November 25, 2015

Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions dropped in nearly every state over the last 8 years.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), per capita CO2 emissions from energy-related activities dropped in 47 states and the District of Columbia between 2005 and 2013. In terms of total emissions, 42 states saw reductions over the same time period.

By Melissa C. Lott

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), per capita CO2 emissions from energy-related activities dropped in 47 states and the District of Columbia between 2005 and 2013. The other three - Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota – saw small increases in per capita emissions. Unsurprisingly, average U.S. per capita emissions also declined over these 8 years.

In terms of total emissions, 42 states saw reductions over the same time period, says the EIA. The top emitting states in 2013 include Texas and California. Both sit somewhat lower on the list in terms of per capita emissions – with California currently taking the 4^th lowest per capita emissions slot.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

All told, the top ten emitting states represent half of the total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.

According to the EIA, these data represent CO2 emissions released at the location where fossil fuels are consumed. In the electricity sector, this means that emissions are attributed to electricity production (and not consumption).

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American