Case in point, Texas (because of it's size) is #1 in almost every economic category. #1 per capita energy consumption but also #1 in green (wind) energy.
> Case in point, Texas (because of it's size) is #1 in almost every economic category.
Texas is neither the largest state by area (that's Alaska, Texas is #2) nor population (that's California, Texas is, again, #2). Nor is it #1 in most economic categories (e.g., by GDP California is #1 and Texas, again, #2 [1]; by GDP per capita, Texas is #19 -- #20 if DC is included as a "state" -- and Delaware -- or, if DC is included, DC -- is #1. [2])
> #1 per capita energy consumption
Size doesn't really justify being #1 in per capita anything, but then again, according to the US Dept. of Energy [3], Wyoming is #1 per capita energy consumption overall, and Texas is #6.
EDIT to add:
> but also #1 in green (wind) energy.
Texas is actually #1 in wind energy (probably not #1 in "green" energy, which normally means renewables; Texas has a very high ratio of wind to total renewables.)
Uhg, I should have chosen my words more carefully. Thanks for the reference links, and the point by point break down of my anecdotal comment (I love HNers...really)
If we take a breather, and look at the parent comment, it was about how large America is and how in this one area things might be very wrong, but many other areas of the US there are things that are going very right. The American dream is not tied completely to the drilling for gas in ND.
My point was not to debate the specific points (which is why I didn't provide reference URLs), only illustrate that the US is physically large, and has many different regional economies. Even contradicting economies within the same state. Your point about CA only reenforces this.
But I get it, CA is awesomely green in every way... great for them. I'm not fan of Texas but the shear size of the state and population means they have several economic "identities".
