It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Here’s Who To Blame For America’s Increased Contribution To Global Warming In 2013

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:37 PM
This is alarming, ATS. According to a report put out by where it lists countries to blame for excessive carbon footprint, the USA is on the list. Out of all the states, Texas is the biggest violator.

A new report released by the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday shows just how much large American industrial facilities including power plants, refineries, and chemical manufacturers contributed to global warming in 2013. The report answers the question of how carbon dioxide was emitted by these industries in 2013 compared to 2012, and the short answer is this: more.
Emissions of greenhouse gases from large industrial sources increased by 0.6 percent since 2012, according to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data, which is compiled from reports sent in by more than 8,000 emitters. The data does not represent total U.S. emissions, but it does represent greenhouse gas releases from the largest sources, making up about 50 percent of the country’s total.

A 0.6 increase in carbon emissions from 2012 to 2013 may not sound like a lot, but it amounts to an additional 13 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent put into the atmosphere. From an emissions standpoint, that’s the equivalent of adding 2.7 million cars to the road in 2013.

What's the answer, ATS? I was under the assumption that the US is creating less pollution nowadays, not more.

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:42 PM
They must have forgot to count texas in their figures.
It's such a little state it is easy to overlook.

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:50 PM
I found Texas....

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:59 PM
Easy solution, kick Texas out of the United States. Make them go it alone, make those freedom loving bastards see how it's really like to live without some politically biased government entity breathing down their necks!

Let them have their stupid guns, and jobs, and industry. We don't need that useless stuff!

We will have our minimum wage, solar panels, and progress. We don't need those fools.

But before you do it, let me book my flight to Texas.

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:06 PM
Flat screen tvs Take more power than the old ones. That juice has got to come from somewhere. Lol
I thought all of our new appliances were supposed to use less power but it don't sound like they are.
Light bulbs are fluorescent now, at least 100 watters.
So where is the reduction in carbon all the new green policies promised?

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:10 PM
Are there any state comparisons like "per square mile"?

or, "per capita"?

Those might tell a different story.

The story sounds more political than practical (can't imagine why or who would present such a thing by using a government agency).

per capita/state

State-Level Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2000-2011

edit on Oct-01-2014 by xuenchen because:

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:23 PM
Does this take the actual population into account? I say this because obviously if you have a larger state with more people, then you are going to have more vehicles. And then the rural populations, or those without public transportation, must also be considered. Some large cities will have smaller footprints simply because there are more people walking and using public transportation, a place like NYC for instance, which is large but doesn't have a huge footprint. Even in the larger Texas cities most people are driving. Having spent a lot of time in both Houston and Austin, I know that the majority of people I knew owned and drove a car as opposed to using what public transportation is available. A subway system would cut down on a lot of driving in some of these large and growing cities.

Then you also have a lot of traffic coming in from Mexico in the southern part of the state, so there is a lot more traffic than there would be in states located north of Texas. And I don't know if Mexico has any emission standards for their vehicles, or if they check the emissions on your vehicle when you enter the country. Somehow I HIGHLY doubt it. So those are just a few of the things to consider. Having been all over the United States, I can confidently say I prefer Texas. Sometimes you do have to put up with political extremists, and even though there should rarely be the opportunity to hear about the political affiliations of a stranger, some people have no common sense or tact. Meaning that you occasionally hear someone making public their views in the most inappropriate places. But other than that, which is not all that common anyway, the people are friendly and I love the state. I do not foresee moving because of the carbon footprint. If we really want to reduce emissions we could bomb India. Just a thought. Only kidding of course, although not a very tasteful joke I admit.
edit on 10/1/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 09:38 AM
Meanwhile in China.....

top topics


log in