California, the Greenest of Green
California Cities Top National Survey
California placed 14 cities in the list of America's 50 Greenest Cities in the nation in a recent analysis by Popular Science magazine. Does this mean that the Golden State should be renamed? We will let you be the judge. In the meantime, below is the methodology used and the rankings.
How the Rankings Work:
Popular Science used raw data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Geographic Society’s Green Guide, which collected survey data and government statistics for American cities of over 100,000 people in more than 30 categories, including air quality, electricity use and transportation habits. We then compiled
these statistics into four broad categories, each scored out of either 5 or 10
possible points. The sum of these four scores determines a city’s place in the
rankings. The categories are:
Electricity (E; 10 points): Cities score points for drawing their energy
from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass and hydroelectric power,
as well as for offering incentives for residents to invest in their own power
sources, like roof-mounted solar panels.
Transportation (T; 10 points): High scores go to cities whose commuters take
public transportation or carpool. Air quality also plays a role.
Green living (G; 5 points): Cities earn points for the number of buildings
certified by the U.S. Green Building Council, as well as for devoting area
to green space, such as public parks and nature preserves.
Recycling and green perspective (R; 5 points): This measures how comprehensive
a city’s recycling program is (if the city collects old electronics, for example) and
how important its citizens consider environmental issues.
1. Portland, Ore. 23.1
Electricity: 7.1 Transportation: 6.4 Green Living: 4.8 Recycling/Perspective: 4.8
America’s top green city has it all: Half its power comes from renewable sources, a quarter of the workforce commutes by bike, carpool or public transportation, and it
has 35 buildings certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.
2. San Francisco, Calif. 23.0
Electricity: 6.8 Transportation: 8.8 Green Living: 3.5 Recycling/Perspective:3.93
Boston, Mass. 22.7
Electricity: 5.7 Transportation: 8.7 Green Living: 3.4 Recycling/Perspective: 4.9
CASE STUDY: Grass Power
the breakdown of leaves and twigs into compost.
4. Oakland, Calif. 22.5
Electricity: 7.0 Transportation: 7.5 Green Living: 3.1 Recycling/Perspective: 4.9
5. Eugene, Ore. 22.4
Electricity: 10.0 Transportation: 4.7 Green Living: 2.9 Recycling/Perspective: 4.8
CATEGORY LEADER: Electricity
Much of the wet Pacific Northwest draws its energy from hydroelectric dams. But Eugene draws an additional 9 percent of its municipal electricity from wind farms.
It also buys back excess power from residents who install solar panels.
6. Cambridge, Mass. 22.2
Electricity: 6.1 Transportation: 7.5 Green Living: 3.9 Recycling/Perspective: 4.7
7. Berkeley, Calif. 22.2
Electricity: 6.2 Transportation: 8.4 Green Living: 2.9 Recycling/Perspective: 4.7
8. Seattle, Wash. 22.1
Electricity: 6.2 Transportation: 7.3 Green Living: 4.7 Recycling/Perspective: 3.9
9. Chicago, Ill. 21.3
Electricity: 5.4 Transportation: 7.3 Green Living: 5.0 Recycling/Perspective: 3.6
CATEGORY LEADER:
Green Space-In addition to the 12,000 acres Chicago has devoted to public parks and
waterfront space, the U.S. Green Building Council has awarded four city projects with
a “Platinum” rating, its highest award.
10. Austin, Tex. 21.0
Electricity: 6.9 Transportation: 5.9 Green Living: 3.3 Recycling/Perspective: 4.9
11. Minneapolis, Minn. 20.3
Electricity: 7.8 Transportation: 7.4 Green Living: 2.8 Recycling/Perspective: 2.3
CASE STUDY:
Citizen Enviro-Grants-If you’ve got a world-saving idea, the City of Lakes will give you,
your church or your community group the money to get it done. Twenty $1,000 mini-
grants and five $10,000 awards were distributed last year to programs ranging from
household power-consumption monitors to “block club talks” about global warming. A
similar initiative has sprung up in Seattle.
12. St. Paul, Minn. 20.2
Electricity: 8.0 Transportation: 4.0 Green Living: 3.5 Recycling/Perspective: 4.7
13. Sunnyvale, Calif. 19.9
Electricity: 7.3 Transportation: 6.8 Green Living: 2.2 Recycling/Perspective: 3.6
14. Honolulu, Hawaii 19.9
Electricity: 6.0 Transportation: 7.8 Green Living: 2.6 Recycling/Perspective: 3.5
15. Fort Worth, Tex. 19.7
Electricity: 8.3 Transportation: 4.6 Green Living: 2.4 Recycling/Perspective: 4.4
16. Albuquerque, N.M. 19.1
Electricity: 7.6 Transportation: 5.5 Green Living: 2.4 Recycling/Perspective: 3.6
17. Syracuse, N.Y. 18.9
Electricity: 7.0 Transportation: 4.9 Green Living: 2.6 Recycling/Perspective: 4.4
18. Huntsville, Ala. 18.4
Electricity: 6.2 Transportation: 4.1 Green Living: 3.6 Recycling/Perspective: 4.5
19. Denver, Colo. 18.2
Electricity: 5.9 Transportation: 5.2 Green Living: 3.0 Recycling/Perspective: 4.1
CASE STUDY:
Green Concrete-Fly ash, a by-product of coal-burning power plants, usually ends up in
landfills. Researchers at the University of Colorado Denver found a way to reuse this
industrial by-product. They add it at concentrations of about 20 percent to a new green concrete mix. The addition of fly ash also reduces the amount of sulfur-and carbon-spewing concrete production needed to finish a job. The mayor has signed an executive order requiring the use of green concrete in new city projects, and a $550-million infrastructure bond makes demand for the mix likely to grow.
20. New York, N.Y. 18.2
Electricity: 2.8 Transportation: 10.0 Green Living: 3.4 Recycling/Perspective: 2.0
CATEGORY LEADER:
Transportation -More than 54 percent of New Yorkers take public transportation to work, beating the next-best metropolis, Washington, D.C., by 17 percent.
21. Irvine, Calif. 18.1
Electricity: 4.2 Transportation: 6.8 Green Living: 2.9 Recycling/Perspective: 4.2
22. Milwaukee, Wis. 17.3
Electricity: 5.0 Transportation: 4.9 Green Living: 3.1 Recycling/Perspective: 4.3
23. Santa Rosa, Calif. 17.2
Electricity: 7.0 Transportation: 3.4 Green Living: 2.4 Recycling/Perspective: 4.4
24. Ann Arbor, Mich. 17.2
Electricity: 4.6 Transportation: 4.8 Green Living: 2.9 Recycling/Perspective: 4.9
25. Lexington, Ky. 16.8
Electricity: 5.9 Transportation: 3.6 Green Living: 2.3 Recycling/Perspective: 5.0
CATEGORY LEADER:
Recycling and green perspective- Lexingtonians recycle everything from surplus
electronics to scrap metal, and they listed the environment as their third most important concern (behind only employment and public safety)—the highest ranking
in the survey.
26. Tulsa, Okla. 16.7
Electricity: 5.0 Transportation: 3.9 Green Living: 3.4 Recycling/Perspective: 4.4
27. Rochester, N.Y. 16.1
Electricity: 4.5 Transportation: 4.4 Green Living: 3.1 Recycling/Perspective: 4.1
28. Riverside, Calif. 16.0
Electricity: 7.5 Transportation: 3.1 Green Living: 2.1 Recycling/Perspective: 3.3
29. Springfield, Ill. 15.7
Electricity: 5.3 Transportation: 3.0 Green Living: 3.2 Recycling/Perspective: 4.2
30. Alexandria, Va. 15.7
Electricity: 2.7 Transportation: 6.3 Green Living: 3.1 Recycling/Perspective: 3.6
31. St. Louis, Mo. 15.0
Electricity: 2.7 Transportation: 5.0 Green Living: 3.7 Recycling/Perspective: 3.6
32. Anchorage, Alaska 14.4
Electricity: 2.7 Transportation: 4.7 Green Living: 2.1 Recycling/Perspective: 4.9
CASE STUDY:
Power-Saving Streetlights -Since Anchorage spends a good part of the year buried under highly reflective snow, it doesn’t make sense to keep the street lamps at full
bore when moonlight can do the job. The fix? Install citywide dimmers. On top of that, the city is planning to upgrade its 16,000 streetlamps to either LED or induction bulbs, depending on the results of computer simulations designed to find the type of light that helps humans see best and disturbs wildlife the least. The swap should be complete by year’s end, and the initial $5-million investment is expected to save up to $3 million in energy costs annually.
33. Athens-Clarke, Ga. 14.1
Electricity: 2.4 Transportation: 4.7 Green Living: 3.2 Recycling/Perspective: 3.8
34. Amarillo, Tex. 14.0
Electricity: 5.2 Transportation: 2.9 Green Living: 2.3 Recycling/Perspective: 3.6
35. Kansas City, Mo. 13.8
Electricity: 2.7 Transportation: 3.7 Green Living: 2.7 Recycling/Perspective: 4.7
36. Salt Lake City, Utah 13.5
Electricity: 3.6 Transportation: 4.1 Green Living: 2.3 Recycling/Perspective: 3.5
37. Pasadena, Calif. 13.2
Electricity: 5.8 Transportation: 3.1 Green Living: 1.8 Recycling/Perspective: 2.5
38. Norwalk, Calif. 13.0
Electricity: 3.5 Transportation: 3.1 Green Living: 2.5 Recycling/Perspective: 3.9
39. Laredo, Tex. 12.9
Electricity: 4.4 Transportation: 2.5 Green Living: 1.7 Recycling/Perspective: 4.3
40. Joliet, Ill. 12.0
Electricity: 1.3 Transportation: 4.3 Green Living: 2.6 Recycling/Perspective: 3.8
41. Newport News, Va. 11.9
Electricity: 2.7 Transportation: 2.7 Green Living: 2.7 Recycling/Perspective: 3.8
42. Louisville, Ky. 11.9
Electricity: 1.3 Transportation: 4.0 Green Living: 2.5 Recycling/Perspective: 4.1
43. Concord, Calif. 11.9
Electricity: 3.0 Transportation: 3.2 Green Living: 2.2 Recycling/Perspective: 3.5
44. Fremont, Calif. 11.3
Electricity: 3.0 Transportation: 3.0 Green Living: 1.5 Recycling/Perspective: 3.8
45. Elizabeth, N.J. 10.5
Electricity: 2.6 Transportation: 2.8 Green Living: 1.8 Recycling/Perspective: 3.3
46. Livonia, Mich. 10.2
Electricity: 2.7 Transportation: 2.1 Green Living: 1.8 Recycling/Perspective: 3.6
47. San Bernardino, Calif. 10.2
Electricity: 2.8 Transportation: 2.3 Green Living: 1.6 Recycling/Perspective: 3.5
48. Thousand Oaks, Calif. 10.2
Electricity: 2.9 Transportation: 2.9 Green Living: 1.6 Recycling/Perspective: 2.8
49. Stockton, Calif. 10.1
Electricity: 2.8 Transportation: 2.5 Green Living: 1.0 Recycling/Perspective: 3.8
50. Greensboro, N.C. 10.0
Electricity: 2.0 Transportation: 2.0 Green Living: 2.1 Recycling/Perspective: 3.9
Tim Johnson
www.CaliforniaBusinessMinute.com
Comments