Emissions
The Most Polluted Cities in the U.S.
The following content is sponsored by the National Public Utilities Council
The Most Polluted U.S. Cities in 2024
According to the World Health Organization, air pollution is responsible for 7 million deaths annually, and could cost the global economy between $18–25 trillion by 2060 in annual welfare costs, or roughly 4–6% of world GDP.
And with predictions that 7 in 10 people will make their homes in urban centers by mid-century, cities are fast becoming one of the frontlines in the global effort to clear the air.
In this visualization, we use 2024 data from the State of the Air report from the American Lung Association to show the most polluted cities in the United States.
What is Air Pollution?
Air pollution is a complex mixture of gases, particles, and liquid droplets and can have a variety of sources, including wildfires and cookstoves in rural areas, and road dust and diesel exhaust in cities.
There are a few kinds of air pollution that are especially bad for human health, including ozone and carbon monoxide, but here we’re concerned with fine particulate matter that is smaller than 2.5 microns, or PM2.5 for short.
The reason for the focus is because at that small size, particulate matter can penetrate the bloodstream and cause all manner of havoc, including cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and chronic pulmonary disease.
The American Lung Association has set an annual average guideline of 9 µg/m³ for PM2.5, however, the World Health Organization has set a much more stringent limit of 5 µg/m³.
The 21 Worst Polluted Cities in the U.S.
Here are the top 21 most polluted cities in the U.S., according to their annual average PM2.5 concentrations:
Rank | City, State | Annual average concentration, 2020-2022 (µg/m3) |
---|---|---|
1 | Bakersfield, CA | 18.8 |
2 | Visalia, CA | 18.4 |
3 | Fresno, CA | 17.5 |
4 | Eugene, OR | 14.7 |
5 | Bay Area, CA | 14.3 |
6 | Los Angeles, CA | 14.0 |
7 | Sacramento, CA | 13.8 |
8 | Medford, OR | 13.5 |
9 | Phoenix, AZ | 12.4 |
10 | Fairbanks, AK | 12.2 |
11 | Indianapolis, IN | 11.9 |
12 | Yakima, WA | 11.8 |
13 | Detroit, MI | 11.7 |
14 | Chico, CA | 11.6 |
14 | Spokane, WA | 11.6 |
15 | Houston, TX | 11.4 |
16 | El Centro, CA | 11.1 |
17 | Reno, NV | 11.0 |
18 | Pittsburgh, PA | 10.9 |
19 | Kansas City, KS | 10.8 |
19 | Las Vegas, NV | 10.8 |
Note: The American Lung Association uses Core Based Statistical Areas in its city and county rankings, which have been shortened here to the area’s principal city, or metro area in the case of the Bay Area, CA.
Six of the top seven cities are in California, and four in the state’s Central Valley, a 450-mile flat valley that runs parallel to the Pacific coast, and bordered by the Coast and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. As a result, when pollution from the big population centers on the coast is carried inland by the wind—cities #5 and #6 on the list—it tends to get trapped in the valley.
Bakersfield (#1), Visalia (#2), and Fresno (#3) are located at the drier and hotter southern end of the valley, which is worse for air quality. The top three local sources of PM2.5 emissions in 2023 were farms (20%), forest management / agricultural waste burning (20%), and road dust (14%).
Benefit to Economy
While the health impacts are generally well understood, less well known are the economic impacts.
Low air quality negatively affects worker productivity, increases absenteeism, and adds both direct and indirect health care costs. But the flip side of that equation is that improving air quality has measurable impacts to the wider economy. The EPA published a study that calculated the economic benefits of each metric ton of particulate matter that didn’t end up in the atmosphere, broken down by sector, including utilities.
Sector | Benefits per metric ton |
---|---|
Residential Woodstoves | $429,220 |
Refineries | $333,938 |
Industrial Boilers | $174,229 |
Oil and Natural Gas Transmission | $125,227 |
Electricity Generating Units | $124,319 |
Oil and Natural Gas | $88,838 |
At the same time, the EPA recently updated a cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Air Act, the main piece of federal legislation governing air quality, and found that between 1990 and 2020 it cost the economy roughly $65 billion, but also provided $2 trillion in benefits.
Benefit to Business
But that’s at the macroeconomic level, so what about for individual businesses?
For one, employees like to breathe clean air and will choose to work somewhere else, given a choice. A 2022 Deloitte case study revealed that nearly 70% of highly-skilled workers said air quality was a significant factor in choosing which city to live and work in.
At the same time, air quality can impact employer-sponsored health care premiums, by reducing the overall health of the risk pool. And since insurance premiums averaged $7,590 per year in 2022 for a single employee, and rose to $21,931 for a family, that can add up fast.
Consumers are also putting their purchase decisions through a green lens, while ESG, triple-bottom-line, and impact investing are putting the environment front and center for many investors.
And if the carrot isn’t enough for some businesses, there is the stick. The EPA recently gave vehicle engine manufacturer Cummins nearly two billion reasons to help improve air quality, in a settlement the agency is calling “the largest civil penalty in the history of the Clean Air Act and the second largest environmental penalty ever.”
Learn how the National Public Utilities Council is working toward the future of sustainable electricity.
Decarbonization
Visualized: Emission Reduction Targets by Country in 2024
This infographic shows the greenhouse gas emissions targets of all countries and their target years with data from Net Zero Tracker.
Visualized: Emission Reduction Targets by Country in 2024
Since 2021, another 40 countries have established climate goals for 2030. However, the path to net zero remains uneven.
With average national warming already 1.81°C above pre-industrial levels, the international pressure for countries to cut emissions faster and deeper is mounting. So where do countries stand today on their targets?
We’ve partnered with the National Public Utilities Council to answer just this question, using the latest national emission target data from Net Zero Tracker.
A Spotlight on Major Players
The largest countries and richest economies typically emit the most greenhouse gases and thus have the most crucial targets.
Country | End Target | End Target Year | New Commitment |
---|---|---|---|
Benin | Net zero | 2000 | Achieved |
Bhutan | Carbon negative | 2030 | Achieved |
Comoros | Net zero | 2050 | Achieved |
Gabon | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Achieved |
Guyana | Net zero | 2050 | Achieved |
Suriname | Net zero | 2050 | Achieved |
Albania | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Algeria | Reduction v. business-as-usual (BAU) | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Barbados | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Belarus | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Botswana | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Brunei | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Cameroon | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Congo | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Côte d'Ivoire | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Cuba | Other | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Czech Republic | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | In law |
Dominica | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Egypt | Other | 2030 | Not legally binding |
El Salvador | Absolute emissions target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Eswatini | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Guatemala | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | In law |
Honduras | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Iran | Other | 2030 | In law |
Iraq | Other | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Jamaica | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Jordan | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Kenya | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Liechtenstein | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Macedonia | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Maldives | Net zero | 2030 | In law |
Mauritania | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Mexico | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Moldova | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Mongolia | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Montenegro | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Morocco | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
North Korea | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Paraguay | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Philippines | Reduction v. BAU | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Poland | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Qatar | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
San Marino | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Serbia | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | In law |
Tajikistan | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Turkmenistan | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Uzbekistan | Emissions intensity target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Venezuela | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Zimbabwe | Emissions reduction target | 2030 | Not legally binding |
Bermuda | Other | 2035 | Not legally binding |
Finland | Climate neutral | 2035 | In law |
Antigua and Barbuda | Net zero | 2040 | Not legally binding |
Austria | Climate neutral | 2040 | In law |
Cayman Islands | Other | 2040 | Not legally binding |
Iceland | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2040 | In law |
Myanmar | Net zero | 2040 | Not legally binding |
Palestine | Other | 2040 | Not legally binding |
Denmark | Net zero | 2045 | Not legally binding |
Germany | Climate neutral | 2045 | In law |
Nepal | Net zero | 2045 | Not legally binding |
Sweden | Net zero | 2045 | In law |
Afghanistan | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Andorra | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Angola | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Argentina | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Armenia | Climate neutral | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Australia | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
Azerbaijan | Emissions reduction target | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Bangladesh | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Belgium | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Belize | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | Emissions reduction target | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Brazil | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Bulgaria | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Burkina Faso | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Burundi | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Cambodia | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Canada | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
Cape Verde | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Central African Republic | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Chad | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Chile | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | In law |
Colombia | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | In law |
Cook Islands | Carbon neutral | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Costa Rica | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Croatia | Climate neutral | 2050 | In law |
Cyprus | Climate neutral | 2050 | In law |
Democratic Republic of the Congo | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Djibouti | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Dominican Republic | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Ecuador | Zero carbon | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Equatorial Guinea | Emissions reduction target | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Eritrea | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Estonia | Zero emissions | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Ethiopia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
European Union | Climate neutral | 2050 | In law |
Fiji | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
France | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
Georgia | Climate neutral | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Greece | Climate neutral | 2050 | In law |
Grenada | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Guinea | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Guinea-Bissau | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Haiti | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Hungary | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
Ireland | Climate neutral | 2050 | In law |
Israel | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Italy | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Japan | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | In law |
Kiribati | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Kyrgyzstan | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Laos | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Latvia | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Lebanon | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Lesotho | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Liberia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Lithuania | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Luxembourg | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
Madagascar | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Malawi | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Malaysia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Mali | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Malta | Climate neutral | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Marshall Islands | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Mauritius | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Micronesia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Monaco | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Mozambique | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Namibia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Nauru | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Netherlands | Emissions reduction target | 2050 | In law |
New Zealand | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
Nicaragua | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Niger | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Niue | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Norway | Emissions reduction target | 2050 | In law |
Oman | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Pakistan | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Palau | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Panama | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Papua New Guinea | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Peru | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Portugal | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | In law |
Romania | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Rwanda | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Saint Lucia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Samoa | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Sao Tome and Principe | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Senegal | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Seychelles | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Sierra Leone | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Singapore | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Slovakia | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
Slovenia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Solomon Islands | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Somalia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
South Africa | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
South Korea | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
South Sudan | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Spain | Climate neutral | 2050 | In law |
Sri Lanka | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Sudan | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Switzerland | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
Tanzania | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
The Bahamas | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
The Gambia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Timor-Leste | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Togo | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Tonga | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Trinidad and Tobago | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Tunisia | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Tuvalu | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Uganda | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
United Arab Emirates | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
United Kingdom | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
United States of America | Net zero | 2050 | In law |
Uruguay | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Vanuatu | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Vatican City | Carbon Neutral | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Vietnam | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Yemen | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Zambia | Net zero | 2050 | Not legally binding |
Bahrain | Net zero | 2060 | Not legally binding |
China | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2060 | Not legally binding |
Indonesia | Net zero | 2060 | Not legally binding |
Kazakhstan | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2060 | Not legally binding |
Kuwait | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2060 | Not legally binding |
Russian Federation | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2060 | Not legally binding |
Saudi Arabia | Net zero | 2060 | Not legally binding |
Türkiye | Net zero | 2053 | Not legally binding |
Ukraine | Carbon neutral(ity) | 2060 | Not legally binding |
Ghana | Net zero | 2070 | Not legally binding |
India | Net zero | 2070 | Not legally binding |
Nigeria | Net zero | 2070 | In law |
Thailand | Net zero | 2065 | Not legally binding |
Bolivia | No target | N/A | None |
Libya | No target | N/A | None |
Syrian Arab Republic | No target | N/A | None |
The United States has an interim goal of a 50-52% reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030, with a net zero target set for 2050.
Their primary economic rival, China, is focused on peaking its CO₂ emissions by 2030 instead of reducing them. Their net zero target, on the other hand, is currently set for 2060.
The European Union requires all 27 member states to reduce emissions 55% by 2030, with a net-zero goal for 2050.
Australia, which is among the top emitters per capita because of its fossil fuel usage, aims to reduce emissions by 43% from 2005 levels by 2030, while their net zero target is set for 2050.
Ambitious Climate Leaders and Laggards
While Comoros, Bhutan, Gabon, Suriname, and Guyana claim to have already achieved net zero, several major countries lack commitment.
Russia, one of the world’s largest polluters, has a net zero target set for 2060. Several other top-emitting countries, such as India and Indonesia, have net zero targets that also do not meet the Paris Climate Accord timeline of net zero by 2050. Their net-zero commitments are targeted at 2070 and 2060, respectively.
Iran is the only one of the top 10 largest emitting nations without a net zero target. However, it has an interim target of reducing emissions 3.45% by 2030.
Finland leads all countries with a legally binding net zero target set for the ambitious year 2035. Germany, a more populous nation, is also topping the Paris Climate Accord timeline, enshrining its net zero target into law for 2045.
The global race to net zero is ongoing, with countries at various stages of commitment. While significant progress has been made, many of the world’s largest emitters have yet to commit to net zero emission goals aligned with the Paris Climate Accord.
Emissions
Visualized: Global CO2 Emissions Through Time (1950–2022)
In this streamgraph, we break down global CO2 emissions between 1950 and 2022 using data from Berkeley Earth and Global Carbon Project.
Visualized: Global CO2 Emissions Through Time (1950-2022)
Global CO2 emissions have grown six-fold since 1950.
But which countries have contributed the most to this growth?
In this streamgraph, created in partnership with the National Public Utilities Council, we answer that question using regional emissions data from Berkeley Earth and Global Carbon Project.
Global CO2 Emissions: The Last 70 Years in Review
In the 1950s, the United States and the countries that later formed the European Union (EU) were the biggest emitters in the world, responsible for over 70% of total annual emissions.
However, this trend swiftly changed as other nations entered the fray.
For instance, China’s economic surge in the 1970s, particularly with the advent of Deng Xiaoping’s new economic strategy in 1978, triggered a notable uptick in the country’s CO2 output. From 1950 to 2000, China witnessed a surge of over 4,500% in emissions, reaching an annual 3.6 billion tonnes by 2000.
Similarly, India, Japan, and the broader Asian region, all experienced emission growth exceeding 1,000% between 1950 and 2000.
Metric tons of carbon dioxide (tCO2) | 1950 | 2000 | 2022 | Change 1950–2000 | Change 2000–2022 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
China | 0.1B | 3.6B | 11.4B | 4,529% | 213% |
Asia (excl. China, Japan, and India) | 0.2B | 3.2B | 6.2B | 1,973% | 95% |
United States of America | 2.5B | 6.0B | 5.1B | 136% | -16% |
European Union | 1.8B | 4.2B | 3.1B | 134% | -26% |
Rest of World | 0.4B | 2.5B | 2.9B | 465% | 16% |
India | 0.1B | 1.0B | 2.8B | 1,500% | 189% |
Russia | 0.4B | 1.5B | 1.7B | 256% | 12% |
Africa | 0.1B | 0.9B | 1.4B | 876% | 52% |
Japan | 0.1B | 1.3B | 1.1B | 1,132% | -17% |
South America | 0.1B | 0.8B | 1.1B | 621% | 34% |
Canada | 0.2B | 0.6B | 0.6B | 268% | -3% |
Data note: 1950 was used as a beginning point for the graph due to the lack of available data for many countries prior to that year.
As illustrated in the table above, the growth in global carbon emissions has slowed since 2000.
With that said, global emissions have still risen from 25 billion tonnes in 2000 to 37 billion in 2022, yet another all-time high. Today, over 40% of emissions come from the United States and China, underscoring their pivotal roles in shaping the global emissions landscape.
Where Are We Headed From Here?
The United Nations’ recent Emissions Gap report highlights a concerning reality: the ongoing rate of emissions combined with existing policies steers humanity towards a world that is 3°C warmer than pre-industrial levels. This contrasts starkly with the goals of 1.5–2°C agreed to in 2015.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that such a degree of warming will bring catastrophic repercussions, from severe changes in weather patterns to rising sea levels, widespread extinctions, and critical disruptions to global food and water systems.
This underscores the critical need for swift, concerted action to curb emissions and mitigate the impending environmental challenges that are potentially before us.
Learn more about how electric utilities and the power sector can lead on the path toward decarbonization here.
-
Energy Shift1 year ago
Ranked: The Cheapest Sources of Electricity in the U.S.
-
Electrification2 years ago
Visualized: How the Power Grid Works
-
Energy Shift2 years ago
Animated: 70 Years of U.S. Electricity Generation by Source
-
Clean Energy11 months ago
Breaking Down the $110 Trillion Cost of the Clean Energy Transition
-
Clean Energy2 years ago
Breaking Down Clean Energy Funding in the Inflation Reduction Act
-
Clean Energy2 years ago
The 30 Largest U.S. Hydropower Plants
-
Emissions2 years ago
Visualizing Global Per Capita CO2 Emissions
-
Decarbonization2 years ago
The U.S. Utilities Decarbonization Index