Energy Consumption- We're #5

[quadratdackel]

A big reason I follow architecture/urban planning is its connection to energy consumption/climate change, especially in the transportation sector. (We can't get people to stop driving without urban areas that can support it.) So, in that spirit, here's the ranking of US states by per capita energy consumption. The big surprise is seeing Rhode Island on top instead of New York. The top of the list is:

RI, NY, CA, HI, MA, CT, FL, AZ, NH, MD, VT

In the spirit of friendly competition, I'd like to see Mass try making the top of the list.

Strangely, we're #19 in gasoline consumption. I expected this to be dominated by the transit-heavy northeast, since gasoline is mainly used for transportation. I was wrong, although DC & NY took #1 & #2 by huge margins as expected. The top of the list is:

DC, NY, HI, NV, AZ, PA, IL, CA, OR, WA, WV, CT, CO, MD, WI, OH, RI, ID, MA

Finally, we're #8 in electricity consumption:

CA, RI, NY, HI, NH, AK, VT, MA, NJ, CT

I'm curious: How big of an issue is energy/climate to everyone else on the forum?

 

[bosdevelopment]

The solution is clear : Impose heavy energy taxes and further restrictions on the state of rhode island so as to make sure everyone moves out of all of New England, not just Metro Boston.

Damn rhode islanders using all that energy

 

[castevens]

I find Rhode Islanders such as myself suck the energy out of everything, not just wall sockets. It's just how we are

 

[chumbolly]

The solution is clear : Impose heavy energy taxes and further restrictions on the state of rhode island so as to make sure everyone moves out of all of New England, not just Metro Boston.

Damn rhode islanders using all that energy

BosDevelopment, Rhode Island uses the least energy per capita, not the most. But you are on to something. We should tax the crap out of carbon emissions. Putting aside all the smart reasons to have such a tax and focusing instead on your provincial argument, since New England does not have any sources of carbon-based fuels, and because as a region New England uses much less energy per person than the rest of the country, and because we have lots of smart people inventing--and businesses developing--renewable energy sources, New England would benefit disproportionately from a carbon tax. So yeah, tax the shit out of carbon, but contrary to your thinking, we'd win, not lose.

 

[bosdevelopment]

The solution is clear : Impose heavy energy taxes and further restrictions on the state of rhode island so as to make sure everyone moves out of all of New England, not just Metro Boston.

Damn rhode islanders using all that energy

BosDevelopment, Rhode Island uses the least energy per capita, not the most. But you are on to something. We should tax the crap out of carbon emissions. Putting aside all the smart reasons to have such a tax and focusing instead on your provincial argument, since New England does not have any sources of carbon-based fuels, and because as a region New England uses much less energy per person than the rest of the country, and because we have lots of smart people inventing--and businesses developing--renewable energy sources, New England would benefit disproportionately from a carbon tax. So yeah, tax the shit out of carbon, but contrary to your thinking, we'd win, not lose.

ah. i didn't click on the link.

So the solution is clearly to overburden native alaskans. God damn eskimoes burning all that carbon.

 

[Scott]

Rhode Island uses the least energy per capita, not the most.

oops!

 

[chumbolly]

I used to work with a bunch of Alaskans. They don't have a state income tax. Matter of fact, if you're Alsakan, you get a check from the state every year thanks to all the oil revenues the state reaps. Typically, it's a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. So, call it even steven.