... the greenest city in north america

[mthd]

this time, at least it's not according to forbes.

http://www.siemens.com/press/en/even...thamerican.php

San Francisco grabbed the mantle of "greenest" major city in the U.S. and Canada Green City Index, with New York, Seattle, Denver and Boston rounding out the top five U.S. cities. The unique study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), and commissioned by Siemens, assesses and compares 27 major U.S. and Canadian cities on environmental performance and policies across nine categories – CO2 emissions, energy, land use, buildings, transport, water, waste, air quality and environmental governance.

link to full report : http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de...i-report-e.pdf

the rankings in each of the 9 categories (co2, energy, land use, buildings, transport, water, waste, air, governance) are interesting and show some pretty large winners in a few cases (e.g. new york in land use, seattle in buildings, san francisco in waste). the overall rankings are pretty closely clustered for the top 4 :

83.8 san francisco
81.3 vancouver
79.2 new york city
79.1 seattle
73.5 denver
72.6 boston
72.5 los angeles
71.4 washington, d.c.
68.4 toronto
67.7 minneapolis
66.9 chicago
66.8 ottowa
66.7 philadelphia
64.8 calgary
63.7 sacramento
62.6 houston
62.3 dallas
61.1 orlando
59.8 montreal
59.0 charlotte
57.8 atlanta
57.3 miami
56.6 pitsburgh
55.4 phoenix
39.7 cleveland
35.1 st louis
28.4 detroit

... it's also sort of shocking has fast it drops off after phoenix!

[jaxg8r1]

The title should be changed to "The greenest city in North America, amongst the 27 cities we selected to include".

[mthd]

Originally Posted by jaxg8r1

The title should be changed to "The greenest city in North America, amongst the 27 cities we selected to include".

of course no list will ever include ever city on an entire content. it seems a relatively reasonable sampling, but you're correct, the actual verbage in their press release is "the greenest city in the US and Canada Green City Index."

[JManc]

Greensboro, NC
Greenville, SC

[jaxg8r1]

Originally Posted by mthd

of course no list will ever include ever city on an entire content. it seems a relatively reasonable sampling, but you're correct, the actual verbage in their press release is "the greenest city in the US and Canada Green City Index."

Indeed, but it just seems as though they are missing some notable cities (particularly in the green movement).

[MolsonExport]

where's Austin? The list is bullshit.

[AusHou]

What about Portland?

[glowrock]

Wow... Houston above Pittsburgh? Given the extreme AC use in the summertime 5 months of the year in Houston, I tend to have a hard time believing that. Sure, anywhere with extreme climates will generally tend to be relatively low on the list (hence why place like San Fran, Vancouver, etc., are very high on the list), but it seems to me that, at least for the most part, the colder cities have their extreme cold for a shorter period of time than the hotter cities have their extreme heat.

One thing I will definitely give Houston, though. Hundreds of LEED certified buildings. I know that does make a huge difference.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[ndrwmls10]

Is Los Angeles really greener then Chicago? That seems dubious.

[Centropolis]

I do agree with Sacramento being above Montreal.

[Nineties Flava]

Uh... unless Oakland's being lumped in with San Francisco, I don't see why it was left off the list.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6176404-7.html

An online green tech Web site surveyed the major city governments across the U.S. to see which ones made the most use of renewable energy for city operations.

According to SustainLane's government site, Oakland, Calif., gets 17 percent of its energy use from renewable sources. California cities Sacramento, San Jose and San Francisco are next with 12 percent renewable-energy use. The rest of the Top 10 list, in descending order: Portland, Ore. (10 percent); Boston (8.6 percent); San Diego (8 percent); Austin, Texas, (6 percent); Los Angeles (5 percent); Minneapolis (4.5 percent); Seattle (3.5 percent); and Chicago (2.5 percent).

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-61...#ixzz1QoWVeeVF

The article's from 2007 but somehow I doubt that Oakland went from being #1 to dropping off of the list.

[ambiguoustraveller]

I find the definition of "green" a little suspicious. Are things like density and walkability not included? LEED buildings are great and all, but if you have to drive everywhere to get around, shouldn't that make your city less green? Obviously cities like San Francisco and New York deserve to be high on the list for this very reason, but how do places like Denver and Calgary deserve to rank above Montreal?

[mthd]

Originally Posted by ambiguoustraveller

I find the definition of "green" a little suspicious. Are things like density and walkability not included? LEED buildings are great and all, but if you have to drive everywhere to get around, shouldn't that make your city less green? Obviously cities like San Francisco and New York deserve to be high on the list for this very reason, but how do places like Denver and Calgary deserve to rank above Montreal?

did you read the article? no methodology is perfect but this one is surprisingly comprehensive. what could probably be argued is the weights of the categories, but they are all significant impacts on the environment.

density is specifically included in land use. transportation is a category in which points are gained/lost for car usage... the inverse of which might be walking, cycling, public transport, etc. a high percentage of driving would also result in co2 generation.

a couple hundred leed buildings obviously doesn't massively change the energy profile of a city - but given that buildings consume the single highest percentage of energy in most cities, it's a valid criteria.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by ambiguoustraveller

I find the definition of "green" a little suspicious. Are things like density and walkability not included? LEED buildings are great and all, but if you have to drive everywhere to get around, shouldn't that make your city less green? Obviously cities like San Francisco and New York deserve to be high on the list for this very reason, but how do places like Denver and Calgary deserve to rank above Montreal?

Dunno about Denver, but Calgary's high ranking is probably due to its fantastic water treatment facilities, the best in Canada if not North America. And its clean air.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by AusHou

What about Portland?

Yeah I know I shouldn't drag other cities into this, but all credibility seems lost here when Detroit and St. Louis make the grade but Portland doesn't even appear I'm sure those cities have some respectable environmental policies, etc. .... but c'mon.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Yeah I know I shouldn't drag other cities into this, but all credibility seems lost here when Detroit and St. Louis make the grade but Portland doesn't even appear I'm sure those cities have some respectable environmental policies, etc. .... but c'mon.

Lordy. once again, READ THE REPORT. it's not saying that portland is
less green than any of the cities on the list. Portland was NOT STUDIED. there is an entire page devoted to discussing Portland in the report. The reason it was not in the study was that it did not
meet the selection criteria. I don't know what those are and I didn't see them listed.

[Aleks]

^^^just the fact that they didn't pick it makes the list less credible.^^^

but yeah glowrock, houston above pittsburgh? i've never been to either city but even with pittsburghs industrial history it seems a little odd. and L.A? really? i'm not saying it's not a green city, or that they're not making an effort, but it's definitely a city i've been to plenty to see that it's not in the correct spot.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Dunno about Denver, but Calgary's high ranking is probably due to its fantastic water treatment facilities, the best in Canada if not North America. And its clean air.

Edmonton is also up there, but maybe I'm thinking more of the drinking water and not the outlets, heh.

[JDRCRASH]

I admit i'm kind of shocked that LA is high on the list. You would think that transport and air quality would really be detrimental, but apparently, it's not.

In any case, LA will continue to get "greener" as massive parks and revitalized rivers come into the fray. Top that off with a growing transit system, and LA will fully merit it's position on this list.

[hudkina]

The irony is that if you measure the actual color "green" Detroit is probably the "greenest".