#CPACQ
At today's CPAP conference in DC -- where the only real question is how far Republican candidates can suck up to the rabid conservative base -- Rick Perry, Republican governor of Texas, tried to establish some environmental creds, according to the partisan blog Daily Caller:He made the argument that though Texas added 5.6 million people to its population and 1.4 million jobs in the last seven years, they have also managed to be environmentally friendly.Not so fast.
“During that same period of time, using thoughtful and incentive-based regulations, we reduced our carbon monoxide levels, which by the way, is a real pollutant,” he said. “Nitrous Oxide levels were down by 16.2 percent, ozone levels down by 15 percent, and our CO2 levels were down–whether you believe in this whole concept of climate change or not–CO2 levels were down by 9 percent in that state.”
The EIA has state-by-state CO2 emissions, up to 2011. Over the seven year period 2004-2011, Texas CO2 emissions went from 718.8 Mt CO2 to 655.5 Gt CO2, a decrease of 8.8%. That rounds to 9%, as Perry said
But during that time, the US as a whole went from 5.97 CO2/yr (2004) to 5.44 CO2/yr (2011), a decrease of ... 8.8%.
So Perry's grand accomplishment was (drum roll....) to remain average.
Lord help us if this man ever gets elected President.
3 comments:
You appear to only consider the co2 figure as relevant. Rather a myopic way to look it it. Population changes and employment figures certainly have a bearing on co2 output.
From what I've read, US population is certainly not increasing at the same rate as in Texas. Neither are the employment figures.
If you could point to one state which is doing better when population and employment increases are also taken into consideration I might consider Texas is doing less than exceedingly well in respect to co2 reduction. Until then it looks to me like they are probably one of the top states in respect to co2 reduction.
I have very little positive to say about Governor Oops, but if TX had average CO2 declines while taking large net numbers of people from the sane states, then that's still something of an accomplishment.
I've thought that ideally, international trade agreements should assign per capita GHG emissions, but let those emissions get reassigned with migration. I wouldn't apply this in-country but the idea should be acknowledged, maybe.
OT - thanks for highlighting the post we have up on Willie Soon at Rabett's. I wasn't sure anyone really noticed it.
Post a Comment