Idaho, the Environmentalist's State?

From Sunday's Idaho Statesman:

Idaho is at the bottom of the list of states for carbon dioxide emissions — only this time last is good.

Idahoans account for less than 23,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions annually, according to an Associated Press analysis released today.

The state's leadership in low emissions of the major greenhouse gas scientists blame for global warming is tied to power production. Idaho relies more than any other state on nonpolluting hydroelectric power.

The AP analysis is based on Department of Energy numbers from 2003. The review shows startling differences in states' contribution to climate change.

The biggest reason? The burning of high-carbon coal to produce cheap electricity.

• Wyoming's coal-fired power plants produce more carbon dioxide in just eight hours than the power generators of morepopulous Vermont do in a year.

• Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice Texas' population.

• In sparsely populated Alaska, the carbon dioxide produced per person by all the flying and driving is six times the per capita amount generated by travelers in New York state.

Our low carbon footprint is because of hydroelectricity--so I would hope the environmentalists would stop their campaign to breach the dams that make all that electricity.

Of course, Democrats and other environmentalists are doing their best to stop wind turbine generation of electricity as well:

The wind-energy industry is objecting to federal legislation that seeks to protect birds and bats from wind turbines, arguing the measure would place unnecessary burdens on clean-energy projects.

The Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act, a wide-ranging energy bill introduced this month, would create new standards for the placement and construction of turbines and mandate post-construction monitoring of their effects on wildlife.

...

The legislation, introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, calls for development of the regulations within six months of passage of the bill. But wind energy industry officials say they are skeptical that federal regulators will move that quickly.

Supporters of the bill said careful regulation is important with a relatively new industry.

"I think, from our perspective, setting reasonable federal standards for the development of new energy resources makes sense," said Charles Vinick, president and chief executive officer of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the chief opponent of the Cape Wind proposal.

Simon over at Classical Values points out that the claimed reason--protecting birds--makes no sense:

Human-caused bird deaths

Domestic cats: Hundreds of millions a year

* Striking high-tension lines: 130 million - 1 billion a year
* Striking buildings: 97 million to 976 million a year
* Cars: 80 million a year
* Toxic chemicals: 72 million
* Striking communications towers: 4 to 50 million a year
* Wind turbines: 20,000 to 37,000

Source: National Research Council

Oh yes, Ted Kennedy is part of the campaign to block wind power.

UPDATE: A reader points out:

As a former Vermonter I feel compelled to point out a few things.

1) Vermont has a nuclear power plant that produces much of its power.
2) The bulk of the rest of the power for Vermont is hydroelectric power coming from Quebec at exorbitant rates.
3) Vermont has extremely high energy costs to promote conservation.

So while Wyoming is a net exporter of power, Vermont is a net importer of power and other than the nuclear plant has effectively no power generation (there are a few very small hydroelectric plants, but many of those are being torn down to "save the fish.") And the rates there have a very strong dampening effect on businesses; right now I'm paying much less than half what I did in Vermont 6 years ago even in the heavily taxed and regulated state of Minnesota.