EarthLab's List of Top Green U.S. Cities for 2007

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Chicago has much more extreme weather. Chicago has hotter, more humid summers and colder, snowier winters.

Why would you think that Lake Michigan would have a moderating effect, while the Atlantic Ocean wouldn't? That doesn't make any sense.

No, actually Chicago's summers are not more humid than New York's, how could an inland city be more humid than a city right on the ocean? Chicago, on average, only gets 5 more inches of snow a year than New York City, I wouldn't say 5 more inches makes our winters snowier.

The Atlantic ocean is much much warmer than Lake Michigan, therefore it does not have the same cooling effect as the lake does in the summer.

[Nowhereman1280]

Something that would make Chicago even greener than it was ranked in these ranking is our reliance on Nuclear Power. The state of Illinois is the most Atomic state in the nation with some absurd proportion (70 or 80%) of our electricity coming from Nuclear, compared to the 20% national average. Chicago I believe runs on 50% nuclear, meaning we have 30% less carbon output due to electricity output than the average.

I wonder how much of our reliance on nuclear power is due to the fact that Chicago is the birthplace of the nuclear age with the first functioning nuclear reactor being built at U of Chicago?

[SD_Phil]

That was fun:

ECP Score: 254
Carbon Output: 7.4

Average in my Neighboorhood:

UNIVERSITY CITY
ECP: 299
Carbon Output:11.9

---

And here's a serious question that I don't know the answer to. How does Carbon Output correlate with socioeconomic status? I can see it going both ways really although I assume poorer = lower footprint I have absolutely no data to back that up. Anyone know?

[MayDay]

When I lived on my own, I was 189/3.3. Now I'm up to 272/9.5. That's still not too bad.

Crawford, certain areas of the Great Lakes have more of a micro-climate than others - I'm not saying that's not the case for coastal cities, but just an example: in the summer, areas along the shoreline of Lake Erie can be 5-10 degrees (F) cooler than inland areas one to two miles to the south. Conversely the shoreline might get a dusting of snow but areas inland (i.e. the airport where snow amounts are traditionally recorded for Cleveland) will get dumped with lake effect snow.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yeah, like the southern shores of Lake Superior where they get an average of 254 inches of snow a year, 10 miles south of there its 70 inches. 10 miles south of there its 50 inches.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

No, actually Chicago's summers are not more humid than New York's

I don't believe that. I think summers are hotter and more humid in Chicago

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

How could an inland city be more humid than a city right on the ocean?

I don't get this one. Are you saying San Diego is more humid than Dallas?

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Chicago, on average, only gets 5 more inches of snow a year than New York City, I wouldn't say 5 more inches makes our winters snowier.

Every source I can google shows that Chicago gets 10 additional inches of snow than New York annually, or about 38 inches compared to 28 inches. I would call that a fairly substantial difference.

http://www.currentresults.com/Weathe...est-cities.php

City Inches
Denver, Colorado 60.3
Cleveland, Ohio 59.0
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 47.1
Boston, Massachusetts 43.3
Detroit, Michigan 41.9
Chicago, Illinois 38.2
New York, New York 28.8
Columbus, Ohio 28.4
Indianapolis, Indiana 24.1
Baltimore, Maryland 21.4
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 21.1
Kansas City, Missouri 20.0

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

The Atlantic ocean is much much warmer than Lake Michigan, therefore it does not have the same cooling effect as the lake does in the summer.

Not sure I'm buying this one either. The New York beaches have "much warmer" summer water than the Chicago beaches? And aren't there many other factors at play besides water temperature?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't believe that. I think summers are hotter and more humid in Chicago

you are correct. below are temperature and humidy averages for new york and chicago in the summer months. on average, chicago is slighty warmer and more humid in the summer, but the differences between the two cities' summer weather are not monumental. new york and chicago share a similar summertime climate.

chicago:

june:
average high temp: 80
average low temp: 61
average morning humidity: 79%
average afternoon humidity: 57%

july:
average high temp: 84
average low temp: 66
average morning humidity: 82%
average afternoon humidity: 59%

august:
average high temp: 83
average low temp: 65
average morning humidity: 86%
average afternoon humidity: 60%





new york city:

june:
average high temp: 77
average low temp: 63
average morning humidity: 74%
average afternoon humidity: 56%

july:
average high temp: 83
average low temp: 68
average morning humidity: 75%
average afternoon humidity: 55%

august:
average high temp: 81
average low temp: 65
average morning humidity: 78%
average afternoon humidity: 57%



sources: http://www.city-data.com/ & http://www.weather.com/?from=gn_logo_welcome

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA, given its decent density and relatively low energy usage, makes sense to me.

Density isn't as important as infrastructure and habits. It may be dense across its metro area, but everybody drives. I do agree that people probably use less artificial heating and cooling in their homes due to the Mediterranean climate, but what is the carbon cost of living in a near desert? Water usage is high in LA, and it all has to come from someplace else. LA doesn't make any sense to me.

This actually brings up an interesting point - does this study reflect metropolitan areas or just the cities themselves? I would assume the latter, but obviously each would lead to vastly different conclusions.

[ski82]

Originally Posted by 10023

These all make sense, at least in terms of inclusion, with the exception of LA. Can't imagine how that place works its way into a "green cities" list.

My score was 318, but I don't know how it's that high. I don't own a car, I'm never home (so lights and electronics are rarely on), I walk or take the subway, I live in an apartment with roommates (separate bedrooms, but shared common areas), etc. How much of an effect does flying 20-30 times a year have? It can't even approach the impact of driving.

Flying that much would far surpass the effect of not owning a car. It takes a lot less energy to move a small engine at low speeds than it does very large engines at high speeds, even when you account for all the people sharing the 'burden' of the environmental impact of the flight. While the pollution per mile differences are debatable (I have seen arguments on both side), you cannot argue that plane trips tend to be much further.

Some people look at it as themselves taking up a seat that would otherwise be empty, thus making their co2 impact being the result of the additional weight.


All of this really shows the hypocrisy of thousands of people getting together in Bali.

FYI: I scored 233, 5.7 tons/year...Living in Denver.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ski82

Some people look at it as themselves taking up a seat that would otherwise be empty, thus making their co2 impact being the result of the additional weight.

Well, partly true. There are going to be 90+ daily flights from New York to Chicago whether I'm on one of them or not.

But doesn't matter in the end, as it's not a lifestyle choice I can make or change anyway.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 10023

Density isn't as important as infrastructure and habits. It may be dense across its metro area, but everybody drives. I do agree that people probably use less artificial heating and cooling in their homes due to the Mediterranean climate, but what is the carbon cost of living in a near desert? Water usage is high in LA, and it all has to come from someplace else. LA doesn't make any sense to me.

What would the carbon cost of the water be? That makes little sense - how much of the water comes from sources that are formed by hydroelectric dams? Nearly all? That probably HELPS LA. There are many environmental arguments against living in LA (and hydroelectric dams) - but I'm not at ALL surprised to see it as high as it is. I'm shocked at how low SF and San Diego are - for carbon costs, climate should matter a GREAT deal (as should proximity to food supply, as you mentioned).

[10023]

Originally Posted by Gordo

What would the carbon cost of the water be? That makes little sense - how much of the water comes from sources that are formed by hydroelectric dams? Nearly all? That probably HELPS LA. There are many environmental arguments against living in LA (and hydroelectric dams) - but I'm not at ALL surprised to see it as high as it is. I'm shocked at how low SF and San Diego are - for carbon costs, climate should matter a GREAT deal (as should proximity to food supply, as you mentioned).

Ok, well perhaps it's not carbon cost, per se. But it certainly doesn't help a city's "green" credentials if it has to siphon billions of gallons of water into what is naturally a desert, and then pump it all into the ocean after its used rather than returning it to its natural watershed.

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Chicago I believe runs on 50% nuclear, meaning we have 30% less carbon output due to electricity output than the average.

Chicago is 93% nuclear, but two of the 5 dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the state are in Chicagoland

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 10023

Ok, well perhaps it's not carbon cost, per se. But it certainly doesn't help a city's "green" credentials if it has to siphon billions of gallons of water into what is naturally a desert, and then pump it all into the ocean after its used rather than returning it to its natural watershed.

New York doesn't siphon billions of gallons of water away from natural watersheds and then pump it into the ocean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...r_Tunnel_No._3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...r_Tunnel_No._2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashokan_Reservoir

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by 10023

Density isn't as important as infrastructure and habits. It may be dense across its metro area, but everybody drives. I do agree that people probably use less artificial heating and cooling in their homes due to the Mediterranean climate, but what is the carbon cost of living in a near desert? Water usage is high in LA, and it all has to come from someplace else. LA doesn't make any sense to me.

This actually brings up an interesting point - does this study reflect metropolitan areas or just the cities themselves? I would assume the latter, but obviously each would lead to vastly different conclusions.

Everyone drives? high water usage? i expected negative comments on LA because thats all people know on this site, but seriously, LA City, not county (for some reason its ok to look at LA as a metro compared to NYC and eastern cities as cities on this site) is not that much larger than NYC and is pretty damn dense. Also, over a million people use mass transit everyday, ranking either 2nd behind NYC or third right up Chicago's ass with 2 new rail lines opening in less than two years. whatever, i gave up defending LA a long time ago, too many people with negative images in their heads.

[alex1]

here goes:

new haven (currently):
225 (ECP) 5.6 (co)

chicago:
177 (ECP) 2.1 (co)

the biggest difference? having to have a car in NewHaven for a host of things and not having one in chicago.

[Jularc]

GREEN APPLE BLOSSOMING


By NEIL GRAVES
December 13, 2007

It may be hard to believe - with 260,000 cars and trucks crowding into Manhattan every weekday - but New York is the second-greenest city in America, an environmental advocacy group said yesterday.

Only Chicago beat out the Big Apple on the "Top 10 Green Cities in the US" list, released by the EarthLab Foundation.

EarthLab's goal is to save the environment by getting people to take personal responsibility - and their current tactic is convincing folks to use something called the Carbon & Lifestyle Calculator.

The three-minute test at earthlab.com evaluates a person's energy use in such categories as personal transportation.

It also takes into consideration commuting habits, work schedules, recycling habits and lifestyle.

Not all categories are evenly weighted.

For instance, EarthLab said it's not necessarily which city's taxis burn the blackest fumes, but which has the best mass transit - which is why New York or Chicago can clean Seattle's clock any day of the week.

Keeping things simple is half the ecological battle, said EarthLab executive director Anna Rising.

"Taking easy practical steps like unplugging the cellphone charger - that can save $9 a month," said Rising, who also advocates unplugging other electronics chargers and small appliances, such as blenders and toasters, when not in use.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/12132007...ing_168641.htm

[edluva]

LA is no rainforest, but it is definitely NOT a "near-desert" or "naturally a desert".

anyways, it's almost impossible to do a "definitive" measure of carbon footprint considering the amount of material and energy movement that occurs between cities and countries. no place is in a bubble. just think about the origins of all the different materials that go into manufacture of your car or television. your single purchase of one of these products as a consumer creates demand all the way up this "carbon chain"

here's my scores:
ECP = 215
Carbon footprint = 5
City = Los Angeles

[PhxSprawler]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I'm taking this now and it is really biased towards the suburban lifestyle. For example:

TRUE/FALSE: I use a manual/electric lawnmower

False, because I don't have a lawn to mow. If I leave it blank, however, it negatively affects my score because it assumes I use a gas mower (I tested it).

All in all: I'm not impressed with the questionnaire. It left far too much out and what it did manage to cover wasn't valid.

My score, correcting as possible for biases such as the lawnmower question (that is, I checked it even though I don’t have a lawn), my score is 177 and my carbon output is 2.3.

I felt the same way. First of all, I have no idea what my gardener uses.

Second, keeping my thermostat at 80 in the summer is much more important in Phoenix than keeping my themostat at 67 in the summer, but aparently it only takes into account heating. Not only in Phoenix, but everyone I know in Boston, Northern NJ, Denver, and Salt Lake City uses air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter. They certainly are not in the sunbelt, but should be questioned on their summer use of electricity.

[10023]

Originally Posted by PhxSprawler

I felt the same way. First of all, I have no idea what my gardener uses.

Second, keeping my thermostat at 80 in the summer is much more important in Phoenix than keeping my themostat at 67 in the summer, but aparently it only takes into account heating. Not only in Phoenix, but everyone I know in Boston, Northern NJ, Denver, and Salt Lake City uses air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter. They certainly are not in the sunbelt, but should be questioned on their summer use of electricity.

You keep your thermostat at 80 degrees? That's unlivable.

Just about every place uses AC in the summer, but it doesn't need to work quite as hard in the Northeast as it does in the Sunbelt, or for as much of the year.

I don't use heat in the winter. Many people in large multi-unit buildings do not, because it's a large building and well insulated.

And that fact goes across all climate control, heat or cooling. Multi-unit buildings are more efficient to heat and cool because there is less surface area exposed to the outside that can transfer heat or cold, relative to the volume of the building.