More than 100 economists band together to fight climate change skeptics
Release Date: 05-21-2009

PORTLAND, Ore. – In recent times, junk economics has replaced junk science as the cause of inaction on climate change issues. The case for inaction is no longer argued on the grounds of skepticism about the science; instead, some claim that it is too expensive to take more than token action on key initiatives.

In response to this trend, more than 100 of the country’s leading economists have banded together to launch, an effort dedicated to using the weight of economic evidence to support effective public policy and business responses to the climate crisis. is inspired by the success of, a longtime effort by climate scientists to dispel the junk science popularized by climate skeptics. officially launches today with a new report from several of its members on interstate differences in per capita greenhouse gas emissions. The report explains why some states have much lower emissions than others and helps clarify the potential regional impacts of policies, such as cap-and-trade, which will impose a price on energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. The authors of the report are Dr. Elizabeth Stanton and Dr. Frank Ackerman of Tufts University (both are also affiliated with the Stockholm Environment Institute), and Dr. Kristen Sheeran, the director of Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3 Network). is a project of E3 Network, and both efforts receive fiscal support from Portland, Ore.-based Ecotrust.

The key conclusions from the new report:

  • Greenhouse gas emissions, after correcting for interstate trade in electricity, vary widely from state to state. The highest-emission states have more than six times the per capita emissions of the lowest.
  • A few states stand out as having energy-related emissions around half the national average of 21 metric tons of CO2 each year. Those states, in order: Vermont; New York and Oregon (tie for second); Rhode Island, California, and Washington (tie for third). All of these states provide a U.S. lifestyle with European levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions in these six states are roughly comparable to those of Belgium, Demark, Germany, Ireland, Japan, and the United Kingdom. These states demonstrate that it is possible to lower emissions in the U.S. without compromising quality of life.
  • On the other end of the spectrum, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Louisiana all emit more than twice the national per capita average (for energy-related emissions). Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia are not far behind.
  • In transportation and residential emissions, the same six states — New York, Oregon, California, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont (tie) — together with the District of Columbia, have remarkably low emissions per capita, far lower than the national average of 11 mT CO2. Information about how these states have achieved these emissions profiles should be circulated widely across the country for other states to emulate. This is an important first step down the road toward reaching national emissions goals.
  • Some of the differences between states are based on factors states can’t control; for instance, the coldest states have high heating needs. But some of the differences between states can be readily addressed by climate and energy policies. The extent of public transportation in urban areas varies widely from state to state; the level of gasoline taxes differs as well. The reliance on coal for electricity generation has a large impact on residential emissions. Efficiency measures are important as well.

The complete report is available for download at or

About, a project of Ecotrust and Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3 Network), is a one-stop resource for discovering the real economics of climate change, an emerging body of scholarship that is consistent with the urgency of the problem as seen from a climate science perspective. is a group of economists scattered across the U.S. who are developing and applying economic arguments for active protection of human health and the natural environment. The effort emerged out of a series of conversations between academics, non-profit professionals, and foundation officers about the need for creating a stronger link between economics and the environmental movement, for developing an alternative to the anti-regulatory anti-reform bias that dominates public policy debates, and for creating a network of economists actively working for environmental protection. Fiscal sponsorship for and the E3 Network is provided by Ecotrust. More on the Web at or

About Ecotrust
Over nearly 20 years, Ecotrust has converted $60 million in grants into more than $300 million in capital for local people, businesses, and organizations from Alaska to California. Ecotrust’s many innovations include co-founding the world’s first environmental bank, starting the world’s first ecosystem investment fund, creating a range of programs in fisheries, forestry, food, farms and children’s health, and developing new scientific and information tools to improve social, economic and environmental decision-making. Ecotrust works locally in ways that promise hope abroad, and it honors and incorporates the wisdom of Native and First Nation knowledge in its work. More on the Web at