U.S. State CO2 Emissions: Top 10 Polluters From Power Plants In 2010 (PHOTOS)

Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants rose in 2010 by over 5% -- this is the biggest annual increase since the EPA started tracking emissions in 1995. In part, this increase can be explained by warmer weather and a recovering economy. But the statistics are worrisome. 2010 was one of the hottest years ever recorded, and while in 2010 coal-fired boilers accounted for 45% of U.S. electricity, they were reportedly responsible for 81% of CO2 emissions from electricity generation.

A recent study released by The Environmental Integrity Project has listed the 10 states whose power plants emitted the most CO2 in 2010, based on EPA data. Did your state manage to dodge the list?

1 of 10

#10. Missouri

1 of 11

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

Missouri power plants emitted 83,279,658 tons of CO2 emissions in 2010, rising from 75,774,756 tons in 2009.

Fracking Photos

Anteater Birth Leaves Zoo Staff Puzzled

Celebrity Vegetarians

gadgets/slideshows/249424/slide_249424_1491554_small.jpg

Fascinating Volcanos

Harper Collins' Climate Change Photos

10 Surprising Senators Who Voted Against Clean Water This Week

Missouri power plants emitted 83,279,658 tons of CO2 emissions in 2010, rising from 75,774,756 tons in 2009.

comments(1914)

Total comments: 1914 | Post a Comment

1 of 11

This State

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Predictable Complete Surprise

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

5 Most Shocking States

loading...

5 Most Shocking States

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[texasrodeoqueen]

07:36 PM on 04/09/2011

I knew TX was No1. It's so insane not to use solar and wind, especially in TX

[T4Obama]

03:14 AM on 03/19/2011

The really silly thing is that Ohio passed a law to incentivize the power companies to produce electricity through means which produce less CO2 than burning coal. What did the power companies do instead of investing in wind or solar or hydroelectric power? They cut down entire forests in south central Ohio and burned the wood. And then raised my electric rates. Genius.

[Andres64]

10:41 PM on 02/26/2011

"Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants rose in 2010 by over 5% -- this is the biggest annual increase since the EPA started tracking emissions in 1995."

No wonder the GOPTBaggers want to get rid of the EPA.

[ChicagoBob]

10:39 PM on 02/26/2011

I knew it was Texas before I read the story.

There is so much to say about Texas, its people and its politics, but if you can't say something nice...

[iceage7]

09:34 PM on 02/26/2011

I wonder if there are any republicans living next to these poer plants..Not in my back yard

[Boca Chica]

07:32 PM on 02/26/2011

Some states give incentives to build in their state, it brings jobs. But let us look at it another way, electricity is being used by SOMEONE and the power has to be produced SOMEWHERE. Right?
If you don't want pollution in the air, then build something that won't pollute the air... or turn your lights off. I've done a little research on nuclear power on the internet, and most of what is available is simplistic or only makes half an argument. The problems can be corrected ( the french did it) and I think we can too.

[dragonmaster]

06:32 AM on 02/26/2011

All of these states have a few things in common. Some are in the south, which has lax laws regarding the burning of fossil fuels (they deny global warming exists)

OR

They are energy producing states - mainly coal, or in the case of Texas, oil.

[longshotplayer]

12:25 PM on 02/25/2011

Zelman states that global warming can be attributed to the increase in carbon emmissions from power plants, where were these plants during the time dinasours roamed. Dinasour remains where found in alaska and the north pole. Hey when I raise your rent for higher energy costs don't blame me.

[JohnBoy32]

05:31 PM on 02/26/2011

If you follow just some detail about the way our CO2 is "forcing" the worlds ecosystems, I don't believe you'd be taking this standpoint.

The world goes through warming and cooling cycles and self-corrects. That's not in question. It's quite likely there were dinasours in Alaska way back when. Much of that is driven by the earth's trajectory around the sun and its lean angle, warming or cooling the earth in cycles over millions of years.

That's not the issue. The issue is that we're in the "wrong" part of those cycles to be getting warming like this. The warming is also kept artifically lower due to airborne dust air from smokestacks. If smokestack emissions stopped tomorrow, you'd see the earth jump ~1 degree (as just after 9/11 when no planes were flying). All the CO2 emitted to date will force the world to warm now for the next 1500 years!

The CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere is "forcing" the earth warmer, thousands of times any natural speed. This speed not allow the earth to "correct" that imbalance. If we continue emissions we'll literally push the earth past the point of no-return, and it will get gradually hotter until the seas have evaporated (mankind will be long gone before that).

Think about it. Why not read up about this in detail to see what's really going on?

There are some charts and presentations at James Hansen's website (ww w . columbia.edu/~jeh1/) and elswhere.

[longshotplayer]

02:02 PM on 02/27/2011

Well you could read dissputed dissertations on theories that you cite, some of which are from, just to name a few from thousands, Antonnio Zichichi, Hendrik Tennekes and Khabibullo Abdusamatov all of which contradict the qualitative analyses that the purveyors of such theories on global warming behold to be true.

[danielboone]

02:49 AM on 02/25/2011

Who gives a rats butt who the top polluters are? Not Me! There is more important things to worry about. Like DOMA!!!!!!

[ranchero42]

03:11 AM on 02/25/2011

Thank you for that 'Blazing Saddles' moment!! I always loved that line about 'pure frontier gibberish - not sure how the REAL Dan'l Boone would feel about the juxtaposition?

[G52]

12:50 AM on 02/25/2011

Hmmmmm.....Might have known who was #1 [The Right to Pollute State]

[The Wizard]

09:22 PM on 02/24/2011

I believe if the well esteemed reknowned and respected scientist do their jobs
more commonly, commonly I mean as to break it down in laman terms for those who cannot comprehend the facts or interpret the data as well as those who do speak the lingo....

[Cashman7323]

12:02 PM on 02/25/2011

what's a laman?

[DorianCorso]

09:28 PM on 02/25/2011

http://www.laman.com/

[Nicholas Tallman]

08:39 PM on 02/24/2011

i find it funny...and some of the most beautiful states...i wonder how that can be...o WAIT now i get it carbon dioxide (CO2) is what the plants need to live and in turn they put out...o wait what is that vital gas that ALL humans need to live...O YEA!! OXYGEN...global warming is a crack pot old scam just to get al gore rich...some of the cleanist air is in Texas and many people know that...wait to go Texas keep it up you are currently the most beautiful and the best state economically it looks like they are doing something right...i call this a win!

[Hell Yeah Im Uhmercan]

06:44 PM on 02/24/2011

To all y'all libruls that look down on the great Lonestar State:

Hell yeah! Texas is #1!!!

[minidriver]

08:48 PM on 02/24/2011

and apparently #2 as well, both bodily function-wise and describing the environment.

[The Joe-ster]

05:17 PM on 02/24/2011

ooooooh! so thats why President Bush had a speech impediment...

[A Nal Douche]

05:00 PM on 02/24/2011

Yet they do not list the U.S. State Top 10 Polluters From Power Users In 2010? wanna guess where a lot of the power goes??