[lfc4life]

It seems that bigger cities with the most traffic don't necessarily produce the most carbon emissions per head. Interesting that LA which has for so many years been ridiculed as a smog town ranks number 2 in america per capita

the average american is responsible for the creation of 2.6 metric tons of carbon per year so all the cities in the top 20 are well below average

Metropolitan Area Per Capita Carbon Footprint (metric tons)

1. Honolulu, HI (1.36)
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA (1.41)
3. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (1.45)
4. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA (1.50)
5. Boise City-Nampa, ID (1.51)
6. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA (1.56)
7. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (1.57)
8. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA (1.59)
9. El Paso, TX (1.61)
10. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (1.63)
11. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA (1.75)
12. Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, CA (1.77)
13. Greenville, SC (1.86)
14. Rochester, NY (1.91)
15. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (1.97)
16. Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY (2.00)
17. Tucson, AZ (2.00)
18. Las Vegas-Paradise, NV (2.01)
19. Stockton, CA (2.02)
20. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH (2.02)
.
.
.
90. Tulsa, OK (3.12)
91. Knoxville, TN (3.13)
92. Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA (3.19)
93. Oklahoma City, OK (3.20)
94. St. Louis, MO-IL (3.22)
95. Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro, TN (3.22)
96. Louisville, KY-IN (3.23)
97. Toledo, OH (3.24)
98. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN (3.28)
99. Indianapolis, IN (3.36)
100. Lexington-Fayette, KY (3.46)

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski/carbonfootprint_brief.pdf

[Peanut]

ok This study is very Fishy to me. How does Honolulu get first when the Majority of Hawaiians do not Recycle. Having spent time in Both Honolulu and Syracuse (67), it just amazes me how Honolulu is #1.

[BTinSF]

:previous:

Two factors probably put Hawaii at the top: A lack of heavy industry and a benign climate. The study makes the point that cities are heavy carbon emitters because of their industry but because of their population density, they fall low in PER CAPITA use. Cities that don't have much industry, and especially cities that also don't use much energy for heating and cooling, would fall lowest of all. Issues like recycling are unimportant by comparison.

[Mr Roboto]

^Midwestern cities seemed to do pretty poorly in this list (along with industrial southern cities), likely adding credence to your idea that heating and cooling and industry plays a big factor in overall carbon footprint. But is Indy really that heavy on industrial? Seems suprising its ranked so low.

[urbanactivistTX]

I kind of agree with it. For all of the negatives that occur for people en masse, the most important positive is education. Most urban citizens are also the ones who are leading the green movement, and making the most conscious efforts to change their carbon footprint. Sadly, I would guess that the farther out you go from the city (suburbs and exurbs), the more wasteful patterns are occurring without restriction.

[alex1]

^Midwestern cities seemed to do pretty poorly in this list (along with industrial southern cities), likely adding credence to your idea that heating and cooling and industry plays a big factor in overall carbon footprint. But is Indy really that heavy on industrial? Seems suprising its ranked so low.

indy is industrial but most pollution comes from automobile driving these days, not industry.

Indy is a hyper-spread out metro area. It's almost completely void of mass transit options which hurts its standings in such a survey/list.

[ignatius]

I'd think cities that depend more on a car would be ranked higher, so it's surprising that LA per cap is lower than NYC. LA area has quite a bit of industry too, doesn't it?

But ultimately the biggest effect on carbon footprint is not just the artifacts we use that generate carbon output, but the number of children people have. For those who have children, they are creating a potential of 10-30X more carbon footprint after several generations compared to a person that has no children.

As a person who has no intention of having children, my carbon footprint is magnitudes less than those who have children who may also have children. In that sense, I could be as carbon wasteful as I want to be and still create magnitudes less carbon footprint than those with children.

[Echo Park]

As a disclaimer, this study did not account the fact that half of the electricity the L.A. metro uses comes from coal-fired power plants. Part of the methodology was using a state average and then applying it to L.A's ranking. Up north there are hydroelectric and nuclear plants, but aren't utilized by the LA metro, yet still included as a factor because as I said they applied statewide averages.

But before the boasting starts, some words of caution: The calculations did not account for the fact that half the city's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. Instead, Brookings used a state-wide average that included the hydroelectric and nuclear plants in Northern California. The study omits emissions from industries and commercial buildings. Also reseachers used the UCB's definition of metropolitan area, which mean riverside and ventura got left out, omitting thosuands of commuters who trek from those counties into L.A.

Still L.A's has a moderate climate that reduces usage of heating and a/c significantly, and is located in a state that has foward thinking green policies (by American standards). So while a lot of factors were left out, L.A. probably wouldn't drop far in the rankings if we factored in all the omitted data. I'm guessing it'd still be in the top 15.

[DaveofCali]

^ I have to respond here because Echo Park loves to be biased against L.A.

Echo Park is making it sound like L.A.'s sources for electricity are unusual, applying a double standard to try to water down L.A.'s ranking. Half of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by coal power plants (http://www.nma.org/statistics/pub_fast_facts.asp), thus L.A.'s sources of electricity are not unusual and are the average (and who's to say that all other cities on the top 15 list have a lesser percentage of power being supplied by coal power plants?)

And of course, you have to factor in California's exceptional environmental laws in the U.S. (which is why CA cities dominate the top 20 list.) In addition, L.A.'s buses are mostly Compressed Natural Gas fueled buses, which emit 20% less greenhouse gases than diesel buses.

I think L.A.'s doing pretty good, considering that L.A.'s an industrial city, a major transportation hub for imported goods, and has America's largest port (combined L.A. / Long Beach ports.)

[Echo Park]

That is basically what I said just wihtout jacking myself off while doing it.

plus L.A. sprawls less than most cities