View Single Post
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2007, 6:25 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1 View Post
i wouldn't imagine any city leading nYc in this regard. The footprint in nY is lessened to a huge extent by transit patterns and its sky high population densities compared to other cities in the West.

but with all lists, they're interesting to look at.
One (possible) theory: does that fact that Chicago is in the middle of the Midwest, and therefore most of the country's food supply, make it more "green" than New York? I would expect there's less transport involved in getting food to Chicago than to Manhattan.

Some other hypotheticals that come to mind as possible answers, not that they're this specific in their analysis:

1. Recycling programs
2. Energy costs (since they do ask you how much your electric bill is, which is not necessarily a good proxy for how much electricity you use)
3. Age of housing / building stock (may be more efficient to heat and cool newer structures, or maybe not)

Although at the end of the day it looks like Chicago, Boston and New York are in a statistical tie given the likely sampling error, and this is exactly what I would expect. These three are the healthiest and most urban metropolises in the northeast U.S., which is the "greenest" region of the country in which to live. I can get on board with a study that places these 3 cities at the top. Philadelphia also looks to be where it should be (and I already mentioned that LA looks to be the only city that's really out of place).
Reply With Quote