[Wooster]

According to Mercer's quality of living survey;

Eco-City Ranking 2010 includes the following criteria: Water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion.

http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr#Ranking_Eco_Cities

1 CALGARY CANADA 145.7
2 HONOLULU UNITED STATES 145.1
3 OTTAWA CANADA 139.9
3 HELSINKI FINLAND 139.9
5 WELLINGTON NEW ZEALAND 138.9
6 MINNEAPOLIS UNITED STATES 137.8
7 ADELAIDE AUSTRALIA 137.5
8 COPENHAGEN DENMARK 137.4
9 KOBE JAPAN 135.6
9 OSLO NORWAY 135.6
9 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 135.6
12 PERTH AUSTRALIA 135.3
13 MONTREAL CANADA 133.6
13 VANCOUVER CANADA 133.6
13 NURNBERG GERMANY 133.6
13 AUCKLAND NEW ZEALAND 133.6
13 BERN SWITZERLAND 133.6
13 PITTSBURGH UNITED STATES 133.6
19 ZURICH SWITZERLAND 133.5
19 ABERDEEN UNITED KINGDOM 133.5
21 CANBERRA AUSTRALIA 133.3
22 SINGAPORE SINGAPORE 132.4
23 BRISBANE AUSTRALIA 131.6
23 WASHINGTON UNITED STATES 131.6
25 MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA 131.5
25 GENEVA SWITZERLAND 131.5
25 BOSTON UNITED STATES 131.5
28 DUSSELDORF GERMANY 130.7
28 MUNICH GERMANY 130.7
30 CAPE TOWN SOUTH AFRICA 129.4
30 BELFAST UNITED KINGDOM 129.4
32 LYON FRANCE 129.3
33 DUBLIN IRELAND 128.9
34 HAMBURG GERMANY 128.8
34 STUTTGART GERMANY 128.8
34 PHILADELPHIA UNITED STATES 128.8
37 YOKOHAMA JAPAN 128.7
38 VICTORIA SEYCHELLES 128.5
39 TORONTO CANADA 127.1
39 AMSTERDAM NETHERLANDS 127.1
41 BRUSSELS BELGIUM 126.8
41 LEIPZIG GERMANY 126.8
43 ST. LOUIS UNITED STATES 126.6
44 VIENNA AUSTRIA 126.2
44 LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG 126.2
46 SYDNEY AUSTRALIA 125
47 GLASGOW UNITED KINGDOM 124.7
48 MUSCAT OMAN 124.2
49 POINTE-A-PITRE GUADELOUPE 123.8
50 NAGOYA JAPAN 123.1
50 OSAKA JAPAN 123.1
50 FRANKFURT GERMANY 123.1

[Calgarian]

Interesting, never really thought of Calgary as an Eco-City. I'd hate to see the argument that would ensue if this were re-posted in the Canada thread.

[Bigtime]

I'm guessing we rank #1 due to our water and sewer treatment mainly.

[CorporateWhore]

If those are indeed all the factors, I would imagine Calgary doing pretty well in all 6 areas. Even traffic congestion, which I know Calgarians like tho think is Armageddon level, is peanuts compared to most cities around the world.

Not sure it should be limited to just those factors though when doing something like this. When you throw around words like "Eco City", it's really hard to ignore the realities of Calgary's sprawl and the lifestyle it promotes.

[Wooster]

Water and sewage certainly would have a big impact on the ranking.

[freeweed]

Swimming/fishing in the Bow (unheard of in any major city that I've ever been to), our complete lack of traffic jams as alluded to above, mostly air pollution free thanks to the strong winds here and rather small industrial presence... yeah, I can easily see it.

Plus, our sprawl is much better contained than most cities. We don't really have many bedroom communities.

Yeah, from a tree-hugger perspective ;) we may not be "eco", but then again, no city is.

[AUM]

This definitely does not apply to our built form...but I agree with regards to water and waste management.

[CorporateWhore]

How cold is that Bow water anyway? I've actually never swam, fished, or rafted on the thing. :(

[Wentworth]

On a related note, did anyone read this thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=181886) on Canada's smartest cities? Calgary fared quite well on that list, and also did well on the other lists as well (Most Active, Most Cultured, Most Socially Engaged, and Most Wired lists.)

[SubwayRev]

How cold is that Bow water anyway? I've actually never swam, fished, or rafted on the thing. :(

It needs to be a pretty warm day out for it to be tolerable as it isn't by any means 'warm'. But if it's warm enough outside, it can feel refreshing.

[freeweed]

How cold is that Bow water anyway? I've actually never swam, fished, or rafted on the thing. :(

Warm enough by mid July. No, you won't be sitting in it like you would in a hot tub, but jumping off a raft and paddling around for a bit? Plenty warm.

Then again, I grew up swimming in spring-fed lakes so 15-20 degree water doesn't seem all that bad to me.

It's VERY refreshing on those rare 30C and sunny days.

[Calgarian]

The Bow is great in July and August on a hot day, perfectly comfortable for swimming.

[kw5150]

How come no one mentioned transit, biking and walking.....that reduces traffic congestion by HUGE numbers.

[freeweed]

How come no one mentioned transit, biking and walking.....that reduces traffic congestion by HUGE numbers.

Transit on the C-Train, sure, but my gut says that Calgary doesn't have that many bicyclers/walkers. At least not in terms of actually reducing traffic. Tons of people do it recreationally but to get to work? I'd imagine other (especially warmer) cities would beat us on that easily.

However the story doesn't really dive into WHY there's no congestion, just that there is.

[Wooster]

In 2006:

31,755 Calgarians walked to work. Over 1/3 the number that take transit to work (91,370). So it is a significant number. I'd imagine many of these trips are from very central neighbourhoods like Beltline, Mission, Sunnyside etc. Cyclist commuters: 7,560.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labr88f-eng.htm

[fusili]

Kind of a misnomer. While we have great water potability and sewage treatment, we are also an ecological disaster. "Eco-City" gives me the impression of most environmentally friendly city, which I really doubt we are. And I question a lot of the methodolgy. Is air pollution rated on a parts per million of VOCs and the like, or is it measured as a per capita emission? If it is the former, the rating punishes dense cities, which are much more ecologically friendly than those who aren't.

As a side note- traffic congestion is a good thing. Why they included it as a measure of "Eco-City" I have no idea. It is why New Yorkers have the lowest carbon footprint and lowest energy consumption per capita than any other city in North America. Traffic congestion causes people to walk and take transit. For reference: The Green Metropolis by David Owen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594488827/npr-5-20)

[freeweed]

Kind of a misnomer. While we have great water potability and sewage treatment, we are also an ecological disaster. "Eco-City" gives me the impression of most environmentally friendly city, which I really doubt we are. And I question a lot of the methodolgy. Is air pollution rated on a parts per million of VOCs and the like, or is it measured as a per capita emission? If it is the former, the rating punishes dense cities, which are much more ecologically friendly than those who aren't.

As a side note- traffic congestion is a good thing. Why they included it as a measure of "Eco-City" I have no idea. It is why New Yorkers have the lowest carbon footprint and lowest energy consumption per capita than any other city in North America. Traffic congestion causes people to walk and take transit. For reference: The Green Metropolis by David Owen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594488827/npr-5-20)

They seem to be measuring "how healthy it is to live in the city", not theoretical/ideological goals.

I understand what you're saying, but of course air pollution measures will punish dense cities. They generally have much worse air pollution! In terms of what it's like to breathe the air, anyway. I know I'm a radical, but I'll take massive carbon pollution over particulates/sulfates/nitrates any day.

On a per-capita basis I bet China is far less polluting than Canada, but I've seen pictures of the air in Beijing and you couldn't pay me to live there.

And traffic congestion? A major, major source of air pollution. All those idling vehicles spewing crap into the air needlessly. It may be a driver towards positive changes, but the congestion itself just plain sucks.

[shreddog]

Mercer has rebranded it's "cleanest city in the world" report as top eco-city. The cleanest city report has been posted here numerous times over the years and Calgary has been in the number one spot for the past 4(5?) years, predominantly due to the impact of waste reduction, water treatment and the overall impact it's infrastructure has on the environment.

I know that everyone loves to dump on the built form of Calgary (I.e. the sprawl) and how bad it is and how much better city X is, but the fact remains that maybe cities like Toronto and Vancouver have more density and less auto use in their cores, it is undeniable that their overall impact on the planet is greater due to things like dumping shit water into a nearby lake and millions of pounds of pollution into the air every year due to the absolute number of vehicles.

Is Calgary perfect? Hell no! But as imperfect as it is, it's still squeaky clean!

[Surrealplaces]

Interesting results. Pretty much the same as other Mercer reports in the past. Last year , I think we were tied with Honolulu.

The word 'Eco' in this survey is a bit misleading I agree. Calgary inherits great water and air quality from mother nature. We've spent alot on our sewage treatment, so we deserve kudos for that.

[shreddog]

Kind of a misnomer ... we are also an ecological disaster.Don't mean to nitpik, but from the environmental perspective, every city is an ecological disaster as every city has displaced the natural flora and fauna. I don't wish to fixate on idealogy, however every alteration of the landscape by man destroys the ecology that was there prior. While some things may be more benign than others, in absolute terms Gia gets it every time.


It is why New Yorkers have the lowest carbon footprint and lowest energy consumption per capita than any other city in North America. Traffic congestion causes people to walk and take transit. For reference: The Green Metropolis by David Owen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594488827/npr-5-20) The problem with stats is that they can say whatever you want. When calculating this measure, did they include GHG emissions that resulted from the construction of a refinery in Houston that was funded by investment bankers in NY? Or perhaps the oil used to catch the fish that was then flown by airplane from Chile and served in a resto in NY? And where are the GHG emissions attributed to the banker who lives in NY M-F but spends the weekends on his boat in the Hamptons? Finally, how large is the carbon footprint required to address the fact that NY only does primary treatment on its sewage before dumping it into the ocean?

Dont' mean to focus on you specifically, but these reports are often difficult to review in isolation and without full context.

(BTW, I do love NY and dense cities, but I don't automatically subscribe to the theory that density is best by itself)

NOTE: In response to the Green Metropolis (which I enjoyed) I throw out Radical Simplicity (http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Simplicity-Small-Footprints-Finite/dp/0865714738/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274901834&sr=1-16) as a means to sustainability that focuses on a low density approach.

[kw5150]

Transit on the C-Train, sure, but my gut says that Calgary doesn't have that many bicyclers/walkers. At least not in terms of actually reducing traffic. Tons of people do it recreationally but to get to work? I'd imagine other (especially warmer) cities would beat us on that easily.

However the story doesn't really dive into WHY there's no congestion, just that there is.

Yes, but some people walk 1 to 2km to get to transit, thats what I was hinting at. I started biking to work 2 years ago and I love it. In the winter I take transit.

[freeweed]

Calgary inherits great water and air quality from mother nature.

Technically, so does everywhere. We're just able to pollute our air slightly more and have it "cleaned up" for us automatically.

[fusili]

The problem with stats is that they can say whatever you want. When calculating this measure, did they include GHG emissions that resulted from the construction of a refinery in Houston that was funded by investment bankers in NY? Or perhaps the oil used to catch the fish that was then flown by airplane from Chile and served in a resto in NY? And where are the GHG emissions attributed to the banker who lives in NY M-F but spends the weekends on his boat in the Hamptons? Finally, how large is the carbon footprint required to address the fact that NY only does primary treatment on its sewage before dumping it into the ocean?


Yeah, I agree. It is extremely hard to measure these things. Concepts such as embodied energy, carbon, water etc etc are good tools to better measure the true impact of something. As is the Life Cycle Analysis model.

But I stand next to my point that "Eco-City" is a poor name for this category and it should be "Cleanest City" instead.

[SubwayRev]

Yeah, I agree. It is extremely hard to measure these things. Concepts such as embodied energy, carbon, water etc etc are good tools to better measure the true impact of something. As is the Life Cycle Analysis model.

But I stand next to my point that "Eco-City" is a poor name for this category and it should be "Cleanest City" instead.

You're right...that's what the report comes off as, despite the misleading moniker "Eco."

To the water topic, most cities in Canada barely do anything to their sewage. It's actually amazing. See Victoria and St. John's whose sewage doesn't pass through anything before dumping into the ocean. There are even signs in downtown St. John's telling you not to throw garbage into the toilet, because birds and fish might choke on it. Canada may have the worst seage record of any developed nation, and even many undeveloped nations.

In a report I saw from, I believe 2006, Calgary and Edmonton were the only cities in Canada to receive a grade above D, and they both received A+. Halifax, St. John's, Vancouver, Victoria and Montreal all received F...

[The Chemist]

^Why do citizens of those cities stand for that crap (pun completely intended)? It's despicable that so many of our cities dump raw sewage right into large bodies of water with absolutely no treatment.

I mean, it's not like building sufficient water treatment plants (at very least secondary treatment) are THAT expensive. Surely they can find some room in their budgets to build them.

[Calgarian]

lol, this made it to the Canada section.

[freeweed]

But I stand next to my point that "Eco-City" is a poor name for this category and it should be "Cleanest City" instead.

And they stand next to their point. ;)

"Cleanest City" was making people think in terms of cleanliness, you know, like litter and dirt and whatnot. Calgary definitely feels like a "dirty" city to most people, especially in September or so when dust is flying everywhere and you just can't keep your car clean at all.

"Eco" just means a different thing to some people than you. You have to admit, Calgary treats its local environment pretty damned good compared to just about anywhere else. About the only possible knock that I can see is our carbon footprint, but that's distributed and really so nebulous that it's difficult to even label as a pollutant. Besides, a bit of warming might help settle down the whiners in the Construction thread. :haha:

[WhipperSnapper]

.

In a report I saw from, I believe 2006, Calgary and Edmonton were the only cities in Canada to receive a grade above D, and they both received A+. Halifax, St. John's, Vancouver, Victoria and Montreal all received F...

Hey man! Toronto was/is a solid "B" . Moving on.

[Doug]

^Why do citizens of those cities stand for that crap (pun completely intended)? It's despicable that so many of our cities dump raw sewage right into large bodies of water with absolutely no treatment.

I mean, it's not like building sufficient water treatment plants (at very least secondary treatment) are THAT expensive. Surely they can find some room in their budgets to build them.

It can be astronomically expensive as building the pipes requires ripping up streets, acquiring rights of way and tunneling. Acquiring the actual land for the treatment plants and overcoming NIMBY pushback is also a problem. I remember an article a few years back stating that completely separating the combined storm and sanitary systems in Toronto plus implementing tertiary sewage treatment and passive stormwater treatment would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Emerging market cities can do it for much less money as they generally operate under legal frameworks where governments can easuly acquire land and completely ignore community opposition.

[Wooster]

^ What's Toronto's excuse for shipping garbage to Michigan though? :cool:

[SubwayRev]

Hey man! Toronto was/is a solid "B" . Moving on.

Aw crap you're right! I guess I shit the bed on that one. Will you forgive me for taking the piss?

[fusili]

And they stand next to their point. ;)

"Cleanest City" was making people think in terms of cleanliness, you know, like litter and dirt and whatnot. Calgary definitely feels like a "dirty" city to most people, especially in September or so when dust is flying everywhere and you just can't keep your car clean at all.

"Eco" just means a different thing to some people than you.

Touche!

Maybe it should be changed to "Best municipal water/wastewater/solid waste system and air quality city in the world." Rolls off the tongue nicely.

[Radley77]

On the sore spot for Calgary, the carbon footprint, I'm not sure how Calgary could have control to become less of a carbon emitter.

In 2005, the following levels of greenhouse gas emissions were observed in Calgary. The brackets indicates the amount change since 1990.

Electricity 7,844 kilotonnes (+59%)
Natural Gas 3,951 kilotonnes (+37%)
Vehichles 4,511 kilotonnes (+17%)
Waste 472 kilotonnes (+54%)
Urban Forest -13 kilotonnes (0%)

It's clear that electricity is the biggest problem for Calgarians with respect to greenhouse gases is it is both the largest and most rapid growth.

With respect to pariculate matter this has been declining since 1998 from 13 micrograms/cubic metre to about 6 micrograms/cubic metre in 2005. Also carbon monoxide concentration have been reduced from 1.3 ppm to about 0.5 ppm from 1990 to 2005. So Calgary air quality has actually been improving over the last decade due to improvements in fuel injection and combustion efficiency. 2006 Calgary State of the Environment Report (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/environmental_management/2006_state_of_the_environment_report.pdf)

I think a common misconception is that Calgarians are major greenhouse gas polluters because of vehichle and transit use, whereas it should be directed at Calgary's dependence on cheap coal-powered generation. In 2008, coalpowered generation provided 87% of the electricity for the Enmax power grid.

My guess would be if you want to get massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta, (as opposed to just responding to increased demand by slowing adding only "green" projects) would be to apply carbon capture technology to the coal powered generation stations.

One of the other issues, is that as an electricity consumer that buys power from Enmax, AESO is responsible for bringing on power to meet demand using the most competitive market source rates available. So, Calgarians buy coal power because it is the cheapest alternative energy available.

At $15/tonne, that would mean that the carbon tax is capable of generating revenues for Calgary alone of about $118 million annually. If some of this revenue was applied to carbon capture and storage, then perhaps Calgary could finally get around to starting to see large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas a $15/tonne carbon tax on fuel would only amount to about a 5 cents tax per litre of gasoline, I just can't see how that low of a tax will do anything to alter oil consumption patterns. I would think it would be more costeffective to do something like large scale carbon capture and storage and reduce electricity emissions by 50%, then to think that half of the driving population would quit driving or that people will drive vehichles that are twice as fuel efficient as the ones they are currently driving.

[Doug]

Right now, carbon sequestration only trades one problem for another. For every three coal fired plants to implement CCS, one more needs to be constructed to provide the energy. That means more land being disturbed to mine coal.

[MichaelS]

Plus it doesn't really "reduce" the amount of carbon we are producing, just putting it somewhere else.

[freeweed]

Plus... good luck convincing the public that storing pollution underground under immense pressure and plugging the well afterwards is safe.

Not for many years, anyway. It really depends how long BP dicks around.