Ten Least Green States

Is that per capita?

 

this makes no sense. i read that vermont has the most polluted waterways?

 

The titles are confusing. The HuffPo piece is the "10 worst", meaning #41-50 when you click through to the original source.

 

Glad to say CO's not on the list. Didn't think it would be though. the rust belt is pretty skanky. Glad I don't live there.

 

Sweet. CO in the top 10. We're also by far the largest state in the top 10... which is, in and of itself, an interesting statistic for a variety of reasons.

 

Yikes! I've lived in 4 of the 10 (PA, NJ, LA, OH) and pretty darn close to WV. I would say NJ may not belong, it largely solved its historic waste generation/importation problems, but air quality does suffer just from being downstream of PA, OH, KY and WV. But hey, no one would believe this list if they did not put NJ high up there.

 

You failed to mention the fact that Bush actually lived in a green home while the nations biggest hypocrite Gore lived in a energy sucking mansion.

 

and you failed to mention that W killed 80MPG car coalition in 2001, just before prices on oil started going up. Gore on other hand created the 80MPG while leaving in his energy sucking home.

RIP 80MPG coalition was 50% funded by US gov grants, and 50% by private industry.

 

snopes.com: A Tale of Two Houses

After the ruckus gore, was shamed into making his home more energy efficient. Bush has moved to a less efficient mansion in dallas, I'm sure it still uses less power than al's house.

80 MPG car was a horrible failure. Remember they kept Toyota out? Then MITI helped fund the prius and insight. They forced industry into the super car program, instead of raising CAFE standards. Something that is finally happening.

W was an awful president, but killing a bad wasteful program wasn't the problem.

Texas has some of the cleanest energy and dirtiest polluters in the country. When you look at the refining, plastics, and aluminum on the gulf coast, I'm surprised Texas is not higher than 7th. Txu had some of the dirtiest coal, which is finally getting some scrubbers. Texas also leads in wind and is up there on research for synfuels.

 

[citation needed]

 

beg to differ.

Program did not cost much at all, it was killed for political reasons. If you look at W environmental record (or rather Dick Cheney since he was running the show), it is horrible with one notable exception: the draconian tier 2 bin 5 diesel emissions standard.

There is no reason by tier 2 bin 5 is so strict; it did nothing to reduce real life emissions as commercial trucks excused from it. It targeted non-existing class of US small diesel passenger cars and was passed for one reason: to keep them out of US of A.

If you put one and another, and W/Cheney involvement in oil, war in Iraq which was planned back from early 1998, there is no doubt that energy crisis and decades of oil companies profits were planned, and killing 80MPG car was a part of the plan. Mission accomplished!

 

What car company would manufacture & sell a government developed 80 mpg car? GM, Ford, Chrysler or some other car company?

 

Wow! I got to give it to you. If Cheney had not needed to increase gas use to invade Iraq we would be all driving 80mpg cars.

Let's see what cars you are talking about.

GM Precept - Feature - Car and Driver

Only $1.7B for cars no one will ever drive. It must have been politics to not throw more money at this laudable goal.

Now what would you pay. I mean everyone wants to drive Han Solo's toaster.

But surely those guys at car and driver aren't scientists, they don't know what cars will sell. Let's check another more positive source.


Super car in 2004? Unlikely, panel says | Deseret News

If you like the volt at $41K you would probably want to pay $100K for a less comfortable 3 cyclinder turbo diesel that is only a smidge slower. Sure that would have sold great versus the iconic prius. For less money they could have just payed Toyota for the patents

hmm so that republican group the union of concerned scientist must have been shilling for Cheney. If only they believed. Or if clinton/gore had raised cafe standards, removed oil subsidies, and removed the suv loophole progress instead of backsliding might have taken place. Finally at the end of bush cafe standards were raised and progress was made on the suv loophole. This was 2007 but should have been 1993. Obama has made more progress, but has been failing getting oil subsidies removed.

No one would ever sell it. They would have demo vehicles like the honda clarity that do no good for anyone. It was a boondoggle that wasted money and time. VW and audi are still working on an 80mpg prototype and are getting closer. They still aren't there even with all the new tech in 2011. They can get the mileage but can not get costs low enough to sell.

 

yeap, tiny peanuts comparing to 2001 tax cut. Absolutely nothing if you compare to Iraq costs

You may not remember, but back in 1999 gas was under $1 per gallon. I have somewhere a picture at gas station in Georgia, paying 67 cents per gallon on Shell station off I-95. Oil companies were suffering, cutting maintenance costs, etc just to post quarterly profits.

The Cheney and Co plan was to
a) secure oil resources;
b) ensure that distribution market will expand;
c) deregulate energy market and drive prices up.

Well,
a) turned out to be a disaster (any reason to discuss this, right?)
b) and c) was a great success.

The b) part of the plan was kill/delay high efficiency vehicle program and prevent diesels, and how many small diesel cars can you buy? Honda had to scrap their 93MPG diesel Accord for US b/c they could not meet the regulations.

Toyota was invited to 80MPG coalition; they turned it down b/c it required them to share patents. They were protecting their know-how, end of story.

 

I remember being in Macon GA from my Gran's funeral in march of '99 and seeing petrol for $0.77/gal. That's the cheapest I can remember it being, which is madness considering I was 26 at the time.

 

Your saying because the government wastes money, when a bad program comes along they should continue to waste the money. The program cost almost $2B and produced nothing of value. Alternatively toyota built the prius, the car the program should have gotten to. GM and Chrysler unwisely produced two-mode from the remnants. Ford wisely looked at the prius and licensed its technology as a better approach. Bush followed gore's blunder and instead of raising cafe standards moved the budget to fuel cells, the technology CARB and GM told him would work. In 2006 Bush got a clue and started supporting BEV and PHEV research that is now paying off. In 2007 CAFE standards were finally raised. These actions are what the Gore program delayed.

That was the perfect time to institute a rising gas tax. Instead during clinton oil consumption rose 20%. Under bush it rose and fell to get back to around its starting level. Both presidents failed, but if I was grading Clinton/Gore got an F for actually increasing america's addiction to oil. Bush gets a D for not improving things. Oil companies were doing fine under Clinton.

I thought cheney was all about invading iraq, but the "super car" or "super fraud" to keep america adicted to oil wasn't cancelled until after the terrorist attack. Why would cheney need to kill the program when the excuese and rising gas prices were already there. I'm not sure where you got your plan, but yes invading iraq drove oil prices up as well as a weak dollar. I don't know where deregulation falls into your conspiracy.
The b) part of the plan was kill/delay high efficiency vehicle program and prevent diesels, and how many small diesel cars can you buy? Honda had to scrap their 93MPG diesel Accord for US b/c they could not meet the regulations.

That is just incorrect. Toyota asked to join and was rejected. It then began a program that the prius came out of. Toyota did have patents but it was willing to share. Gore wanted this to be corporate welfare for American companies.

 

bad program says who? wasteful comparing to what? Iraq? tax breaks? x100 of 233 million in tax breaks oil companies get? Enron? no-contest contracts awarded to Halliburton? Wall street bail out?

What you are saying that if government program wastes money, then the "bad" program should be axed, unless this program fits our political agenda.

If it is a non-government entity, then free market will decide its fate, and when it fails government will come and bail it out. It would be surely cheaper at that point.

Surely at the end it cost less to bail out Chrysler and GM when they got painted into corner by rising gas prices then it was to continue with 80MPG program?