Business Opportunity

Goal: - To campaign for the effective utilization of electricity, in order to curb

pollution.
Electricity accounts for 38% of carbon dioxide emissions. This makes it the
single largest contributor to greenhouse gases in both the United States and the
world. However, in order to effectively convey the importance of saving both
electricity, reducing emissions and spending. In order to effectively conduct such a
campaign, it is important to base the information off the level of education. We do
realize that such programs exist i.e. Energy star etc. The energy star rating is an
industrial rating that created to push industries to improve energy efficiency in their
products.
We believe that because the energy star rating applies to industries and
companies, it invariably reduces the choices for consumer products. Our firm is
designed to be the 3rd party energy systems

120.00

100.00

80.00

CO2 Emmisions per Capita (metric Tons)

60.00

CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel

Combustion per Capita - Metric
Tons
f(x) = 0.01x - 20.17
Linear (CO2 Emissions from
R = 0.65
Fossil Fuel Combustion per
Capita - Metric Tons)

40.00

Polynomial (CO2 Emissions from

Fossil Fuel Combustion per
Capita - Metric Tons)

20.00

Linear (CO2 Emissions from

Fossil Fuel Combustion per
Capita - Metric Tons)

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

Fuel Combustion per Capita

Total State Spending
Total Spending per Capita
Median Household Income
Average Total Price

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

Fuel Combustion - Million

(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

Energy

CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Spending per

Fuel Combustion per Capita -

Capita

Metric Tons

Pearson Correlation

.806**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N
CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Pearson Correlation

Fuel Combustion per Capita

Sig. (2-tailed)

- Metric Tons

51

51

**

.806

.000
51

51

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

There is a very high correlation between Energy Spending per Capita and CO2 emissions. This
happens because with an increase in energy spending, there is also an increase in CO2 per capita.

CO2 Emissions
from Fossil Fuel
Combustion per

Consumption

Capita - Metric

per Capita,

Tons
CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Pearson Correlation

Fuel Combustion per Capita

Sig. (2-tailed)

- Metric Tons

Population

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Consumption per Capita,

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

Energy

CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Spending per

Fuel Combustion per Capita -

Capita

Metric Tons

Pearson Correlation

.806**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N
CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Pearson Correlation

Fuel Combustion per Capita

Sig. (2-tailed)

- Metric Tons

51

51

**

.806

.000
51

51

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

There is a very high correlation between Energy Spending per Capita and CO2 emissions. This
happens because with an increase in energy spending, there is also an increase in CO2 per capita.

CO2 Emissions
from Fossil Fuel
Combustion per

Consumption

Capita - Metric

per Capita,

Tons
CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Pearson Correlation

Fuel Combustion per Capita

Sig. (2-tailed)

- Metric Tons

Population

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Consumption per Capita,

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

Energy

CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Spending per

Fuel Combustion per Capita -

Capita

Metric Tons

Pearson Correlation

.806**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N
CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Pearson Correlation

Fuel Combustion per Capita

Sig. (2-tailed)

- Metric Tons

51

51

**

.806

.000
51

51

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

There is a very high correlation between Energy Spending per Capita and CO2 emissions. This
happens because with an increase in energy spending, there is also an increase in CO2 per capita.

CO2 Emissions
from Fossil Fuel
Combustion per

Consumption

Capita - Metric

per Capita,

Tons
CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Pearson Correlation

Fuel Combustion per Capita

Sig. (2-tailed)

- Metric Tons

Population

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Consumption per Capita,

Million Btu

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.

Final Cluster Centers

Cluster
1
Consumption 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

CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion - Million Metric Tons

800
700
600

CO2 Emissions per Capita

500 f(x) = 0x + 26.89

R = 0.67
400

CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Fuel Combustion - Million
Metric Tons

300

Linear (CO2 Emissions from

Fossil Fuel Combustion Million Metric Tons)

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

Average Total Price

(Cents/kilowatt-hour) by
State by Provider

-11.947

1.271

-.277

-9.398

.000

(Constant)

14.226

18.679

.762

.450

.082

.005

.772

16.840

.000

Average Total Price

(Cents/kilowatt-hour) by
State by Provider

-9.744

1.221

-.226

-7.980

.000

CO2 Emissions from

Fossil Fuel Combustion
per Capita - Metric Tons

1.960

.473

.198

4.144

.000

(Constant)

2.777

18.833

.147

.883

.085

.005

.803

17.227

.000

Average Total Price

(Cents/kilowatt-hour) by
State by Provider

-9.503

1.184

-.220

-8.024

.000

CO2 Emissions from

Fossil Fuel Combustion
per Capita - Metric Tons

2.029

.458

.205

4.433

.000

Total Spending per Capita

-.001

.000

-.063

-2.106

.041

-65.343

32.797

-1.992

.052

.086

.005

.815

18.325

.000

Average Total Price

(Cents/kilowatt-hour) by
State by Provider

-11.314

1.340

-.262

-8.441

.000

CO2 Emissions from

Fossil Fuel Combustion
per Capita - Metric Tons

2.125

.436

.215

4.874

.000

Total Spending per Capita

-.001

.000

-.076

-2.619

.012

.004

.002

.075

2.476

.017

(Constant)
Energy Spending per
Capita

(Constant)
Energy Spending per
Capita

Energy Spending per

Capita

Energy Spending per

Capita

Standardized
Coefficients

(Constant)
Energy Spending per
Capita

GDP per Capita

a. Dependent Variable: Consumption per Capita, Million Btu

Beta
.939

Excluded Variables
Collinearity
Statistics
Beta In
-.014a

t
-.268

Sig.
.790

Partial
Correlation
-.039

Tolerance
.937

CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Fuel Combustion - Million
Metric Tons

.020a

.412

.682

.059

.999

CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Fuel Combustion per Capita Metric Tons

.364a

5.572

.000

.627

.350

-.034a

-.679

.500

-.098

.976

Total Spending per Capita

-.078

-1.316

.194

-.187

.674

Median Household Income

-.154a

-3.461

.001

-.447

.992

Average Total Price

(Cents/kilowatt-hour) by State
by Provider

-.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

CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Fuel Combustion per Capita Metric Tons

.198b

4.144

.000

.517

.283

Total State Spending

.000b

.014

.989

.002

.961

-1.518

.136

-.216

.671

Median Household Income

.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

Total State Spending

Undergrad degree
GDP per Capita
Population
State Tax Rate
2

Population
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Fuel Combustion - Million
Metric Tons

Total Spending per Capita

Undergrad degree
GDP per Capita
Population
State Tax Rate
3

Population
CO2 Emissions from Fossil
Fuel Combustion - Million
Metric Tons
Total State Spending

-.054

Total Spending per Capita

-.063c

-2.106

.041

-.297

.667

Median Household Income

.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

Median Household Income

.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

CO2 Emissions from Fossil

Fuel Combustion - Million
Metric Tons

-.025

-1.016

.315

-.151

.932

Total State Spending

-.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

Median Household Income

Unemployment
Undergrad degree
Population
State Tax Rate

-.019

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Energy Spending per Capita

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Energy Spending per Capita, Average Total Price (Cents/kilowatt-hour) by
State by Provider
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Energy Spending per Capita, Average Total Price (Cents/kilowatt-hour) by
State by Provider, CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion per Capita - Metric Tons
d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Energy Spending per Capita, Average Total Price (Cents/kilowatt-hour) by
State by Provider, CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion per Capita - Metric Tons, Total Spending per
Capita
e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Energy Spending per Capita, Average Total Price (Cents/kilowatt-hour) by
State by Provider, CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion per Capita - Metric Tons, Total Spending per
Capita, GDP per Capita
f. Dependent Variable: Consumption per Capita, Million Btu

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.