Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Los Angeles......So. Calif. an Island on the Land
736 posts, read 2,296,020 times
Reputation: 484
Advertisements
According to a recent study by the Brookings Institution, the 10 cities with the smallestcarbon footprints per capita (in ranked order), were:
1. Honolulu
2. Los Angeles
3. Portland, Ore.
4. New York
5. Boise, Idaho
6. Seattle
7. San Jose
8. San Francisco
9. El Paso, Texas
10. San Diego
The study evaluated pollution generated by residential structures and highway traffic in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas. The study can be found at the Brooking's webpage: www.brookings.edu
I like how it's mostly a west coast thing myself (clean air). I would be interested in seeing the rustbelt cities carbon footprints though as I think Obama will be making some $$$ off of those cities.
According to a recent study by the Brookings Institution, the 10 cities with the smallestcarbon footprints per capita (in ranked order), were:
1. Honolulu
2. Los Angeles
3. Portland, Ore.
4. New York
5. Boise, Idaho
6. Seattle
7. San Jose
8. San Francisco
9. El Paso, Texas
10. San Diego
The study evaluated pollution generated by residential structures and highway traffic in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas. The study can be found at the Brooking's webpage: www.brookings.edu
It is hard to believe New York is not being number one as it is the only US city where car ownership is below 50%....
NYC has a fairly terrible recycling program, and pretty much none of its power is from renewable sources. If the city gets around to solving either of those, then NYC would be on top.
And we all know that cars are the world's only pollutant!
Now they are not, even cows in the farmland pollute the air. They do contribute greatly to polution and watching people driving to work alone in cars does looks to me like a great waste of natural resources not to mention the associated emissions. Would you dispute this statement?
Mass transit use in New York City is the highest in United States and gasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s.[47] New York City's high rate of transit use saved 1.8 billion gallons of oil in 2006; New York saves half of all the oil saved by transit nationwide.[48] The city's population density, low automobile use and high transit utility make it among the most energy efficient cities in the United States.[49] New York City's greenhouse gas emissions are 7.1 metric tons per person compared with the national average of 24.5.[50] New Yorkers are collectively responsible for one percent of the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions[50] though comprise 2.7% of the nation's population. The average New Yorker consumes less than half the electricity used by a resident of San Francisco and nearly one-quarter the electricity consumed by a resident of Dallas.[51]
Location: Los Angeles......So. Calif. an Island on the Land
736 posts, read 2,296,020 times
Reputation: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost
LA? Really?
Can someone elaborate for me?
Yes, I'll give it a try.
First of all, Los Angeles is in the state of California where environmental laws are the strictest in the nation (including smog emmissions on cars). Also, local building codes, are VERY strict. LA is generally a "progressive" city with strict environmental standards (as hard as it is for people who like to bash LA to admit). While LA's population has grown dramatically over the last 30 years, the smog levels have actually improved (thanks to stricter tailpipe standards and increased mass transit).
Second, although LA was founded in 1781, the majority of its housing stock is relatively new and therefore more energy efficient than many other places. Housing stock was part of the calculation.
Third, the study did NOT include emissinos from "local" roads (only highways were included). Fourth, the emissions from industries and commercial buildings were NOT included in the study. I am guessing they didn't have reliable data for these last two categories.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
