2022's Greenest Cities in America

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by homebucket

So because NYC is dense, it is "green"? Is high density the primary factor in determining what makes a city "green"?

It would be strongly correlated with green, yes. More like household footprint than density, per se.

Hong Kong is probably the greenest non-poor major city on earth, even though it's mostly coal power. Absurdly tiny apartments, miniscule vehicle ownership, and highest weighted density of any non-poor city. Per capita environmental costs are minimal.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's nothing green about Irvine's utilities. They use the same providers as the rest of Orange County. Southern CA Gas and Southern CA Edison. If the Huntington Beach desal plant finally gets built, Irvine will have extremely environmentally-unfriendly water delivery too.

And that makes no sense. If I build a 10-car, 10,000 square foot McMansion in the boonies, and use (say) 100% solar power, it's hardly green. It's an environmental mess. A coal-powered apartment block in, say, Berlin is obviously overall far more green. For total solar, for a home of that size, you'd need like 100 solar panels, multiple backup batteries, and an ultra-expensive whole-house system. You'd also be driving everywhere, having goods/services delivered in a hugely inefficient manner, and reducing the footprint for climate-fighting green space.

Then someone living a coal-powered Berlin apartment will have a small living space, limited utility usage, no vehicle, and limited goods/services delivered efficiently on an existing, land-preserving footprint.

Of course, but that's not the only factor that goes into determining whether or not a city is "green". There are different contributors like sources of energy (ideally renewable), building efficiency, accessibility to open green space, clean energy policy etc. Obviously a smaller footprint and lower usage and emphasis on walking or public transport is ideal but that's only part of the picture.

[iheartthed]

Did a quick search for list of cities by per capita carbon footprint. This is the list of US cities with urban areas of +1 million ordered from biggest to smallest footprint. With the exception of Portland, all cities ranked below New York are warm weather places:

1. Detroit
2. St. Louis
3. Kansas City
4. Minneapolis
5. Chicago
6. Baltimore
7. Columbus
8. Philadelphia
9. Denver
10. Boston
11. Washington D.C.
12. Atlanta
13. San Jose
14. Seattle
15. New York
16. Portland
17. Dallas
18. Miami
19. Phoenix
20. San Antonio
21. Orlando
22. Houston
23. Los Angeles
24. San Diego
25. Sacramento
26. Las Vegas

source: https://www.citycarbonfootprints.info/

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Here's a good display of what I was sayin', for those who are unfamiliar with the phenomena:

vs

Source

It's funny because my parents' friends who back in the 1990s moved from SoCal to Rockaway, NJ (they have since moved back to SoCal) had the misconception of "it's so green in the northeast!"
And then they realized for a good part of the year, it looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ro....5143232?hl=en

In Rockaway, it's brown in the winter and green in the summer. In SoCal, it's green in the winter and brown in the summer.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Irvine is suburban sprawl hell. And it's brown nine months of the year. Also, Irvine has terrible mobility, given its sprawly cul-de-sac layout. The major arterials are extremely congested.

It's inclusion on a list of "green" cities, by any definition, is ridiculous.

Funny, I wouldn't consider Irvine to be brown nine months out of the year; it's so heavily landscaped and irrigated, it looks "green" year round. When you're *in* Irvine, it looks so artificially manicured (and sterile).

The undeveloped hills around it do turn tan/olive/brown in the summer, though.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

In Rockaway, it's brown in the winter and green in the summer. In SoCal, it's green in the winter and brown in the summer.

I mean, sorta, but Rockaway at its brownest is much greener than Irvine at its greenest. Irvine's wettest month is dryer than Rockaway's dryest month.

Irvine is really freaking dry and brown. Even in January, it's pretty brown. Brown in the Northeast means the leaves fell and the grass is no longer solid green. Green in OC means it rained a few times, and stuff is actually growing. So it's like different scales.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Funny, I wouldn't consider Irvine to be brown nine months out of the year; it's so heavily landscaped and irrigated, it looks "green" year round. When you're *in* Irvine, it looks so artificially manicured (and sterile).

The undeveloped hills around it do turn tan/olive/brown in the summer, though.

That's how Fremont is. The hills are brown but much of the city is landscaped green. Save for dead lawns here and there. Plus there are flowers always in bloom. I assume similar in Southern California. Climate is pretty similar..

[edale]

Originally Posted by JManc

That's how Fremont is. The hills are brown but much of the city is landscaped green. Save for dead lawns here and there. Plus there are flowers always in bloom. I assume similar in Southern California. Climate is pretty similar..

Given the residential water restrictions because of the drought, a LOT of the grass in parkways and lawns in my neighborhood has turned brown and died. A fair number of them have reverted to dirt. It's a good reminder that most of Southern California is essentially entirely dependent on irrigation to be a desirable place. Without widespread irrigation, LA would be a largely treeless, brown dust bowl for most of the year. Canyons and the few streams/arroyos that crisscross the landscape have some trees, but lush, 'eden' type of landscape that you see in wealthier neighborhoods is 100% artificial. Yet I consistently hear clamoring for the city to plant more trees and grow the 'urban forest'. IMO, if you want to live in a forested environment, move somewhere where it rains!

You can see how the Midwest and East Coast has historically had a hard time competing with California-- you can import water to green up a place, but you can't import sunshine and warmth.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Did a quick search for list of cities by per capita carbon footprint. This is the list of US cities with urban areas of +1 million ordered from biggest to smallest footprint. With the exception of Portland, all cities ranked below New York are warm weather places:

1. Detroit
2. St. Louis
3. Kansas City
4. Minneapolis
5. Chicago
6. Baltimore
7. Columbus
8. Philadelphia
9. Denver
10. Boston
11. Washington D.C.
12. Atlanta
13. San Jose
14. Seattle
15. New York
16. Portland
17. Dallas
18. Miami
19. Phoenix
20. San Antonio
21. Orlando
22. Houston
23. Los Angeles
24. San Diego
25. Sacramento
26. Las Vegas

source: https://www.citycarbonfootprints.info/

Austin should be on the list somewhere. Our city proper is about one million, and the metro is considerably more than that. Some of the cities on the list have city proper populations well under a million.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by edale

Given the residential water restrictions because of the drought, a LOT of the grass in parkways and lawns in my neighborhood has turned brown and died. A fair number of them have reverted to dirt. It's a good reminder that most of Southern California is essentially entirely dependent on irrigation to be a desirable place. Without widespread irrigation, LA would be a largely treeless, brown dust bowl for most of the year. Canyons and the few streams/arroyos that crisscross the landscape have some trees, but lush, 'eden' type of landscape that you see in wealthier neighborhoods is 100% artificial. Yet I consistently hear clamoring for the city to plant more trees and grow the 'urban forest'. IMO, if you want to live in a forested environment, move somewhere where it rains!

You can see how the Midwest and East Coast has historically had a hard time competing with California-- you can import water to green up a place, but you can't import sunshine and warmth.

Having spent my life back east and in Houston, man, I could not ask for a more perfect climate than what we have here in the east bay. I am good with it being brown as long as I can have my windows open all the time.

[Nomad9]

Farmers markets per capita is a really weird metric. I live in Lincoln and I guess we don’t have many farmers markets, but we have one giant market that’s super popular and blows most farmers markets I’ve been to out of the water. And we’re surrounded by actual farms.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by JManc

That's how Fremont is. The hills are brown but much of the city is landscaped green. Save for dead lawns here and there. Plus there are flowers always in bloom. I assume similar in Southern California. Climate is pretty similar..

BART even goes under one of those parks, or maybe both (can't remember). They are pretty big given Fremont's size and suburban reputation, not to mention they almost got the A's.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

Austin should be on the list somewhere. Our city proper is about one million, and the metro is considerably more than that. Some of the cities on the list have city proper populations well under a million.

Austin was just below the cutoff at 955k according to their data. Here's the list using 900k as the cutoff:

1. Detroit
2. Cleveland
3. St. Louis
4. Kansas City
5. Minneapolis
6. Chicago
7. Indianapolis
8. Baltimore
9. Columbus
10. Philadelphia
11. Denver
12. Boston
13. Washington D.C.
14. Atlanta
15. San Jose
16. Seattle
17. New York
18. Portland
19. Dallas
20. Miami
21. Phoenix
22. Salt Lake City
23. San Antonio
24. Austin
25. Orlando
26. Houston
27. Los Angeles
28. San Diego
29. Sacramento
30. Las Vegas

Austin is at #24.

[Double L]

Houston at number 22 for largest per capita carbon footprint is quite an accomplishment. It relies on the energy industry and is a driving city.