The states of high gas prices

How oil-intense is your state’s economy? 10

Last time I checked, oil prices were hovering just below $100 per barrel. This reminds me of something I used to obsess about: high oil prices hit some places harder than others.

All else being equal, oil-efficient economies are more insulated from oil price shocks than are economies that require large oil inputs to function. I'm not talking about the amount of oil consumption, but about the "oil-intensity" of an economy. New York state consumes a lot of oil, and it also produces a lot of wealth. Other states, such as Louisiana, consume a lot of oil, but don't produce anywhere near as much wealth per unit of energy. (In fact, New York produces five times as much wealth per barrel of oil as Louisiana.)

Just so, when oil prices skyrocket, Rhode Island suffers less pain than Texas. And Massachusetts feels less of a pinch than Wyoming. So at the risk of oversimplification, I'll propose a little schema for the future:

  1. If the future is likely to bring high oil prices, and
  2. we'd like to remain prosperous, then
  3. we should probably start weaning our economies from petroleum.

Brilliant, I know.

I guess one potential lesson here is that our big capital investments shouldn't expose us to decades of oil price shocks. (Yeah, I'm talking to you, highway.) They should insulate us from high oil prices. (Oh, hi there, compact walkable neighborhood.)

So, how do all 50 states stack up? Find out below the jump ...

For context, on average, the U.S. consumes 25 gallons of oil for each $1,000 of GDP it produces.

Gallons of oil per $1,000 of economic activity
1 New York 15
2 Rhode Island 17
3 Massachusetts 17
4 Colorado 18
5 California 18
6 Maryland 18
7 Illinois 19
8 Connecticut 19
9 Nevada 19
10 Delaware 19
11 Michigan 20
12 Arizona 21
13 Oregon 21
14 Wisconsin 22
15 North Carolina 22
16 New Jersey 22
17 Virginia 23
18 Minnesota 23
19 Ohio 23
20 Pennsylvania 24
21 Georgia 24
22 Washington 24
23 Utah 24
24 Florida 25
25 Nebraska 25
26 Idaho 26
27 Missouri 26
28 Tennessee 27
29 Indiana 28
30 South Dakota 28
31 New Hampshire 29
32 Iowa 29
33 New Mexico 30
34 Vermont 31
35 Kansas 31
36 Alabama 33
37 South Carolina 33
38 Arkansas 34
39 Oklahoma 34
40 Kentucky 40
41 West Virginia 41
42 Hawaii 41
43 North Dakota 43
44 Maine 44
45 Mississippi 46
46 Texas 47
47 Wyoming 48
48 Montana 49
49 Alaska 67
50 Louisiana 75

Obviously, there are about a trillion reasons for the way these rankings play out. (And keen-eyed readers may notice that energy-producing states are also the most oil-intense economies.) But it sort of doesn't matter why an economy is oil-inefficient. After all, it's not as if Kansas is going to get a discount on gas prices because it's rural and spread out. Rather, places that need a lot of oil to drive their economies will simply find it tougher to keep up if high prices become the norm.

As a postscript, the United States and Canada are two of the most energy-intensive economies in the world. Countries like Japan and Germany can produce two or three times as much wealth with the same amount of energy. So, all else being equal, when oil prices get high, the North American economy feels two or three times the pain as some of our principal competitors.

So there's your Turkey Day conversation starter. You're welcome.

I calculated the figures above using 2004 oil consumption data from the US Energy Information Administration, and 2004 gross state product data from the US Census Bureau.

Eric de Place is a senior research at Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability think tank, working on promoting smart policy decisions for the Pacific Northwest. Visit http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score to read more on Sightline’s blog.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. TheGreenMiles Posted 4:38 am
    21 Nov 2007

    Addicted to oil, but do we want to kick the habit?Frankly, I question whether we as Americans even want to use less gas.  I mean, I know the people reading this blog do.  I'm talking about the What's the Matter with Kansas types.

    Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

    Permalink

  2. odograph Posted 6:47 am
    21 Nov 2007

    'per barrel'Surely Louisiana, and Alaska(!), make more literally per barrel than most other states.  That is, their GDP might be low, but might be more oil-based.
    Someone needs to hit the numbers again, looking at oil employment per state or something.

    Permalink

  3. odograph Posted 6:48 am
    21 Nov 2007

    betterOr reverse it, and look at states with both the lowest oil production and the poorest ratio of oil consumption to economic activity.

    Permalink

  4. cosmoss Posted 7:33 am
    21 Nov 2007

    Hawaii?Hawaii's economy is almost entirely dependent on the tourist industry which is entirely dependent on fossil fuels to function.  They have to import practically all their goods from several hundred miles away.  How could they not be last?

    Permalink

  5. Colin Wright Posted 1:07 am
    22 Nov 2007

    Are these the rich states of the future?It would be interesting to see how these figures correlate with something like "average miles driven to work". Since 70% of oil is used for transportation, and 88% of Americans commute by car (see below), I assume transportation would account for a significant portion of the GDP intensity. That would perhaps explain why the top 3 states are relatively compact (with NYC biasing NY State). Though the next 2 states (Colorado and California) surprise me!
    With regards to the country comparison you touch upon at the end of the article Lester Brown paints an even starker picture for the U.S.:Some countries are much more vulnerable to an oil decline than others. For example, the United States--which has long neglected public transportation--is particularly vulnerable because 88 percent of the U.S. workforce travels to work by car.
    Since options for expanding supply are limited, efforts to prevent oil prices from rising well beyond $100 per barrel in the years ahead depend on reducing demand, largely within the transportation sector. And since the United States consumes more gasoline than the next 20 countries combined, it must play a lead role in cutting oil use.

    Permalink

  6. guade00 Posted 1:15 am
    25 Nov 2007

    something's wrong here...Instinctively, I find it difficult to comprehend how a hydro-power intensive state like Washington can be roughly 33% more oil intensive than California and other non-hydro states. The statistical analysis seems to be more of a blunt instrument than a finely honed study. On the other hand, this is cause for a deeper look into the issue.  

    Permalink

  7. redefine Posted 7:55 am
    25 Nov 2007

    oil is for transportation not powerOil and hydropower both produce energy, but not for the same end use. Hydropower is used to create electricity while the vast majority of oil is burned directly by portable engines like those found in cars, trucks, and airplanes.
    That's why it's possible for a state like Colorado, which gets at least 70% of its electricity from coal, to do better than Washington which gets most of its electricity from hydropower, on an oil intensity test.
    Of course, as electricity is the largest source of energy use and greenhouse gases in most states, a fossil fuel intensity, or CO2e intensity test would likely tell a different story.

    Enough with the half measures already!

    Permalink

  8. guade00 Posted 10:02 am
    25 Nov 2007

    Still doesn't add up.If Colorado gets 70% of its electricity from coal and Washington roughly receives the equivalent from hydro, the oil intensity should be (roughly) the same, so I'm not really convinced. And throw in western WA's well developed public transportation system and climate change awareness, something else is at play, the kind of economies, for example.
    The "de Place analysis" shows us just that. It shows that the top ranking states are diversified, mostly service oriented economies, that are much less energy intensive, while the bottom ranking states are the opposite. Bluntly speaking, California and New York produce a lot of dollars, while Louisiana and Alaska, by comparison, do not.

    Permalink

  9. redefine Posted 3:25 am
    27 Nov 2007

    oil has next to nothing to do with electricityI agree that per capita income most definitely plays a role in the oil intensity, and by extension oil price vulnerability, of a given state's economy.
    My point is that the amount of hydropower or other renewable energy resources that a state uses for electricity really does not.
    According to the Energy Information agency petroleum accounted for 1.6% of electricity generation in the United States in 2006. Oil simply isn't a major source of electricity.
    I only bother to point it out because individuals, organizations, and corporations advocating various American electricity sources (from coal to wind and solar) often give the impression that they will somehow end our dependence on foreign oil.
    This notion is widely accepted as true and, unless we also retool our entire transportation system to run on electricity as opposed to oil (something I would certainly support), is patently false.

    Enough with the half measures already!

    Permalink

  10. rptizzle Posted 10:40 am
    27 Nov 2007

    Western Washington"And throw in western WA's well developed public transportation system..."
    Hello!!! Where do you live? You can't be serious. The public transportation system in the Puget Sound area is horrible. Traffic jams in the Puget Sound area are one of the worst in the nation. You must not be from here. And I don't know why you need to be convinced of anything, especially when you make ludicrous comments such as this!

    -Ricardo Parker

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement