An Inconvenient Conundrum...

Mr.Atos

On the one hand, the Associated Press seemed determined to bang on Texas over the weekend. 'Hayseed' central afterall, having given the nation President Bush, it must be home to equally worse environmental calamity, right?

The Associated Press analyzed state-by-state emissions of carbon dioxide from
2003, the latest U.S. Energy Department numbers available. The review shows
startling differences in states' contribution to climate change.

The biggest reason? The burning of high-carbon coal to produce cheap electricity.
_Wyoming's coal-fired power plants produce more carbon dioxide in just eight
hours than the power generators of more populous Vermont do in a year.

Is it any wonder, Vermont intends to secede? They go on,

Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next
two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have
twice Texas' population.

In fact, California purchases a significant amount of energy from other States, like Oregon. Yet while the State does have one of the lowest per capita energy consumption rates in the country, that can be attributed in no small part to mild weather that reduces energy demand for heating and cooling year round. Nevertheless, California imports more electricity than any other State.

Pennsylvania, is a net energy producer as a leader in nuclear energy production. But don't let's forget Three Mile Island. And while we're at it, note that Pennsylvania profits from the production of virtually all of the Nations’ supply of anthracite coal. While that is the cleanest-burning form of coal, the State is one of the top coal-consuming States in the Nationwith bituminous coal dominating the State’s power generation market. Next to lignite, that's the dirtiest form of coal.

What the story fails to mention is that Texas is also a net energy producing State, consuming what it produces and distributing the rest to other States. Texas leads the nation in oil and natural gas production, as well as overall total electricity production. And while it also leads the nation in overall energy consumption, its economy is far more sustainable, given its balance of production and consumption than California.

On the other hand, the Associated Press reported previously that Texas now leads the nation in wind energy production, perhaps the cleanest form of renewable energy produced,

DALLAS — Long known as a top oil- and natural gas-producing state, Texas has gained new energy acclaim by becoming the nation's top producer of wind energy.

Texas capacity stands at 2,370 megawatts, enough to power 600,000 average-sized homes a year, according to a midyear report released Tuesday by the American Wind Energy Association.

That puts Texas slightly ahead of California, the nation's leader since 1981. California has 2,323 megawatts of capacity. The total U.S. capacity is 9,971 megawatts. So far this year, Texas has added 375 megawatts, or 46% of the total 822 megawatts brought online nationwide.

Last year, wind energy generation grew 35% nationwide, adding 2,431 megawatts, but that fell short of the projected 2,500.

The wind association believes it can add 3,000 megawatts nationwide this year, even if that means another 2,178 megawatts by year's end.

This, I'd say is a bit of an inconvenient conundrum... Texas being both a leading contributor and a leading corrector of so-called global warming. Not bad for a bunch of redneck Capitalist hayseeds who are allowing the market to drive improvements. You see while California has implimented many of the most stringent energy policies anywhere in the United States, much to the detriment (in money and freedom) of its citizens, it remains one of the leading consumers of energy and creators of filth. Its relative energy production continues to fall, yielding a unbalanced condition of dependency and vulnerablity. So, while Texas may be a leading producer of carbon dioxide, the State nevertheless is well on its way to a cleaner, independent economy of lower environmental impact and genuine sustainablity... and greater per capita joy. Which is more 'Green?'

But that's not really the goal of the purveyors of the Global Warming meme, anyway... is it?