Monday Report
Salt Lake Metro Carbon Foodprint June 2nd, 2008

Bonneville Research Website





The Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America

America's carbon footprint is expanding. With a growing population and an expanding economy, America's settlement area is widening, and as it does, Americans are driving more, building more, consuming more energy, and emitting more carbon. Rising energy prices, growing dependence on imported fuels, and accelerating global climate change make the nation's growth patterns unsustainable.

The nation's carbon footprint has a distinct geography not well understood or often discussed. This report quantifies transportation and residential carbon emissions for the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, finding that metro area residents have smaller carbon footprints than the average American, although metro footprints vary widely. Residential density and the availability of public transit are important to understanding carbon footprints, as are the carbon intensity of electricity generation, electricity prices, and weather.

How does Utah Rate?

Per Capita Carbon Emissions from Transporation and Residential Use - 2005

Source: Brookings Institution, Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America, 2008

RankMetro Area Carbon Footprint (metric tons)
1Honolulu, HI1.356
2Los Angeles-Long Beach- Santa Ana, CA1.413
3Portland-Vancouver- Beaverton, OR-WA1.446
4New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ- PA1.495
5Boise City-Nampa, ID1.507
6Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA1.556
7San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA1.573
8San Francisco-Oakland- Fremont, CA1.585
9El Paso, TX1.613
10San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA1.630
11Oxnard-Thousand Oaks- Ventura, CA1.754
12Sacramento--Arden-Arcade-- Rosevi lle, CA1.768
13Greenville, SC1.859
14Rochester, NY1.908
15Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL- IN-WI1.965
16Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY1.995
17Tucson, AZ2.000
18Las Vegas-Paradise, NV2.013
19Stockton, CA2.016
20Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH2.024
21Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ2.072
22Fresno, CA2.076
23Lancaster, PA2.091
24New Haven-Milford, CT2.097
25Poughkeepsie-Newburgh- Middletown, NY2.133
26Colorado Springs, CO2.134
27Philadelphia-Camden- Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE- MD2.137
28Miami-Fort Lauderdale- Miami Beach, FL2.156
29New Orleans-Metairie- Kenner, LA2.162
30Bridgeport-Stamford- Norwalk, CT2.181
31Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH2.235
Average Footprint for the 100 Largest Metro Areas2.235
32Riverside-San Bernardino- Ontario, CA2.257
33San Antonio, TX2.270
34Pittsburgh, PA2.276
35Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX2.292
36Virginia Beach-Norfolk- Newport News, VA-NC2.340
37Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI2.350
38Albuquerque, NM2.355
39Allentown-Bethlehem- Easton, PA-NJ2.364
40Providence-New Bedford- Fall River, RI-MA2.368
41Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT2.381
42Denver-Aurora, CO2.392
43Charleston-North Charleston, SC2.429
44Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI2.436
45Minneapolis-St. Paul- Bloomington, MN-WI2.440
46Springfield, MA2.446
47Tampa-St. Petersburg- Clearwater, FL2.499
48Baton Rouge, LA2.511
49Worcester, MA2.517
50Salt Lake City, UT2.522
51Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY2.524
52Columbia, SC2.534
53Bakersfield, CA2.540
54Orlando, FL2.551
55Austin-Round Rock, TX2.567
56Greensboro-High Point, NC2.576
57Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX2.582
58Portland-South Portland- Biddeford, ME2.599
59Palm Bay-Melbourne- Titusville, FL2.604
60Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI2.609
61Durham, NC2.610
62Akron, OH2.637
63Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA2.660
63Trenton-Ewing, NJ2.660
65Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE- IA2.676
66Wichita, KS2.681
67Syracuse, NY2.682
67Atlanta-Sandy Springs- Marietta, GA2.682
69Baltimore-Towson, MD2.714
70Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL2.739
71Lansing-East Lansing, MI2.754
72Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC2.757
73Youngstown-Warren- Boardman, OH-PA2.758
74Des Moines, IA2.765
75Dayton, OH2.769
76Raleigh-Cary, NC2.795
77Memphis, TN-MS- AR2.870
78Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC2.885
79Birmingham-Hoover, AL2.901
80Jacksonville, FL2.905
81Madison, WI2.914
81Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL2.914
83Columbus, OH2.952
84Kansas City, MO- KS2.969
85Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR3.009
86Richmond, VA3.039
87Jackson, MS3.063
88Chattanooga, TN- GA3.110
89Washington-Arlington- Alexandria, DC-VA-MD- WV3.115
90Tulsa, OK3.124
91Knoxville, TN3.134
92Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA3.190
93Oklahoma City, OK3.204
94St. Louis, MO- IL3.217
95Nashville-Davidson-- Murfreesboro, TN3.222
96Louisville, KY- IN3.233
97Toledo, OH3.240
98Cincinnati-Middletown, OH- KY-IN3.281
99Indianapolis, IN3.364
100Lexington-Fayette, KY3.455

Salt Lake Metro Carbon Foodprint

Where do we stand?

Who is doing better?

Who is worse?


Bob Springmeyer

Bonneville Research

  • Bonneville Research Website
  • Check out our Bonneville Research Website!

    Bonneville Research
  • Metro Area Profile: Salt Lake City, UT

    The report "Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America" quantifies for the first time the amount and most significant sources of carbon emitted-from highway transportation and residential energy consumption-by the 100 largest metropolitan areas in 2000 and 2005. Substantial variation exists among these "carbon footprints" of metro areas, due in part to their developm ent patterns, rail transit, freight trafic, carbon content of electricity sources, electricity prices, and weather.

    To access the entire report, see

    Per Capita Carbon Footprints, 2000-2005

    Trends. Metropolitan Salt Lake City's per capita footprint from transportation and residential energy use decreased 3.88 percent between 2000 and 2005. The average per capita footprint of the 100 largest metro areas and of the nation increased 1.1 percent and 2.2 percent during this time, respectively.

    The transportation portion of Salt Lake City's per capita footprint increased 9.9 percent between 2000 and 2005, compared to an increase of 2.4 percent in the 100 largest metro areas. The residential portion of Salt Lake City's per capita footprint decreased 18.3 percent between 2000 and 2005, compared to a slight decrease of 0.7 percent in the 100 largest metro areas.

    Snapshot = 2005. The average resident in metropolitan Salt Lake City emitted 2.522 tons of carbon from highway transportation and residential energy in 2005 (rank 50th). This compares with 2.24 tons of carbon emitted by the average 100-metro resident and 2.60 tons of carbon emitted by the average American from transportation and residential energy.

    From highway transportation. The average Salt Lake City resident emitted 1.476 tons of carbon from highway transportation (rank 51st). The average 100- metro resident emitted 1.310 tons and the average American emitted 1.44 tons from highway transportation.

    The average Salt Lake City resident emitted 0.981 tons from autos (rank 29th) and 0.495 tons from trucks (rank 80th), compared to 1.004 tons from autos and 0.305 tons from trucks from the average 100- metro resident. From residential energy use. The average Salt Lake City resident emitted 1.046 tons of carbon from residential energy use (rank 53rd). The average 100- metro resident emitted 0.925 tons and the average American emitted 1.16 tons of carbon from residential energy use.

    The average Salt Lake City resident emitted 0.66 1 tons from electricity (rank 50th) and 0.385 tons from residential fuels (rank 60th). This compares to 0.611 tons from electricity and 0.314 tons from fuels from the average 100-metro resident.

    Rank 1 = smallest per capita footprint

    Rank 100 = largest per capita footprint

    Contact: Carrie Collins - 301-664-9000 x18

    Source: Brookings Institution, Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America, 2008

    • Global Business Confidence - Record Low
    • Global business confidence is at a record low, signaling that the global economy likely contracted in April. Across the globe the survey results suggest that the U.S., Canadian and European economies are contracting, while the Asian and South American economies are growing below potential. Hiring intentions have notably weakened in recent weeks, as has the strength of sales. Business assessments of current conditions continue to hit new record lows. The only positive is that pricing pressures have not risen commensurately with the surge in oil and other commodity prices.
    • GDP
    • There was a small upward revision to reported economic growth in the first quarter; real GDP increased at an annualized 0.9% rate, up from the 0.6% reported in April. The small upward revision was close to the consensus. There was a downward revision to imports, which increased GDP growth, and upward revisions to investment in nonresidential structures and consumer spending on nondurable goods. There were less than offsetting downward revisions to inventories, exports, and consumer spending on services. Profits from current production saw a slight increase from the fourth quarter, although they are still below their record high. Economic growth in the first quarter was poor, and real GDP for the quarter could contract outright when the BEA does its annual revisions in the summer.
    • ABC News/Washington Post Consumer Comfort Index
    • The ABC News/Washington Post consumer comfort index came in at -51 in the week ending May 25, down from -49 the previous week and a fresh record low. Consumers have very little to be optimistic about as gasoline prices climb toward $4, layoffs accelerate, and house prices decline. The sharp decline in sentiment since the beginning of the year is a bad omen for spending.
    • Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index
    • The Conference Board index of consumer confidence fell further than expected in May, dropping to 57.2 from April's 62.8 (revised from 62.3). This puts the index at a 16-year low. The present situation component of the index led the decline, but expectations fell significantly as well. Assessments of labor market conditions fell, but not severely.
    • Agricultural Prices
    • The All Farm Products Index of Prices Received by Farmers increased 3.4% in May from April. The crop index is up 2.4% and the livestock prices overall rose 3.9%. Producers received higher prices for hogs, cattle, onions, and broilers. Eggs, lettuce, wheat, and broccoli fetched lower prices. The index is up 10% from May of last year, a reacceleration of year-over- year growth after a dip to 8% in April. Farmers paid 1.7% more for the means of production than last month and 14% more than a year ago. Diesel fuel, mixed fertilizers, feeder cattle, and potash & phosphate were more expensive, while feed concentrates, feed supplements, tractors, and feed grains prices eased.
    • Personal Income
    • Personal income rose 0.2% in April, below March's 0.4% growth. Spending growth also slowed to 0.2% from 0.4% the prior month. Real spending was unchanged. The core PCE deflator rose 0.1%, while the top-line deflator rose 0.2%. The savings rate held steady at 0.7%. The end of bonus payment season weakened personal income growth, while tax rebates inflated disposable income growth.
    • Durable Goods (Advance)
    • New orders for manufactured durable goods fell 0.5% in April-a much smaller decline than was expected by consensus forecasts. The decline followed a 0.3% drop in March and was the third decrease in the first four months of the year. Shipments rose 1.2% following a decline in March. Both inventories and unfilled orders rose over the month.
    • Existing-Home Sales
    • Housing activity remains weak, with the National Association of Realtors reporting a 1% decline in existing-home sales in April to an annualized pace of 4.89 million. The months of inventories available for sale are now up over 11, with the level of inventories rising. The median existing-home price is down 8% y/y. One consolation in this report is that the deterioration in sales and pricing seems to be slowing.
    • Case-Shiller Monthly Home Price Indices
    • Both the 10-city and 20-city composite S&P/Case- Shiller house price indices declined again in March, although by lesser amounts on a month-ago basis. The quarterly index is now 14.1% below year ago levels, a record decline. The 10-city composite fell 2.4% and the 20-city dropped 2.2%. However, the 10- city composite is down 15.3% over the past year, setting yet another record for the largest year-over-year decline since the index began in 1988. The 20-city composite was down 14.4% over the past year, also a record decline. Prices fell in 18 of 20 metro areas in March. Charlotte NC and Dallas were the two exceptions.
    • New-Home Sales (C25)
    • Spring may be bringing some stabilization in housing activity, with sales of new homes increasing by 3.3% in April to 526,000 annualized units. Census revised downward March sales by 3%, however, and sales are 42% below one year ago. Months of supply did tick down slightly to 10.2, and the median new house price increased by 1.5%.
    • MBA Mortgage Applications Survey
    • The market composite indexes finished mixed for the week ending May 23, 2008. The market index fell by 4.6% compared to the previous week. The decline was caused entirely by the refinance index, which fell by 8.9% compared to last week as interest rates increased slightly for the week. The purchase index, however, was flat, ending up by barely 0.1% compared to the previous week. No rally in purchase contract demand is apparent yet, and a temporary upward trend in interest rates is deterring refinancing.
    • Jobless Claims
    • Initial claims for unemployment insurance increased by 4,000 to 372,000, in line with analyst expectations. The increase is also consistent with what has been seen in recent weeks. Layoffs are no longer accelerating but have leveled off to a more steady elevated pace compared with trends a year ago.
    • Chain Store Sales
    • Chain store sales remain weak. Sales were unchanged in the week ending May 24 according to the ICSC. Sales have only increased once in the last six weeks. Year-over-year growth was unchanged at 1.5%. Sales suffered from unseasonably cold and wet weather and soaring gasoline prices but were supported by federal tax rebates.
    • Oil and Gas Inventories
    • Crude oil inventories fell by an unprecedented 8.8 million barrels for the week ending May 23, according to the Energy Information Administration, compared with expectations of no change in inventories. Gasoline inventories fell by an outsized 3.2 million barrels, well below expectations of a 0.2 million barrel draw. Distillate supplies rose by 1.6 million barrels, more than expected. Refinery operating capacity was unchanged at 87.9%. This report is very bullish and should send prices higher.
    • Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report
    • Underground storage of natural gas rose by 87 billion cubic feet during the week ending May 23, above consensus expectations of an 84 bcf build. Working gas in underground storage was 1,701 bcf as of May 23, 321 bcf lower than a year ago and eight bcf below the five-year average for this time of year.

    Source: 2008

  • Election Day 
2008 countdown banner

  • BONNEVILLE RESEARCH - Working with clients to deliver results that endure!
  • Successful client work requires a superior team of outstanding people working fluidly together.

    Bonneville Research is the one firm with the experience and expertise to help businesses, governments and nonprofit organizations solve their toughest problems.

    We work to help clients achieve enduring results and improve the communities in which we live.


    Bonneville Research is a Utah-based consulting firm providing economic, financial, market and policy research to public and private sector clients throughout the intermountain west.

    Helping Clients Succeed

    Our services include:

    • Financial Analysis
    • Business License Studies
    • Impact Fee analysis
    • Urban Renewal & Redevelopment Analysis and Budgets
    • Strategy and Policy Analysis
    • Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
    • Statistical and Survey Research
    • Public Sector Mission Effectiveness

    Each of our studies is tailored to address the unique needs of our clients and their communities.

    If we can help, please call or email us at

    • Bob
      • 801-364-5300
    • Jon
      • 801-746-5706

    Note from Bob Springmeyer:

    As some of you may know I am the Democratic Candidate for Utah Governor.

    At the recent State Democratic Convention, I was nominated to be the party's standard bearer with over 88 percent of the vote.

    I chose community activist and retired SBA official Josie Valdez to run as my lieutenant governor.

    It is my hope that I can continue to send out the Monday Report weekly without interruption.

    The Monday Report has always reflected my business and economic development values.

    I don't intend that the Monday Report will become a campaign tool, but if you are interested in my campaign and want to be supportive, please click on the link below.


    Bob Springmeyer

    Check it out -

    Election Date: November 4th, 2008