2022's Greenest Cities in America

[TWAK]

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

vs

Source

[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.

[homebucket]

Yep. It gets even greener peak winter/spring. They used a similar rolling hill landscape up in Sonoma for the Windows XP background.

[homebucket]

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.

Again, it scores high in clean energy source and policy, which isn’t surprising since 100% of its energy is from renewables and it’s working towards carbon neutrality by 2030. New York’s goal is 2050.

Being “green” isn’t just about color.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I am curious what definition they're using for Anchorage's footprint, as over half of the city limits are Chugach State Park:





If I have a remote work or work-from-home position one day, Anchorage is right at the top of my list, as it combines urban amenities with having trailheads to *that* within bus range.

On these trails, aren't there brown (grizzly) bears and even wolves nearby? Of course in the ocean near where I live I could meet an 18 foot Great White Shark or a mountain lion while hiking in the hills. Coyotes usually run away, although some are becoming bolder.

[chris08876]

According to the density of dispensaries, Denver Colorado is the greenest city in America. The Green Capital!

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I am curious what definition they're using for Anchorage's footprint, as over half of the city limits are Chugach State Park:





If I have a remote work or work-from-home position one day, Anchorage is right at the top of my list, as it combines urban amenities with having trailheads to *that* within bus range.

That second pic is Lake Eklutna. About a 45 mile drive from downtown Anchorage, but still in the Anchorage municipality. I’m guessing they are using the whole municipality (city) of Anchorage because the city itself is fairly dense, but directly to the east you have hundreds of square miles of nothing but wilderness. It’s odd with Alaska, but they use municipality and borough to define city limits, but instead they are the size of a county, which Alaska doesn’t have any of. And yes there are bears, but mainly black bears and they usually aren’t aggressive towards people.

[hipster duck]

New York is obviously the greenest American city, but given its density and the lack of space, it feels like the city where the environmental footprint of the typical American lifestyle really hits home.

The tiny space just beside the staircase entrance to any walk up is basically crammed with overflowing garbage cans, and on garbage day the sidewalk has mountains of bags.

This isn't because New Yorkers produce more trash, but just because you have a tenement with several dozen units and they have to put the garbage out somewhere. In the suburbs, a single household would be able to fill a large garbage can that they keep hidden on the side of the house.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

New York is obviously the greenest American city, but given its density and the lack of space, it feels like the city where the environmental footprint of the typical American lifestyle really hits home.

The tiny space just beside the staircase entrance to any walk up is basically crammed with overflowing garbage cans, and on garbage day the sidewalk has mountains of bags.

This isn't because New Yorkers produce more trash, but just because you have a tenement with several dozen units and they have to put the garbage out somewhere. In the suburbs, a single household would be able to fill a large garbage can that they keep hidden on the side of the house.

Isn't it on a fossil fuel dependent grid though? And its density (buildings) and congestion like you mention contributes greatly to GHG emissions. I'm not sure why NYC hasn't jumped on the solar and energy storage bandwagon yet.

NYC's electricity today is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels, representing about a quarter of the city's total greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). By the end of 2021, we expect our local electric grid to be approximately 85% powered by fossil-fuels. This contrasts greatly from the upstate grid, where clean sources make up 88% of the electricity supply. Currently, there are not sufficient transmission lines to bring this clean power to NYC.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/sustainabi...ms/energy.page


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...enhouse-gases/

[chris08876]

Part of the continuous improvement will be retrofitting existing buildings to be green. In general new developments tend to focus on being green but the existing stock in time will have to be upgraded, for the sake of reducing the footprint. And this may be applicable in many cities.

On a side note but more energy efficient heating/AC systems (HVAC) will greatly help, especially with the Southern cities.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Isn't it on a fossil fuel dependent grid though? And its density (buildings) and congestion like you mention contributes greatly to GHG emissions. I'm not sure why NYC hasn't jumped on the solar and energy storage bandwagon yet.


https://www1.nyc.gov/site/sustainabi...ms/energy.page


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...enhouse-gases/

How does NYC's density makes it more likely to emit greenhouse gases than a less dense city in a similar climate? I would think it's the opposite?

Also, there's a huge push to convert to solar power in the city. There are solar panels on pretty much every block of brownstone Brooklyn now.

[chris08876]

Building modifications will go far to reduce the footprint in NYC's case, along with in general any appliance or electronic developments that are more efficient per kW⋅h. The nice thing is the amount of folks that don't drive. Imagine if rideship via cars was as high as LAs? City would see that transportation ratio be a lot higher.

A lot of the bus fleet has also been upgraded over the last decade. More energy efficient buses. Electric will help in that respect in time.

There is a ton of waste that is produced when it comes to HVAC. Buildings not insulating heat properly or leaching heat/cold. That can really hamper the grid; those older structures that say don't have the construction or materials we see in LEED or Green certified buildings.

[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.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

How does NYC's density makes it more likely to emit greenhouse gases than a less dense city in a similar climate? I would think it's the opposite?

It literally says it right in the graphic. Buildings are the largest contributor of GHG emissions. NYC has a lot of buildings.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by homebucket

It literally says it right in the graphic. Buildings are the largest contributor of GHG emissions. NYC has a lot of buildings.

But you'd need even more buildings to accommodate the same sized population in a less dense environment.

[chris08876]

A better measure would of been per capita. Pound for pound.

The list draws from 28 key green indicators. Apparently policy is one of them.

There's probally some bias in all of this.

Density isn't a bad thing but when we scale it up, is it pound for pound, that would be a little fair. Also maybe to factor in parks and flora coverage, your emission absorbers.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But you'd need even more buildings to accommodate the same sized population in a less dense environment.

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

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by homebucket

So because NYC is dense, it is "green"?

I think it's "greener" than most places because of the density. The density means that the energy consumption per person is lower than it is in sprawl-y cities/metros with similar climates. Obviously in a place like southern California there won't be as much need for energy to heat or cool buildings as is needed in New York, but that's a different issue.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think it's "greener" than most places because of the density. The density means that the energy consumption per person is lower than it is in sprawl-y cities/metros with similar climates. Obviously in a place like southern California there won't be as much need for energy to heat or cool buildings as is needed in New York, but that's a different issue.

What about the source of the energy?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by homebucket

What about the source of the energy?

Yes, of course the energy source matters, but I don't think any place in the U.S. with cold weather has radically different energy sources than NYC.