Geothermal energy is promising, but unlike fossil fuels or even solar and wind, it’s not very portable – you only get it at one location. Like with hydro, the places that have it don’t become energy exporters like Saudi Arabia, but instead get very cheap electricity like Iceland, which encourages electricity-intensive industries such as aluminum production. Hydro power is why the West Coast became America’s primary aluminum manufacturing region.

Natural gas releases less carbon dioxide than burning coal, which we all know is highly polluting. Cities such Indianapolis that rely very heavily on coal would be wise to invest in switching to natural gas for electricity generation, certainly while waiting on the technology for more renewable energy sources to become economical.

Ball State University (Muncie, IN) is embarking on an aggressive project to utilize geothermal energy for their facilities. I know the bits I have read regarding this technology but it may have promise.

http://cms.bsu.edu/About/Geothermal.aspx

Coal power is cheap in the sense of initial cost, but very expensive in terms of its environmental impacts. There is no way to reduce dependence on coal that will not raise energy costs in the Midwest, aside from subsidizing.

Also, the Midwest might be more willing to accommodate these costs when they realize what climate change will do to their economies. Earlier studies have determined that the Midwest has the most to lose if climate change projections are correct (even with the 2degC cap). (See reports here and here)

I think the premise of this article is flawed. The Urbanophile consistently argues for adaptation to changes in the global economy so why not in this instance? We can’t just bury our heads in the sand. Let’s leverage the advantages already present in the area to adapt to higher energy costs – Lower transportation costs for agricultural products, plenty of rail, good sunshine and wind resources, and access to the Great Lakes.

In the end, carbon reduction must be accomplished and the Midwest will bear a large cost for that. This is merely a consequence of the choices that have been made over the last few decades, not because of any sinister conspiracy.

And no, CNG engines are not cleaner than diesel engines. They cause less air pollution, and more greenhouse gas emissions.

Markets aren’t usually efficient when there are outsized players with significant market-moving influence (either on the buy side or the sell side). So, for instance, carmakers and oil refiners probably end up passing along a lot of the costs of regulation due to the nature of the markets and the supply and demand curves.

Even a free-markets guy like me recognizes that we are in a mixed market environment. If the government’s market power is to be used, it should be used toward good policy outcomes and, as Aaron advocates, in a relatively neutral way.

Carbon taxes in the US would impose a manufacturing cost burden that would make competitive US manufacturers non-competitive with other parts of the world. We would end up NOT reducing carbon emissions, but merely relocate them (and US jobs) to China, Brazil, India, and Mexico. This clearly fails the “neutral way” test.

The only alternative that’s been seriously proposed to cap and trade and carbon taxation, besides building high fences to keep out tens of millions of refugees, is regulation. This is typically the proposal of choice of liberal populists, who argue that carbon taxes are regressive and will hurt the middle-class; they support various emissions caps instead, without the trading.

Indiana produces far more cars/trucks and components than it consumes. All except the full-size GM pickups made in Fort Wayne have “Japanese” name badges, so we’re immune from the argument that “our” cars aren’t desirable or purchased by coastal American consumers. Honda Civics, Subarus, and Toyota minivans, SUVs, trucks, and Camrys are made here.

Likewise Indiana refines more oil (the BP refinery in The Region is among the world’s largest) and produces more steel than it uses. Ditto for corn, beef, and ethanol. And all its factories are powered by coal-fired electricity that we don’t use in our houses, but which is generated here or nearby in the lower Midwest.

That’s the problem with state-by-state per-capita statistics. They don’t properly capture externalities any better than the market does. Indiana always appears to be a pollution-ridden, carbon-belching place on a per-capita basis because we’re absorbing all those costs externalized by our fellow Americans. Likewise Texas and Louisiana, the home of the US oil/petrochemical industries.

Secondly , most of your map reinforces what you say about the midwest being affected most by climate legislation.But i am curious.Why is the cost so high in that one little part of Florida ?Do you or anyone else know ?

And this may seem silly, but why isnt the western states affected as much.Isnt a large part of their economy coal,oil and gas.If anyone could explain why it would be appreciated.