Professional Documents
Culture Documents
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
Energy Consumption
This chart show the relation between CO2 emissions per capita compared to energy
spending. The change in CO2 can be explained by 65% of the change in Energy
Consumption.
Data
Basic Analytics
This are our Descriptive Statistics, as we can see there is a high mean and std
deviation for variables such as population, CO2 emission per capita, energy
spending per capita and consumption of energy per capita. Those are going to be
the main variable analysis in our data and through those variables we will try to find
that if any of them increases, all the other increases as well.
Descriptive Statistics
Consumption per Capita,
N
51
Minimum
175
Maximum
975
Mean
360.47
Std. Deviation
173.653
Million Btu
Population
Energy Spending per Capita
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
51
51
51
600000
3378
3.17
37700000
10692
679.72
6109803.92
4930.10
107.6673
6905396.582
1640.375
111.58309
Metric Tons
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
51
5.28
106.48
22.3560
17.54389
51
51
51
51
6.90E9
1550.00
37790
6.44
4.55E11
115428.57
70545
31.59
6.1925E10
13110.8149
52101.78
10.3196
7.92281E10
16735.34594
8547.015
4.02072
51
51
51
51
51
3.100%
17.600%
13117
563626
.00
11.700%
50.500%
26198
37253956
.07
7.36471%
27.92941%
18508.78
6053834.08
.0508
1.749723%
5.736769%
3026.696
6823984.271
.01977
(Cents/kilowatt-hour) by
State by Provider
Unemployment
Undergrad degree
GDP per Capita
Population
State Tax Rate
Correlation
Correlation between Energy spending per capita vs CO2 per capita
Correlations
Energy
Spending per
Capita
Metric Tons
Pearson Correlation
.806**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
- Metric Tons
51
51
**
.806
.000
51
51
CO2 Emissions
from Fossil Fuel
Combustion per
Consumption
Capita - Metric
per Capita,
Tons
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
- Metric Tons
Population
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Million Btu
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Population
Million Btu
-.244
.885**
.085
.000
51
51
51
-.244
-.249
.085
.078
51
51
51
**
-.249
.000
.078
51
51
.885
51
Correlations
Energy
Spending per
Capita
Metric Tons
Pearson Correlation
.806**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
- Metric Tons
51
51
**
.806
.000
51
51
CO2 Emissions
from Fossil Fuel
Combustion per
Consumption
Capita - Metric
per Capita,
Tons
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
- Metric Tons
Population
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Population
Million Btu
-.244
.885**
.085
.000
51
51
51
-.244
-.249
.085
.078
51
51
51
**
-.249
.885
Million
Btu
**.
Correlation
is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Here we can see that there is also a big correlation with consumption of energy per capita with CO2
emissions. The higher amount of people consuming energy, the higher is the pollution in the State.
Correlations
Energy
Spending per
Capita
Metric Tons
Pearson Correlation
.806**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
- Metric Tons
51
51
**
.806
.000
51
51
CO2 Emissions
from Fossil Fuel
Combustion per
Consumption
Capita - Metric
per Capita,
Tons
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
- Metric Tons
Population
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Population
Million Btu
-.244
.885**
.085
.000
51
51
51
-.244
-.249
.085
.078
51
51
51
**
-.249
.885
Clustering
We cluster our data in by using two variables: CO 2 emissions per capita and
Energy Consumption. As we can see there are 3 clusters. The clusters are grouped
by energy consumption. In the first cluster we have Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota
and Louisiana. While researching this cluster we found that Louisiana is an anomaly.
Looking at heat maps, we found that Wyoming, Alaska and North Dakota suffer from
extensively long, dark and cold winters. These factors would explain the high energy
use and high co2 emissions. However, Louisiana doesnt have long winters nor does
have obscenely hot summers to justify the use of energy. In fact, Florida has higher
temperatures and is actually on the lower end of the co2 scale.
The second cluster show us the average consumption per capita and the
average in emissions. These are the States that dont pollute too much or spend too
much energy.
The third cluster is the most interesting. This cluster is mostly composed of
the coastal states. What is interesting is that these states have higher populations
but relatively low energy use and CO2 per capita.
878
413
267
69.93
26.60
14.03
Million Btu
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Fuel Combustion per Capita
- Metric Tons
Cluster
Valid
Missing
4.000
16.000
31.000
51.000
.000
Forecast
300
200
100
0
-
20,000,000
40,000,000
Population
This trend line suggests that increased populations often lead to increased
emissions. However, it is important to notice that the two states with the highest
population, Texas and California, have very different energy use. Texas, with a
population of 25.6 million is the largest CO2 emitter (679.72M metric tons), whereas
California a third more in population (37.7million), emits 360M metric tons.
Interestingly, one cannot tie population growth to increased CO2 emissions. Among
the states with high population, Texas is the only state that spends more per capita
and has high CO2 emissions.
Upon further analysis we found that population density affect s the emissions
outcome. Logically, it stands to reason that more people will consume more energy.
However according to demographic, an analysis team that uses US census data to
describe US cities, we found that within that states with high density city centers
produces less CO2i. California has a relatively high concentration of high density
cities, which would implicate that any high emissions would be concentrated around
the cities making it rather impossible to live there. Thus policies have to be adopted
to reduce pollution, thereby making energy consumption more efficient. This is
evident in cities like LA, where the clean air act was enacted in 1970 and in New
York various laws are passed to abate pollution. Thus it is far to claim that with
increased population it is important to campaign in cities because real change will
happen when cities enact regulations to limit pollutions.
Regression
By performing a regression we were able to determine that the Consumption
of Energy per Capita is highly related with energy spending. The more people are
consuming energy, the more money they are spending also per capita. Also States
with high energy spending and high consumption are paying a higher price for their
energy. This could be explained by the fact that the government increases prices on
States that have higher consumption, so this consumption of energy can decrease.
There is also a relation between consumption of energy with CO2 emissions.
The higher the consumption, the higher is the CO2 emissions of these States.
However its important to notice that Some States dont correspond like that,
population density is the main variable of why they are spending and emitting so
much CO2.
Cities with high GDP also consume more energy than others.
Coefficients
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1
B
-129.689
Std. Error
26.962
.099
.005
t
-4.810
Sig.
.000
19.141
.000
-1.710
21.135
-.081
.936
.098
.003
.930
31.605
.000
-11.947
1.271
-.277
-9.398
.000
(Constant)
14.226
18.679
.762
.450
.082
.005
.772
16.840
.000
-9.744
1.221
-.226
-7.980
.000
1.960
.473
.198
4.144
.000
(Constant)
2.777
18.833
.147
.883
.085
.005
.803
17.227
.000
-9.503
1.184
-.220
-8.024
.000
2.029
.458
.205
4.433
.000
-.001
.000
-.063
-2.106
.041
-65.343
32.797
-1.992
.052
.086
.005
.815
18.325
.000
-11.314
1.340
-.262
-8.441
.000
2.125
.436
.215
4.874
.000
-.001
.000
-.076
-2.619
.012
.004
.002
.075
2.476
.017
(Constant)
Energy Spending per
Capita
(Constant)
Energy Spending per
Capita
Standardized
Coefficients
(Constant)
Energy Spending per
Capita
Beta
.939
Excluded Variables
Collinearity
Statistics
Beta In
-.014a
t
-.268
Sig.
.790
Partial
Correlation
-.039
Tolerance
.937
.020a
.412
.682
.059
.999
.364a
5.572
.000
.627
.350
-.034a
-.679
.500
-.098
.976
-.078
-1.316
.194
-.187
.674
-.154a
-3.461
.001
-.447
.992
-.277a
-9.398
.000
-.805
.999
Unemployment
-.003a
-.054
.957
-.008
.796
-.119
-2.453
.018
-.334
.924
-.139
-3.011
.004
-.399
.965
-.014
-.268
.789
-.039
.936
.053
1.027
.310
.147
.912
-.003
-.102
.919
-.015
.936
-.018
-.586
.561
-.085
.980
.198b
4.144
.000
.517
.283
.000b
.014
.989
.002
.961
-1.518
.136
-.216
.671
.026b
.703
.485
.102
.617
Unemployment
.017b
.519
.606
.076
.793
-.003
-.083
.934
-.012
.771
.051
1.363
.179
.195
.607
-.003
-.097
.923
-.014
.935
.009
.279
.782
.041
.891
.004
.135
.894
.020
.932
-.009
-.327
.745
-.048
.973
.003c
.123
.903
.018
.961
Model
1
Population
Undergrad degree
GDP per Capita
Population
State Tax Rate
2
Population
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Fuel Combustion - Million
Metric Tons
Undergrad degree
GDP per Capita
Population
State Tax Rate
3
Population
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Fuel Combustion - Million
Metric Tons
Total State Spending
-.054
-.063c
-2.106
.041
-.297
.667
.039c
1.192
.239
.173
.612
Unemployment
.028c
.991
.327
.145
.786
.019
.653
.517
.096
.746
.061
1.931
.060
.274
.604
.004
.141
.888
.021
.931
.004
.146
.885
.022
.889
.003
.098
.923
.015
.932
-.019
-.741
.463
-.110
.940
.012d
.473
.638
.070
.935
.047
1.505
.139
.219
.604
Unemployment
.025d
.908
.369
.134
.784
.039
1.341
.187
.196
.687
.075
2.476
.017
.346
.585
.003
.105
.916
.016
.931
.003
.102
.920
.015
.889
-.010
-.392
.697
-.059
.895
-.025
-1.016
.315
-.151
.932
-.002e
-.062
.951
-.009
.887
-.417
.679
-.063
.269
.013e
.489
.627
.074
.755
-.018
-.460
.648
-.069
.350
-.010
-.389
.699
-.059
.893
.001
.052
.959
.008
.889
Undergrad degree
GDP per Capita
Population
State Tax Rate
4
Population
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Fuel Combustion - Million
Metric Tons
Total State Spending
Undergrad degree
GDP per Capita
Population
State Tax Rate
5
Population
-.019
Conclusion
Based on our findings, we found that consumption increases with population, while
at the same time pollution increases with consumption. Thus it would be safe to
assume that increase in population leads to pollution. However, this not the case. As
proven by New York and California, an increase in population does not necessarily
have to lead to an increase in pollution. After looking at our forecast we found that
states with higher populations tend to conserve and spend less on electricity. But on
further investigation we found that population density is what changes the tide
when it comes to the increase of population and pollution. Texas is the second
populous state, however it is also the highest energy consumer and polluter. Unlike
other populous states, Texas has very low population density. Population density
radically affects consumption because, as highlighted earlier, as population
increases pollution increases, However in order to improve quality of life, pollution
has to be reduced creating a rate of diminishing energy consumption.
i Fever, Christian. "The Improbable Metropolis: Decentralization, Local Democracy and Metropolitan Areas
in the Western World." Annalise Social 45.197, Urban Governance in Southern Europe (2010): 62337.Demographis. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.