5 66.5 65.8 66.5 ‐3.7% ‐2.6
Connecticut 49.9 51.8 50.9 50.8 50.4 51.4 49.4 49.3 49.6 47.2 47.2 ‐5.5% ‐2.8
Delaware 69.6 68.3 67.5 69.1 69.4 69.9 69.5 70.0 69.1 65.2 64.0 ‐8.1% ‐5.6
District of Columbia 61.0 62.1 61.3 60.7 61.2 61.6 60.1 59.6 59.2 59.0 59.2 ‐3.0% ‐1.8
Florida 63.3 63.8 62.7 63.1 63.3 63.5 62.2 62.3 60.0 58.6 59.9 ‐5.5% ‐3.5
Georgia 59.6 59.5 58.6 59.7 59.7 61.3 61.2 61.5 61.3 59.1 58.9 ‐1.2% ‐0.7
Hawaii 68.6 71.2 72.0 71.3 71.4 71.0 71.3 71.4 70.0 69.8 69.5 1.2% 0.8
Idaho 39.2 43.9 41.8 42.9 43.2 42.2 39.3 42.4 40.6 39.5 41.2 5.1% 2.0
Illinois 53.4 52.6 52.4 52.2 53.4 53.7 53.5 53.5 53.0 51.8 52.0 ‐2.5% ‐1.4
Indiana 77.6 78.0 77.4 77.1 77.5 77.4 78.1 77.6 76.8 75.5 75.1 ‐3.2% ‐2.5
Iowa 66.3 67.3 66.1 66.3 64.6 63.4 62.7 62.0 60.3 56.6 56.2 ‐15.1% ‐10.0
Kansas 64.8 63.7 65.1 65.0 63.9 65.7 64.9 64.6 64.0 63.0 62.2 ‐4.0% ‐2.6
Kentucky 77.6 77.5 76.6 76.2 76.3 76.3 77.4 77.3 77.6 76.7 77.2 ‐0.5% ‐0.4
Louisiana 54.9 54.7 54.6 55.4 55.4 56.0 56.6 56.3 57.0 56.1 56.2 2.3% 1.3
Maine 45.2 45.5 46.8 48.2 47.3 45.3 44.9 44.1 40.7 43.3 42.5 ‐6.0% ‐2.7
Maryland 60.7 62.6 62.7 61.9 61.8 62.2 61.5 60.9 60.1 59.1 59.2 ‐2.5% ‐1.5
Massachusetts 61.1 62.2 61.7 62.0 61.6 62.4 60.3 61.1 59.8 58.9 58.4 ‐4.4% ‐2.7
Michigan 62.5 61.4 59.9 60.5 60.0 59.6 60.4 60.2 59.5 60.7 59.0 ‐5.6% ‐3.5
Minnesota 58.6 58.8 59.0 60.4 59.4 58.5 58.1 57.4 56.3 54.8 53.9 ‐8.1% ‐4.7
Mississippi 54.9 58.8 56.7 57.9 57.7 56.8 56.9 57.1 57.6 55.3 55.6 1.2% 0.7
Missouri 70.5 70.9 71.1 71.6 71.8 71.7 71.6 71.1 70.2 69.8 70.6 0.3% 0.2
Montana 59.6 65.3 60.4 63.2 63.5 62.4 60.9 62.4 61.4 60.2 62.0 3.9% 2.4
Nebraska 59.9 60.9 59.2 61.2 58.7 60.2 59.7 56.9 57.2 57.7 54.1 ‐9.7% ‐5.8
Nevada 67.2 67.2 66.4 66.8 66.7 66.5 61.3 61.7 61.2 59.7 59.2 ‐11.9% ‐8.0
New Hampshire 47.7 47.6 47.6 49.1 48.1 47.2 46.9 44.8 44.9 43.9 41.5 ‐13.0% ‐6.2
New Jersey 53.5 53.2 52.7 53.9 54.9 54.7 53.5 53.8 53.7 51.2 52.0 ‐2.9% ‐1.5
New Mexico 71.9 72.5 72.1 72.8 72.5 71.9 71.2 69.7 69.1 69.9 68.4 ‐4.9% ‐3.6
New York 52.8 52.5 51.7 52.9 52.7 52.4 50.4 50.8 49.3 47.8 47.8 ‐9.4% ‐5.0
North Carolina 59.5 59.6 59.2 57.6 59.0 59.5 59.2 60.5 58.9 56.4 57.2 ‐3.8% ‐2.3
North Dakota 81.2 81.3 81.5 82.0 80.8 81.2 80.6 80.3 79.1 77.0 73.6 ‐9.3% ‐7.6
Ohio 68.0 69.0 70.3 70.9 69.2 70.0 69.8 69.9 69.0 68.6 68.7 1.1% 0.7
Oklahoma 67.3 67.1 67.5 67.5 65.8 65.9 66.0 64.5 64.8 64.3 63.2 ‐6.1% ‐4.1
Oregon 37.9 41.3 38.3 39.0 39.1 40.3 37.4 40.2 39.3 38.6 39.1 3.0% 1.1
Pennsylvania 61.0 60.4 60.6 60.6 60.1 60.7 60.6 60.1 58.9 57.2 57.5 ‐5.7% ‐3.5
Rhode Island 58.1 59.2 59.9 60.3 60.2 60.3 58.9 58.9 55.7 56.4 56.1 ‐3.4% ‐2.0
South Carolina 46.9 47.7 46.3 46.9 48.2 47.1 48.0 47.8 47.9 45.8 46.4 ‐1.0% ‐0.5
South Dakota 52.6 57.5 54.6 52.9 53.0 50.9 49.6 50.4 49.2 45.3 42.4 ‐19.2% ‐10.1
Tennessee 60.4 59.1 58.8 58.2 57.7 58.0 60.3 60.0 59.2 54.4 55.5 ‐8.0% ‐4.9
Texas 57.3 57.7 57.4 57.6 57.1 57.5 57.1 56.9 56.6 56.0 55.7 ‐2.9% ‐1.6
Utah 75.6 76.3 76.5 75.8 76.6 76.3 75.3 75.0 74.5 74.0 73.5 ‐2.8% ‐2.1
Vermont 37.3 39.3 38.4 38.1 40.7 39.3 35.9 37.9 34.6 34.0 34.5 ‐7.6% ‐2.8
Virginia 59.1 60.4 60.1 60.1 58.9 58.5 58.1 58.6 57.3 55.1 55.8 ‐5.6% ‐3.3
Washington 37.0 41.3 35.3 37.1 37.8 38.3 35.6 37.7 36.9 37.7 37.4 1.0% 0.4
West Virginia 83.4 82.8 83.4 83.7 83.2 83.1 83.0 83.5 82.9 80.6 81.7 ‐2.0% ‐1.7
Wisconsin 62.0 61.7 61.9 61.1 62.1 61.9 60.4 60.3 60.2 58.7 58.7 ‐5.3% ‐3.3
Wyoming 81.1 81.3 81.2 81.0 81.4 80.7 80.7 79.7 79.2 77.6 76.8 ‐5.4% ‐4.3
Average all states 59.5 60.1 59.5 59.8 59.7 59.9 59.5 59.5 58.9 57.6 57.6 ‐3.2% ‐1.9
Source:  U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System and EIA calculations made for this analysis.
Note:  The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state.
 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  13 
Table 8. Carbon intensity of the economy by state (2000 – 2010) 
metric tons energy‐related carbon dioxide per million dollars of GDP 
Change
2000 to 2010
State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Percent Absolute
Alabama 1,058.7 986.0 997.7 980.5 950.1 936.4 935.7 938.5 889.0 785.5 861.3 ‐18.6% ‐197.4
Alaska 1,298.3 1,216.1 1,175.5 1,199.3 1,223.9 1,270.7 1,148.5 1,084.2 961.1 850.3 859.7 ‐33.8% ‐438.6
Arizona 479.6 475.0 460.5 446.2 465.3 433.7 418.4 416.7 426.9 409.9 419.8 ‐12.5% ‐59.8
Arkansas 817.9 798.1 758.7 741.3 722.0 676.9 680.3 691.9 694.0 671.4 720.0 ‐12.0% ‐97.9
California 259.3 262.0 256.3 251.5 241.3 229.9 227.4 227.4 219.1 216.4 213.5 ‐17.6% ‐45.8
Colorado 434.0 459.9 444.6 438.6 444.7 438.7 432.2 432.1 417.0 403.8 410.3 ‐5.5% ‐23.7
Connecticut 230.8 222.6 217.2 228.6 228.4 223.0 200.5 192.0 186.1 184.2 174.7 ‐24.3% ‐56.1
Delaware 346.8 320.4 324.2 318.3 305.2 309.8 286.3 301.3 295.0 218.3 208.6 ‐39.9% ‐138.2
District of Columbia 61.5 55.3 54.9 50.1 49.5 47.4 38.0 39.6 35.6 36.6 36.1 ‐41.2% ‐25.3
Florida 436.0 423.0 414.2 401.7 401.5 383.6 367.3 361.7 348.2 342.5 365.3 ‐16.2% ‐70.7
Georgia 509.4 479.7 488.7 488.3 491.2 506.4 490.3 488.0 465.5 458.5 479.9 ‐5.8% ‐29.5
Hawaii 385.4 398.6 413.8 417.7 416.8 407.9 398.1 407.5 328.0 321.7 318.7 ‐17.3% ‐66.6
Idaho 395.2 394.7 370.9 344.4 347.5 322.8 318.7 317.4 304.9 309.7 319.6 ‐19.1% ‐75.6
Illinois 432.1 414.0 416.3 412.7 416.0 424.9 401.3 409.4 412.0 403.7 396.3 ‐8.3% ‐35.8
Indiana 1,073.3 1,047.8 1,032.8 1,018.1 996.2 988.0 970.1 943.9 945.5 897.4 892.5 ‐16.8% ‐180.7
Iowa 738.4 742.4 727.5 693.7 667.1 656.2 661.0 673.4 700.5 675.2 695.1 ‐5.9% ‐43.3
Kansas 776.9 723.3 764.8 763.4 736.0 684.7 662.9 703.8 668.7 666.3 658.1 ‐15.3% ‐118.8
Kentucky 1,127.4 1,153.1 1,125.0 1,078.0 1,110.8 1,099.3 1,095.7 1,096.9 1,074.1 1,036.2 1,042.2 ‐7.6% ‐85.2
Louisiana 1,427.7 1,234.8 1,265.3 1,182.3 1,186.5 1,124.3 1,223.5 1,271.5 1,224.1 1,061.6 1,145.0 ‐19.8% ‐282.6
Maine 536.2 527.9 550.2 529.5 524.1 507.2 461.0 452.8 418.0 407.5 403.0 ‐24.8% ‐133.1
Maryland 369.6 356.8 345.7 348.6 342.0 338.2 307.0 304.3 289.2 278.9 266.2 ‐28.0% ‐103.4
Massachusetts 272.8 266.0 268.4 267.3 258.5 260.7 232.8 239.4 229.0 215.4 213.3 ‐21.8% ‐59.5
Michigan 518.8 520.2 503.8 489.2 501.4 504.4 484.4 492.0 496.2 502.0 481.0 ‐7.3% ‐37.8
Minnesota 462.7 445.1 446.9 448.7 429.3 426.8 414.8 420.7 415.4 396.2 383.9 ‐17.0% ‐78.8
Mississippi 797.5 913.8 807.6 798.4 806.2 775.6 786.9 791.5 733.4 699.9 751.9 ‐5.7% ‐45.6
Missouri 612.4 641.2 633.9 652.6 651.6 659.9 652.3 642.3 623.5 617.4 624.6 2.0% 12.2
Montana 1,215.8 1,195.7 1,140.6 1,163.8 1,180.6 1,181.1 1,158.3 1,172.0 1,129.8 1,015.9 1,097.6 ‐9.7% ‐118.1
Nebraska 634.8 647.5 634.6 614.2 605.8 599.6 592.2 577.5 600.9 610.8 602.2 ‐5.1% ‐32.5
Nevada 514.3 501.3 453.8 451.6 454.6 434.1 347.0 340.5 344.0 355.1 341.2 ‐33.7% ‐173.1
New Hampshire 358.3 347.5 352.1 404.9 415.2 396.5 356.4 351.0 347.6 322.6 311.0 ‐13.2% ‐47.3
New Jersey 308.0 294.9 291.7 288.4 289.4 296.8 272.9 288.2 278.7 254.4 263.1 ‐14.6% ‐44.9
New Mexico 991.4 967.4 896.4 904.8 864.4 872.5 864.2 849.5 823.4 847.4 753.1 ‐24.0% ‐238.4
New York 244.9 230.7 225.0 235.0 232.3 219.1 192.1 195.5 187.4 179.7 167.1 ‐31.8% ‐77.8
North Carolina 466.8 446.2 445.1 441.5 441.1 430.1 397.9 406.8 396.1 368.7 375.3 ‐19.6% ‐91.5
North Dakota 2,393.4 2,401.1 2,270.2 2,126.3 2,062.2 2,125.1 2,009.6 2,001.5 1,886.3 1,768.3 1,680.8 ‐29.8% ‐712.6
Ohio 615.2 605.3 605.8 616.2 593.5 606.4 596.9 606.2 598.9 565.3 584.5 ‐5.0% ‐30.7
Oklahoma 907.2 884.2 881.1 887.6 832.4 886.0 870.5 846.2 849.0 713.2 775.0 ‐14.6% ‐132.2
Oregon 340.2 338.6 310.6 304.3 290.9 286.2 255.4 269.1 262.7 259.7 241.5 ‐29.0% ‐98.7
Pennsylvania 610.7 580.8 582.6 578.5 577.2 580.6 559.9 555.5 529.3 500.0 507.1 ‐17.0% ‐103.6
Rhode Island 301.5 305.1 279.0 261.1 242.5 249.9 230.6 246.7 243.0 262.5 250.2 ‐17.0% ‐51.3
South Carolina 606.5 590.2 589.9 574.2 625.7 604.0 600.0 588.1 582.3 573.8 579.0 ‐4.5% ‐27.6
South Dakota 525.3 486.0 462.6 446.7 443.0 418.3 419.6 419.4 430.2 413.1 417.4 ‐20.5% ‐107.9
Tennessee 632.0 620.1 596.5 572.8 560.3 554.9 550.6 550.5 523.3 457.3 468.3 ‐25.9% ‐163.8
Texas 815.2 786.3 781.1 769.4 732.8 698.1 663.6 632.5 612.9 586.0 589.9 ‐27.6% ‐225.3
Utah 817.3 776.1 759.4 753.2 761.1 738.0 705.7 689.3 678.9 634.7 624.8 ‐23.6% ‐192.5
Vermont 338.1 322.8 303.0 302.5 313.5 299.6 291.2 285.3 263.2 276.0 260.4 ‐23.0% ‐77.7
Virginia 410.0 385.8 375.9 374.4 371.9 360.0 335.5 348.0 317.6 289.4 288.4 ‐29.7% ‐121.6
Washington 319.5 311.1 282.7 284.7 288.4 280.3 262.4 267.1 255.8 253.4 248.3 ‐22.3% ‐71.3
West Virginia 2,288.4 2,072.3 2,297.9 2,223.7 2,130.3 2,154.1 2,128.5 2,158.1 2,035.7 1,624.9 1,767.2 ‐22.8% ‐521.2
Wisconsin 539.8 525.6 521.8 498.9 498.0 504.6 461.2 464.5 471.8 448.2 448.4 ‐16.9% ‐91.4
Wyoming 2,710.4 2,544.1 2,448.1 2,474.1 2,396.8 2,393.0 2,219.6 2,230.2 2,129.6 1,794.6 1,886.0 ‐30.4% ‐824.4
Average all states 524.0 508.0 502.6 496.1 488.7 477.9 459.2 458.7 446.0 425.9 430.0 ‐17.9% ‐94.0
Source:  U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System and EIA calculations made for this analysis.
Note:  The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state.
  
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  14 
Table 9. Net electricity trade index and primary electricity source for selected states (2000 – 2010) 
Primary 
Source
Least CO2 per capita
New York 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 Nuclear
Idaho 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 Hydroelectric
Vermont 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.5 Nuclear
California 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Natural Gas
Connecticut 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 Nuclear
Rhode Island 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 Natural Gas
Oregon 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Hydroelectric
Massachusetts 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Natural Gas
Washington 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 Hydroelectric
Florida 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Natural Gas
Most CO2 per capita
Oklahoma 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 Natural Gas
New Mexico 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 Coal
Indiana 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 Coal
Montana 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 2.0 Coal
Kentucky 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Coal
Louisiana 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Natural Gas
West Virginia 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.3 Coal
Alaska 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 Natural Gas
North Dakota 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 Coal
Wyoming 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 Coal
1990 through 2010 (Million kilowatthours)
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
Note:  The District of Columbia is included in the data tables, but not in the analysis as it is not a state.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Electricity Profiles, Table 10. Supply and Disposition of Electricity, 
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Less than 1.0 indicates a net importer of electricity.
2010
Greater than 1.0 indicates a net exporter of electricity.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
 
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  15 
Appendix A. Comparison of fuel detail for the State Energy Data System and the 
Annual and Monthly Energy Review data systems 
Energy Source State Energy Data System Annual/Monthly Energy Review
Consumption Sector Category Fuel Detail Fuel Detail
Residential  Coal Coal Coal
Residential  Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas
Residential  Petroleum Distillate Fuel Distillate Fuel
Residential  Petroleum Kerosene Kerosene
Residential  Petroleum LPG LPG
Commercial Coal Coal Coal
Commercial Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas
Commercial Petroleum Distillate Fuel Distillate Fuel
Commercial Petroleum Kerosene Kerosene
Commercial Petroleum LPG LPG
Commercial Petroleum Motor Gasoline Motor Gasoline
Commercial Petroleum Residual Fuel Residual Fuel
Commercial Petroleum Not Available Pet Coke
Industrial Coal Coal Total Coal Total
Industrial Coal/Coke Not Available Coking coal
Industrial Coal Not Available Other Coal
Industrial Coal/Coke Not Available Net Coke Imports
Industrial Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas
Industrial Petroleum Asphalt and Road Oil Asphalt and Road Oil
Industrial Petroleum Distillate Fuel Distillate Fuel
Industrial Petroleum Kerosene Kerosene
Industrial Petroleum LPG Total LPG Total
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Normal Butane/Butylene
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Ethane/Ethylene
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Isobutane/Isobutylene
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Propane/Propylene
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Butane/Propane Mix
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Ethane/Propane Mix
Industrial Petroleum Lubricants Lubricants
Industrial Petroleum Motor Gasoline Motor Gasoline
Industrial Petroleum Residual Fuel Residual Fuel
Industrial Petroleum Petroleum Products (Other) Detail as follows:
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Petroleum Coke
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Aviation Gas Blending Components
Industrial Petroleum Not Available
Motor Gasoline Blending 
Components
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Pentanes Plus
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Petrochemical Feedstocks
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Special Naphthas
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Still Gas
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Unfinished Oils
Industrial Petroleum Not Available Waxes  
May 2013 
U.S. Energy Information Administration   |   State‐Level Energy‐Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000‐2010  16 
Energy Source State Energy Data System Annual/Monthly Energy Review
Consumption Sector Category Fuel Detail Fuel Detail
Transportation  Coal Coal Coal
Transportation  Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas
Transportation  Petroleum Aviation Gasoline Aviation Gasoline
Transportation  Petroleum Distillate Fuel Distillate Fuel
Transportation  Petroleum Jet Fuel (Total) Jet Fuel (Total)
Transportation  Petroleum LPG LPG
Transportation  Petroleum Lubricants Lubricants
Transportation  Petroleum Motor Gasoline Motor Gasoline
Transportation  Petroleum Residual Fuel Residual Fuel
Electric Power  Coal Coal Coal
Electric Power  Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas
Electric Power  Petroleum
Distillate Fuel (inc. Kerosene Jet 
Fuel)
Distillate Fuel (inc. Kerosene Jet 
Fuel)
Electric Power  Petroleum Petroleum Coke Petroleum Coke
Electric Power  Petroleum Residual Fuel Residual Fuel
Electric Power  Renewables Not Available Geothermal
Electric Power  Waste Not Available Non‐biomass waste  

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

古兰经 后三本简注 _An Explanation Of The Last Tenth Of The Noble Quran Chinese
古兰经 后三本简注 _An Explanation Of The Last Tenth Of The Noble Quran Chinese古兰经 后三本简注 _An Explanation Of The Last Tenth Of The Noble Quran Chinese
古兰经 后三本简注 _An Explanation Of The Last Tenth Of The Noble Quran ChineseAbdullah Baspren
 
Education In the United States and Innovative Solutions
Education In the United States and Innovative SolutionsEducation In the United States and Innovative Solutions
Education In the United States and Innovative SolutionsRyan Schrenk
 
Pedoman Ringkas Bergambar Untuk Memahami Islam_ Indonesia
Pedoman Ringkas Bergambar Untuk Memahami Islam_ IndonesiaPedoman Ringkas Bergambar Untuk Memahami Islam_ Indonesia
Pedoman Ringkas Bergambar Untuk Memahami Islam_ IndonesiaAbdullah Baspren
 
Schrenk ed ready x li 2014
Schrenk ed ready x li 2014Schrenk ed ready x li 2014
Schrenk ed ready x li 2014Ryan Schrenk
 
When Training Smells
When Training SmellsWhen Training Smells
When Training Smellspquinn1
 
Dominant trends within enterprise systems
Dominant trends within enterprise systemsDominant trends within enterprise systems
Dominant trends within enterprise systemsJohan Magnusson
 
Dowirde Ra66inaande Nataande Ngam Faamde Lislaam Fulani
Dowirde Ra66inaande Nataande Ngam Faamde Lislaam  FulaniDowirde Ra66inaande Nataande Ngam Faamde Lislaam  Fulani
Dowirde Ra66inaande Nataande Ngam Faamde Lislaam FulaniAbdullah Baspren
 
ایک عیسائ کے ساتھ حقیقی اورعمدہ بات چیت Urdu
ایک عیسائ کے ساتھ حقیقی اورعمدہ بات چیت  Urduایک عیسائ کے ساتھ حقیقی اورعمدہ بات چیت  Urdu
ایک عیسائ کے ساتھ حقیقی اورعمدہ بات چیت UrduAbdullah Baspren
 
The Truth of the Life of the World ( Free Book & Movies )
The Truth of the Life of the World ( Free Book & Movies )The Truth of the Life of the World ( Free Book & Movies )
The Truth of the Life of the World ( Free Book & Movies )Abdullah Baspren
 
PMI® - a Daily Revenue and Productivity Management Solution for Hotel and Res...
PMI® - a Daily Revenue and Productivity Management Solution for Hotel and Res...PMI® - a Daily Revenue and Productivity Management Solution for Hotel and Res...
PMI® - a Daily Revenue and Productivity Management Solution for Hotel and Res...Laurence Massem
 
MCEL Connect Credit Recovery 2011
MCEL Connect Credit Recovery 2011MCEL Connect Credit Recovery 2011
MCEL Connect Credit Recovery 2011Ryan Schrenk
 
A Birthday Greeting for me!
A Birthday Greeting for me!A Birthday Greeting for me!
A Birthday Greeting for me!belladona_ph
 
Shetlands Amazing Coast Part One The Hams O Roe
Shetlands Amazing Coast Part One The  Hams O RoeShetlands Amazing Coast Part One The  Hams O Roe
Shetlands Amazing Coast Part One The Hams O RoeShetland Geotours
 
Snapshots Of Shetland Part One
Snapshots Of Shetland Part OneSnapshots Of Shetland Part One
Snapshots Of Shetland Part OneShetland Geotours
 
لماذا يحرم الإسلام الخنزير
لماذا يحرم الإسلام الخنزيرلماذا يحرم الإسلام الخنزير
لماذا يحرم الإسلام الخنزيرAbdullah Baspren
 

Andere mochten auch (20)

古兰经 后三本简注 _An Explanation Of The Last Tenth Of The Noble Quran Chinese
古兰经 后三本简注 _An Explanation Of The Last Tenth Of The Noble Quran Chinese古兰经 后三本简注 _An Explanation Of The Last Tenth Of The Noble Quran Chinese
古兰经 后三本简注 _An Explanation Of The Last Tenth Of The Noble Quran Chinese
 
Education In the United States and Innovative Solutions
Education In the United States and Innovative SolutionsEducation In the United States and Innovative Solutions
Education In the United States and Innovative Solutions
 
Pedoman Ringkas Bergambar Untuk Memahami Islam_ Indonesia
Pedoman Ringkas Bergambar Untuk Memahami Islam_ IndonesiaPedoman Ringkas Bergambar Untuk Memahami Islam_ Indonesia
Pedoman Ringkas Bergambar Untuk Memahami Islam_ Indonesia
 
Motos i parkour
Motos i parkourMotos i parkour
Motos i parkour
 
Schrenk ed ready x li 2014
Schrenk ed ready x li 2014Schrenk ed ready x li 2014
Schrenk ed ready x li 2014
 
When Training Smells
When Training SmellsWhen Training Smells
When Training Smells
 
Dominant trends within enterprise systems
Dominant trends within enterprise systemsDominant trends within enterprise systems
Dominant trends within enterprise systems
 
Dowirde Ra66inaande Nataande Ngam Faamde Lislaam Fulani
Dowirde Ra66inaande Nataande Ngam Faamde Lislaam  FulaniDowirde Ra66inaande Nataande Ngam Faamde Lislaam  Fulani
Dowirde Ra66inaande Nataande Ngam Faamde Lislaam Fulani
 
ایک عیسائ کے ساتھ حقیقی اورعمدہ بات چیت Urdu
ایک عیسائ کے ساتھ حقیقی اورعمدہ بات چیت  Urduایک عیسائ کے ساتھ حقیقی اورعمدہ بات چیت  Urdu
ایک عیسائ کے ساتھ حقیقی اورعمدہ بات چیت Urdu
 
The Truth of the Life of the World ( Free Book & Movies )
The Truth of the Life of the World ( Free Book & Movies )The Truth of the Life of the World ( Free Book & Movies )
The Truth of the Life of the World ( Free Book & Movies )
 
PMI® - a Daily Revenue and Productivity Management Solution for Hotel and Res...
PMI® - a Daily Revenue and Productivity Management Solution for Hotel and Res...PMI® - a Daily Revenue and Productivity Management Solution for Hotel and Res...
PMI® - a Daily Revenue and Productivity Management Solution for Hotel and Res...
 
relooking
relookingrelooking
relooking
 
MCEL Connect Credit Recovery 2011
MCEL Connect Credit Recovery 2011MCEL Connect Credit Recovery 2011
MCEL Connect Credit Recovery 2011
 
Biblia y misericordia
Biblia y misericordiaBiblia y misericordia
Biblia y misericordia
 
A Birthday Greeting for me!
A Birthday Greeting for me!A Birthday Greeting for me!
A Birthday Greeting for me!
 
Shetlands Amazing Coast Part One The Hams O Roe
Shetlands Amazing Coast Part One The  Hams O RoeShetlands Amazing Coast Part One The  Hams O Roe
Shetlands Amazing Coast Part One The Hams O Roe
 
Snapshots Of Shetland Part One
Snapshots Of Shetland Part OneSnapshots Of Shetland Part One
Snapshots Of Shetland Part One
 
لماذا يحرم الإسلام الخنزير
لماذا يحرم الإسلام الخنزيرلماذا يحرم الإسلام الخنزير
لماذا يحرم الإسلام الخنزير
 
Feb09 Region Presentation Low Res
Feb09 Region Presentation Low ResFeb09 Region Presentation Low Res
Feb09 Region Presentation Low Res
 
Islamqa Ug 9607
Islamqa Ug 9607Islamqa Ug 9607
Islamqa Ug 9607
 

Ähnlich wie State-Level Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000-2010

U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2015
U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2015U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2015
U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2015Marcellus Drilling News
 
International energy outlook 2010
International energy outlook 2010International energy outlook 2010
International energy outlook 2010kunal256
 
International Energy Outlook 2014
International Energy Outlook 2014International Energy Outlook 2014
International Energy Outlook 2014Dr Dev Kambhampati
 
Effect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy Markets
Effect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy MarketsEffect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy Markets
Effect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy MarketsMarcellus Drilling News
 
EIA Research into Economic Effects of Exporting LNG
EIA Research into Economic Effects of Exporting LNGEIA Research into Economic Effects of Exporting LNG
EIA Research into Economic Effects of Exporting LNGMarcellus Drilling News
 
Effect of LNG Exports on US ENERGY MARKETS
Effect of LNG Exports on US ENERGY MARKETSEffect of LNG Exports on US ENERGY MARKETS
Effect of LNG Exports on US ENERGY MARKETSDr Dev Kambhampati
 
EIA Natural Gas Monthly Report - October 2016
EIA Natural Gas Monthly Report - October 2016EIA Natural Gas Monthly Report - October 2016
EIA Natural Gas Monthly Report - October 2016Marcellus Drilling News
 
IEO2021_ChartLibrary_full.pptx
IEO2021_ChartLibrary_full.pptxIEO2021_ChartLibrary_full.pptx
IEO2021_ChartLibrary_full.pptxBeemkumarN
 
ESF_StudyReport_SAND2016-8109
ESF_StudyReport_SAND2016-8109ESF_StudyReport_SAND2016-8109
ESF_StudyReport_SAND2016-8109richardbaxter1
 
Guide tolowemissionsboilersdoeoit 1
Guide tolowemissionsboilersdoeoit 1Guide tolowemissionsboilersdoeoit 1
Guide tolowemissionsboilersdoeoit 1Jayakumar T
 
Energy Resilience Solutions for the Puerto Rico Grid
Energy Resilience Solutions for the Puerto Rico Grid Energy Resilience Solutions for the Puerto Rico Grid
Energy Resilience Solutions for the Puerto Rico Grid TanaMaeskm
 
Ilds annual report & plan 2018
Ilds annual report & plan 2018Ilds annual report & plan 2018
Ilds annual report & plan 2018Illinois workNet
 
Predicting and Monitoring PV Energy Production
Predicting  and Monitoring PV Energy ProductionPredicting  and Monitoring PV Energy Production
Predicting and Monitoring PV Energy ProductionLeonardo ENERGY
 
ADM 626 Module 6 Budget Analysis Rubric50 PointsREQUIREMENT.docx
ADM 626 Module 6 Budget Analysis Rubric50 PointsREQUIREMENT.docxADM 626 Module 6 Budget Analysis Rubric50 PointsREQUIREMENT.docx
ADM 626 Module 6 Budget Analysis Rubric50 PointsREQUIREMENT.docxcoubroughcosta
 
Demand Response For Power System Reliability
Demand Response For Power System ReliabilityDemand Response For Power System Reliability
Demand Response For Power System ReliabilityPower System Operation
 

Ähnlich wie State-Level Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000-2010 (17)

U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2015
U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2015U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2015
U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2015
 
International energy outlook 2010
International energy outlook 2010International energy outlook 2010
International energy outlook 2010
 
International Energy Outlook 2014
International Energy Outlook 2014International Energy Outlook 2014
International Energy Outlook 2014
 
Effect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy Markets
Effect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy MarketsEffect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy Markets
Effect of Increased Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Energy Markets
 
EIA Research into Economic Effects of Exporting LNG
EIA Research into Economic Effects of Exporting LNGEIA Research into Economic Effects of Exporting LNG
EIA Research into Economic Effects of Exporting LNG
 
Effect of LNG Exports on US ENERGY MARKETS
Effect of LNG Exports on US ENERGY MARKETSEffect of LNG Exports on US ENERGY MARKETS
Effect of LNG Exports on US ENERGY MARKETS
 
EIA Natural Gas Monthly Report - October 2016
EIA Natural Gas Monthly Report - October 2016EIA Natural Gas Monthly Report - October 2016
EIA Natural Gas Monthly Report - October 2016
 
IEO2021_ChartLibrary_full.pptx
IEO2021_ChartLibrary_full.pptxIEO2021_ChartLibrary_full.pptx
IEO2021_ChartLibrary_full.pptx
 
2019 Energy Outlook
2019 Energy Outlook2019 Energy Outlook
2019 Energy Outlook
 
ESF_StudyReport_SAND2016-8109
ESF_StudyReport_SAND2016-8109ESF_StudyReport_SAND2016-8109
ESF_StudyReport_SAND2016-8109
 
Guide tolowemissionsboilersdoeoit 1
Guide tolowemissionsboilersdoeoit 1Guide tolowemissionsboilersdoeoit 1
Guide tolowemissionsboilersdoeoit 1
 
Energy Resilience Solutions for the Puerto Rico Grid
Energy Resilience Solutions for the Puerto Rico Grid Energy Resilience Solutions for the Puerto Rico Grid
Energy Resilience Solutions for the Puerto Rico Grid
 
Ilds annual report & plan 2018
Ilds annual report & plan 2018Ilds annual report & plan 2018
Ilds annual report & plan 2018
 
Predicting and Monitoring PV Energy Production
Predicting  and Monitoring PV Energy ProductionPredicting  and Monitoring PV Energy Production
Predicting and Monitoring PV Energy Production
 
ADM 626 Module 6 Budget Analysis Rubric50 PointsREQUIREMENT.docx
ADM 626 Module 6 Budget Analysis Rubric50 PointsREQUIREMENT.docxADM 626 Module 6 Budget Analysis Rubric50 PointsREQUIREMENT.docx
ADM 626 Module 6 Budget Analysis Rubric50 PointsREQUIREMENT.docx
 
20% wind energy by 2030
20% wind energy by 203020% wind energy by 2030
20% wind energy by 2030
 
Demand Response For Power System Reliability
Demand Response For Power System ReliabilityDemand Response For Power System Reliability
Demand Response For Power System Reliability
 

Mehr von climate central

Main Drivers of 2014/15 Water Shortage in Southeast Brazil
Main Drivers of 2014/15 Water Shortage in Southeast BrazilMain Drivers of 2014/15 Water Shortage in Southeast Brazil
Main Drivers of 2014/15 Water Shortage in Southeast Brazilclimate central
 
Blackout: Extreme Weather, Climate Change and Power Outages
Blackout: Extreme Weather, Climate Change and Power OutagesBlackout: Extreme Weather, Climate Change and Power Outages
Blackout: Extreme Weather, Climate Change and Power Outagesclimate central
 
NOAA NESDIS Independent Review Team - Assessment update one year later
NOAA NESDIS Independent Review Team - Assessment update one year laterNOAA NESDIS Independent Review Team - Assessment update one year later
NOAA NESDIS Independent Review Team - Assessment update one year laterclimate central
 
Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective
Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate PerspectiveExplaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective
Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspectiveclimate central
 
Vast Costs of Arctic Change
Vast Costs of Arctic ChangeVast Costs of Arctic Change
Vast Costs of Arctic Changeclimate central
 
Climate Analysis - Chapter 2: A Stronger, More Resilient New York
Climate Analysis - Chapter 2: A Stronger, More Resilient New York Climate Analysis - Chapter 2: A Stronger, More Resilient New York
Climate Analysis - Chapter 2: A Stronger, More Resilient New York climate central
 
Natural Gas and Climate Change
Natural Gas and Climate ChangeNatural Gas and Climate Change
Natural Gas and Climate Changeclimate central
 
Monthly seasonal outlook
Monthly seasonal outlookMonthly seasonal outlook
Monthly seasonal outlookclimate central
 
Report - Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: Sewage
Report - Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: SewageReport - Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: Sewage
Report - Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: Sewageclimate central
 
An Interpretation of the Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought
An Interpretation of the  Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains DroughtAn Interpretation of the  Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought
An Interpretation of the Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Droughtclimate central
 
The Department of Commerce Budget in Brief - Fiscal Year 2014
The Department of Commerce Budget in Brief - Fiscal Year 2014The Department of Commerce Budget in Brief - Fiscal Year 2014
The Department of Commerce Budget in Brief - Fiscal Year 2014climate central
 
Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012
Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012
Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012climate central
 
Arctic Nautical Charting Plan
Arctic Nautical Charting PlanArctic Nautical Charting Plan
Arctic Nautical Charting Planclimate central
 
Preparing for the Rising Tide: Executive Summary
Preparing for the Rising Tide: Executive SummaryPreparing for the Rising Tide: Executive Summary
Preparing for the Rising Tide: Executive Summaryclimate central
 
Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensi...
Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensi...Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensi...
Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensi...climate central
 
Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation
Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and AdaptationClimate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation
Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptationclimate central
 
WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"
WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"
WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"climate central
 
National Climate Assessment (Draft) Report Executive Summary
National Climate Assessment (Draft) Report Executive SummaryNational Climate Assessment (Draft) Report Executive Summary
National Climate Assessment (Draft) Report Executive Summaryclimate central
 

Mehr von climate central (18)

Main Drivers of 2014/15 Water Shortage in Southeast Brazil
Main Drivers of 2014/15 Water Shortage in Southeast BrazilMain Drivers of 2014/15 Water Shortage in Southeast Brazil
Main Drivers of 2014/15 Water Shortage in Southeast Brazil
 
Blackout: Extreme Weather, Climate Change and Power Outages
Blackout: Extreme Weather, Climate Change and Power OutagesBlackout: Extreme Weather, Climate Change and Power Outages
Blackout: Extreme Weather, Climate Change and Power Outages
 
NOAA NESDIS Independent Review Team - Assessment update one year later
NOAA NESDIS Independent Review Team - Assessment update one year laterNOAA NESDIS Independent Review Team - Assessment update one year later
NOAA NESDIS Independent Review Team - Assessment update one year later
 
Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective
Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate PerspectiveExplaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective
Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective
 
Vast Costs of Arctic Change
Vast Costs of Arctic ChangeVast Costs of Arctic Change
Vast Costs of Arctic Change
 
Climate Analysis - Chapter 2: A Stronger, More Resilient New York
Climate Analysis - Chapter 2: A Stronger, More Resilient New York Climate Analysis - Chapter 2: A Stronger, More Resilient New York
Climate Analysis - Chapter 2: A Stronger, More Resilient New York
 
Natural Gas and Climate Change
Natural Gas and Climate ChangeNatural Gas and Climate Change
Natural Gas and Climate Change
 
Monthly seasonal outlook
Monthly seasonal outlookMonthly seasonal outlook
Monthly seasonal outlook
 
Report - Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: Sewage
Report - Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: SewageReport - Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: Sewage
Report - Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: Sewage
 
An Interpretation of the Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought
An Interpretation of the  Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains DroughtAn Interpretation of the  Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought
An Interpretation of the Origins of the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought
 
The Department of Commerce Budget in Brief - Fiscal Year 2014
The Department of Commerce Budget in Brief - Fiscal Year 2014The Department of Commerce Budget in Brief - Fiscal Year 2014
The Department of Commerce Budget in Brief - Fiscal Year 2014
 
Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012
Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012
Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012
 
Arctic Nautical Charting Plan
Arctic Nautical Charting PlanArctic Nautical Charting Plan
Arctic Nautical Charting Plan
 
Preparing for the Rising Tide: Executive Summary
Preparing for the Rising Tide: Executive SummaryPreparing for the Rising Tide: Executive Summary
Preparing for the Rising Tide: Executive Summary
 
Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensi...
Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensi...Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensi...
Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensi...
 
Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation
Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and AdaptationClimate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation
Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation
 
WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"
WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"
WRI Report: "Can The U.S. Get There From Here?"
 
National Climate Assessment (Draft) Report Executive Summary
National Climate Assessment (Draft) Report Executive SummaryNational Climate Assessment (Draft) Report Executive Summary
National Climate Assessment (Draft) Report Executive Summary
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 46 (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 46 (Gurgaon)Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 46 (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 46 (Gurgaon)Delhi Call girls
 
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 47 (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 47 (Gurgaon)Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 47 (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 47 (Gurgaon)Delhi Call girls
 
Nurturing Families, Empowering Lives: TDP's Vision for Family Welfare in Andh...
Nurturing Families, Empowering Lives: TDP's Vision for Family Welfare in Andh...Nurturing Families, Empowering Lives: TDP's Vision for Family Welfare in Andh...
Nurturing Families, Empowering Lives: TDP's Vision for Family Welfare in Andh...narsireddynannuri1
 
Lorenzo D'Emidio_Lavoro sullaNorth Korea .pptx
Lorenzo D'Emidio_Lavoro sullaNorth Korea .pptxLorenzo D'Emidio_Lavoro sullaNorth Korea .pptx
Lorenzo D'Emidio_Lavoro sullaNorth Korea .pptxlorenzodemidio01
 
China's soft power in 21st century .pptx
China's soft power in 21st century   .pptxChina's soft power in 21st century   .pptx
China's soft power in 21st century .pptxYasinAhmad20
 
Pakistan PMLN Election Manifesto 2024.pdf
Pakistan PMLN Election Manifesto 2024.pdfPakistan PMLN Election Manifesto 2024.pdf
Pakistan PMLN Election Manifesto 2024.pdfFahimUddin61
 
Verified Love Spells in Little Rock, AR (310) 882-6330 Get My Ex-Lover Back
Verified Love Spells in Little Rock, AR (310) 882-6330 Get My Ex-Lover BackVerified Love Spells in Little Rock, AR (310) 882-6330 Get My Ex-Lover Back
Verified Love Spells in Little Rock, AR (310) 882-6330 Get My Ex-Lover BackPsychicRuben LoveSpells
 
Gujarat-SEBCs.pdf pfpkoopapriorjfperjreie
Gujarat-SEBCs.pdf pfpkoopapriorjfperjreieGujarat-SEBCs.pdf pfpkoopapriorjfperjreie
Gujarat-SEBCs.pdf pfpkoopapriorjfperjreiebhavenpr
 
Transformative Leadership: N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP's Vision for Innovatio...
Transformative Leadership: N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP's Vision for Innovatio...Transformative Leadership: N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP's Vision for Innovatio...
Transformative Leadership: N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP's Vision for Innovatio...srinuseo15
 
04052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
04052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf04052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
04052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
 
KAHULUGAN AT KAHALAGAHAN NG GAWAING PANSIBIKO.pptx
KAHULUGAN AT KAHALAGAHAN NG GAWAING PANSIBIKO.pptxKAHULUGAN AT KAHALAGAHAN NG GAWAING PANSIBIKO.pptx
KAHULUGAN AT KAHALAGAHAN NG GAWAING PANSIBIKO.pptxjohnandrewcarlos
 
TDP As the Party of Hope For AP Youth Under N Chandrababu Naidu’s Leadership
TDP As the Party of Hope For AP Youth Under N Chandrababu Naidu’s LeadershipTDP As the Party of Hope For AP Youth Under N Chandrababu Naidu’s Leadership
TDP As the Party of Hope For AP Youth Under N Chandrababu Naidu’s Leadershipanjanibaddipudi1
 
Enjoy Night⚡Call Girls Iffco Chowk Gurgaon >༒8448380779 Escort Service
Enjoy Night⚡Call Girls Iffco Chowk Gurgaon >༒8448380779 Escort ServiceEnjoy Night⚡Call Girls Iffco Chowk Gurgaon >༒8448380779 Escort Service
Enjoy Night⚡Call Girls Iffco Chowk Gurgaon >༒8448380779 Escort ServiceDelhi Call girls
 
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Palam Vihar (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Palam Vihar (Gurgaon)Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Palam Vihar (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Palam Vihar (Gurgaon)Delhi Call girls
 
2024 04 03 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes FINAL.docx
2024 04 03 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes FINAL.docx2024 04 03 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes FINAL.docx
2024 04 03 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes FINAL.docxkfjstone13
 
BDSM⚡Call Girls in Sector 135 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
BDSM⚡Call Girls in Sector 135 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort ServiceBDSM⚡Call Girls in Sector 135 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
BDSM⚡Call Girls in Sector 135 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort ServiceDelhi Call girls
 
AI as Research Assistant: Upscaling Content Analysis to Identify Patterns of ...
AI as Research Assistant: Upscaling Content Analysis to Identify Patterns of ...AI as Research Assistant: Upscaling Content Analysis to Identify Patterns of ...
AI as Research Assistant: Upscaling Content Analysis to Identify Patterns of ...Axel Bruns
 
2024 03 13 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes_FINAL.docx
2024 03 13 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes_FINAL.docx2024 03 13 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes_FINAL.docx
2024 03 13 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes_FINAL.docxkfjstone13
 
Embed-4.pdf lkdiinlajeklhndklheduhuekjdh
Embed-4.pdf lkdiinlajeklhndklheduhuekjdhEmbed-4.pdf lkdiinlajeklhndklheduhuekjdh
Embed-4.pdf lkdiinlajeklhndklheduhuekjdhbhavenpr
 
Busty Desi⚡Call Girls in Sector 62 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
Busty Desi⚡Call Girls in Sector 62 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort ServiceBusty Desi⚡Call Girls in Sector 62 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
Busty Desi⚡Call Girls in Sector 62 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort ServiceDelhi Call girls
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 46 (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 46 (Gurgaon)Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 46 (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 46 (Gurgaon)
 
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 47 (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 47 (Gurgaon)Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 47 (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Gurgaon Sector 47 (Gurgaon)
 
Nurturing Families, Empowering Lives: TDP's Vision for Family Welfare in Andh...
Nurturing Families, Empowering Lives: TDP's Vision for Family Welfare in Andh...Nurturing Families, Empowering Lives: TDP's Vision for Family Welfare in Andh...
Nurturing Families, Empowering Lives: TDP's Vision for Family Welfare in Andh...
 
Lorenzo D'Emidio_Lavoro sullaNorth Korea .pptx
Lorenzo D'Emidio_Lavoro sullaNorth Korea .pptxLorenzo D'Emidio_Lavoro sullaNorth Korea .pptx
Lorenzo D'Emidio_Lavoro sullaNorth Korea .pptx
 
China's soft power in 21st century .pptx
China's soft power in 21st century   .pptxChina's soft power in 21st century   .pptx
China's soft power in 21st century .pptx
 
Pakistan PMLN Election Manifesto 2024.pdf
Pakistan PMLN Election Manifesto 2024.pdfPakistan PMLN Election Manifesto 2024.pdf
Pakistan PMLN Election Manifesto 2024.pdf
 
Verified Love Spells in Little Rock, AR (310) 882-6330 Get My Ex-Lover Back
Verified Love Spells in Little Rock, AR (310) 882-6330 Get My Ex-Lover BackVerified Love Spells in Little Rock, AR (310) 882-6330 Get My Ex-Lover Back
Verified Love Spells in Little Rock, AR (310) 882-6330 Get My Ex-Lover Back
 
Gujarat-SEBCs.pdf pfpkoopapriorjfperjreie
Gujarat-SEBCs.pdf pfpkoopapriorjfperjreieGujarat-SEBCs.pdf pfpkoopapriorjfperjreie
Gujarat-SEBCs.pdf pfpkoopapriorjfperjreie
 
Transformative Leadership: N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP's Vision for Innovatio...
Transformative Leadership: N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP's Vision for Innovatio...Transformative Leadership: N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP's Vision for Innovatio...
Transformative Leadership: N Chandrababu Naidu and TDP's Vision for Innovatio...
 
04052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
04052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf04052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
04052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
 
KAHULUGAN AT KAHALAGAHAN NG GAWAING PANSIBIKO.pptx
KAHULUGAN AT KAHALAGAHAN NG GAWAING PANSIBIKO.pptxKAHULUGAN AT KAHALAGAHAN NG GAWAING PANSIBIKO.pptx
KAHULUGAN AT KAHALAGAHAN NG GAWAING PANSIBIKO.pptx
 
TDP As the Party of Hope For AP Youth Under N Chandrababu Naidu’s Leadership
TDP As the Party of Hope For AP Youth Under N Chandrababu Naidu’s LeadershipTDP As the Party of Hope For AP Youth Under N Chandrababu Naidu’s Leadership
TDP As the Party of Hope For AP Youth Under N Chandrababu Naidu’s Leadership
 
Enjoy Night⚡Call Girls Iffco Chowk Gurgaon >༒8448380779 Escort Service
Enjoy Night⚡Call Girls Iffco Chowk Gurgaon >༒8448380779 Escort ServiceEnjoy Night⚡Call Girls Iffco Chowk Gurgaon >༒8448380779 Escort Service
Enjoy Night⚡Call Girls Iffco Chowk Gurgaon >༒8448380779 Escort Service
 
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Palam Vihar (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Palam Vihar (Gurgaon)Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Palam Vihar (Gurgaon)
Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Palam Vihar (Gurgaon)
 
2024 04 03 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes FINAL.docx
2024 04 03 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes FINAL.docx2024 04 03 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes FINAL.docx
2024 04 03 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes FINAL.docx
 
BDSM⚡Call Girls in Sector 135 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
BDSM⚡Call Girls in Sector 135 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort ServiceBDSM⚡Call Girls in Sector 135 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
BDSM⚡Call Girls in Sector 135 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
 
AI as Research Assistant: Upscaling Content Analysis to Identify Patterns of ...
AI as Research Assistant: Upscaling Content Analysis to Identify Patterns of ...AI as Research Assistant: Upscaling Content Analysis to Identify Patterns of ...
AI as Research Assistant: Upscaling Content Analysis to Identify Patterns of ...
 
2024 03 13 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes_FINAL.docx
2024 03 13 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes_FINAL.docx2024 03 13 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes_FINAL.docx
2024 03 13 AZ GOP LD4 Gen Meeting Minutes_FINAL.docx
 
Embed-4.pdf lkdiinlajeklhndklheduhuekjdh
Embed-4.pdf lkdiinlajeklhndklheduhuekjdhEmbed-4.pdf lkdiinlajeklhndklheduhuekjdh
Embed-4.pdf lkdiinlajeklhndklheduhuekjdh
 
Busty Desi⚡Call Girls in Sector 62 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
Busty Desi⚡Call Girls in Sector 62 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort ServiceBusty Desi⚡Call Girls in Sector 62 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
Busty Desi⚡Call Girls in Sector 62 Noida Escorts >༒8448380779 Escort Service
 

State-Level Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000-2010