How oil dependent is your state?

(Credit: David Gardiner & Associates/NRDC)

The effects that fluctuating oil prices have had on the average American vary widely by state, according to a report released Wednesday by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"Fighting Oil Addiction: Ranking States' Oil Vulnerability and Solutions for Change," a report (PDF) prepared for the NRDC by David Gardiner & Associates, ranks U.S. states in two major ways. One list ranks U.S. states by their dependence on oil, taking in factors like gas prices. The other ranks states' efforts to reduce oil dependence, taking into account public transportation funding, state fleet efficiency, hybrid car purchasing incentives, emissions standards, and clean-energy projects.

In 2008, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, and Oklahoma residents were the hardest hit by oil prices with their drivers spending a larger percentage of their income on gasoline than other Americans. The NRDC's official ranking is by both percentage of income and actual dollar amount spent on gas. So while Mississippi ranked worst for drivers spending the largest percentage of their income on gas, Oklahoma drivers actually spent the most, spending on average $2,766.65 in 2008.

There were some surprises in the report.

A state that you might not normally associate with clean energy (or clean air) seems to have reinvented itself. New Jersey, who just recently announced a major solar effort for its leading power utility, was ranked seventh for states doing the most to promote clean-energy technology and reduce oil dependency in 2008. Not surprisingly, California, which has also been buying big into solar power for utilities amid a plethora of other green initiatives throughout the state, was ranked first.

The states doing the most to wean residents off oil, according to the NRDC report:

1. California
2. Massachusetts
3. Washington
4. New Mexico
5. Connecticut
6. New York
7. New Jersey
8. Pennsylvania
9. Oregon
10. Florida

Ten states were also singled out by the NRDC for exerting the least amount of effort to wean themselves off oil in the organization's eyes.

"The failure of the 10 worst states to take meaningful action to reduce oil dependence exacerbates the national security and environmental harms associated with our current transportation habits. These and other states need to be drivers of change," the NRDC said in its report.

The 10 states making the least amount of effort to reduce oil dependence, according to the NRDC report:

1. West Virginia
2. Idaho
3. Wyoming
4. Mississippi
5. South Dakota
6. Oklahoma
7. Alabama
8. Arkansas
9. North Dakota
10. Alaska

[IvoryWM]

Where's the ranking for risk to heating fuel for homes and businesses?

[kbellve]

Is this as stupid as it reads?

The states on the most list also appear to consume the most oil!

The states on the least list appear to consume less oil, just due to lower population density.

And Alaska? It produces more oil than it uses, why should it wean itself from oil?

[pentest]

Because Alaska is eventually going to run out?

[kbellve]

Alaska has enough oil to last hundreds of year, especially if states on the "Most" list stop using it.

[Random_Walk]

Well, as far as methodology, like it or lump it, but...

"The states on the most list also appear to consume the most oil!"

The article reads "...doing the most to wean its residents off oil", not "...uses the least oil". ;)

In this case, they are correct in some ways, thoug hthere are missing factors. Oregon (where I live) actually is pushing like mad for alternate and renewable energy. They do seem to miss the fact that Oregon has higher gas taxes because the state has no sales tax (therefore they have to get their income from somewhere, no?) Washington is similar in that they have no income tax, so their gas taxes are similarly boosted.

[pentest]

"Hundreds of years"? Funny, no one knows how long the oil supply will last. Even if it is 200 or 500 years, when should we start moving away from oil, including alaska? 5 years before we run out? Get away from oil now and it won't matter if all the wells dry.

[georgiarat]

Written by someone who has no clue about life outside the metropolitan areas of the NE, Europe doesn't count. See also shows her bias toward home states like NJ and Pennsylvania.

The global warming nuts and the green nuts are not being rational and are destroying our economy. There has to be balance. Look at the valley area of California where the farming is being destroyed to save a two-inch minnow. The people don't count. They say the water is not important maybe we should not send food or electricity to the cities and see what it does to their lives.

[BogusBasin]

Rush Limbaugh is Satan.

Amen

[catch23]

@BogusBasin
Stop being so mean to Satan.
Seriously, he didn't do anything bad enough to be compared to Rush.

[Karen_W1]

That ranking is VERY misleading in terms of oil dependence because it only considers gasoline. Heating oil is a bigger factor in oil usage/cost than gasoline in my family.

Heating oil usage is very different in different part o the country, not only because of climate, but because some areas like the mid west primarily use natural gas for heating, while New England mostly uses oil.

For that reason the list is VERY misleading in terms of economic impact of oil prices by state.

- Karen

[EggGeothermal]

Do you have any tips on how an average citizen can help to make a difference?

[open-mind]

Did anyone else notice this correlation?

The states best at weaning citizens from oil are also among the most liberal and the most bankrupt.