These metropolises aren't literally the greenest places on earth -- they're not necessarily dense with foliage, for one, and some still have a long way to go down the path to sustainability. But all of the cities on this list deserve recognition for making impressive strides toward eco-friendliness, helping their many millions of residents live better, greener lives. If your favorite green city didn't make the list, tell us why it deserves recognition in the comments section at the bottom of the page.
Reykjavik, Iceland
Remember the grade-school memory device "Greenland is icy and Iceland is green"? It's truer than ever thanks to progress made by Iceland and its capital city in recent years. Reykjavik has been putting hydrogen buses on its streets, and, like the rest of the country, its heat and electricity come entirely from renewable geothermal and hydropower sources and it's determined to become fossil-fuel-free by 2050. The mayor has pledged to make Reykjavik the cleanest city in Europe. Take that, Greenland.
Portland, Oregon, U.S.
The City of Roses' approach to urban planning and outdoor spaces has often earned it a spot on lists of the greenest places to live. Portland is the first U.S. city to enact a comprehensive plan to reduce CO2 emissions and has aggressively pushed green building initiatives. It also runs a comprehensive system of light rail, buses, and bike lanes to help keep cars off the roads, and it boasts 92,000 acres of green space and more than 74 miles of hiking, running, and biking trails.
Curitiba, Brazil
With citizens riding a bus system hailed as one of the world's best and with municipal parks benefiting from the work of a flock of 30 lawn-trimming sheep, this midsized Brazilian city has become a model for other metropolises. About three-quarters of its residents rely on public transport, and the city boasts over 580 square feet of green space per inhabitant. As a result, according to one survey, 99 percent of Curitibans are happy with their hometown.
Malmö, Sweden
Known for its extensive parks and green space, Sweden's third-largest city is a model of sustainable urban development. With the goal of making Malmö an "ekostaden" (eco-city), several neighborhoods have already been transformed using innovative design and are planning to become more socially, environmentally, and economically responsive. Two words, Malmö: organic meatballs.
Vancouver, Canada
Its dramatic perch between mountains and sea makes Vancouver a natural draw for nature lovers, and its green accomplishments are nothing to scoff at either. Drawing 90 percent of its power from renewable sources, British Columbia's biggest city has been a leader in hydroelectric power and is now charting a course to use wind, solar, wave, and tidal energy to significantly reduce fossil-fuel use. The metro area boasts 200 parks and over 18 miles of waterfront, and has developed a way-forward-thinking 100-year plan for sustainability. Assuming civilization will last another 100 years? Priceless.
Copenhagen, Denmark
With a big offshore wind farm just beyond its coastline and more people on bikes than you can shake a stick at, Copenhagen is a green dream. The city christened a new metro system in 2000 to make public transit more efficient. And it recently won the European Environmental Management Award for cleaning up public waterways and implementing holistic long-term environmental planning. Plus, the pastries? Divine.
London, England
When Mayor Ken Livingstone unveiled London's Climate Change Action Plan in February, it was just the latest step in his mission to make his city the world's greenest. Under the plan, London will switch 25 percent of its power to locally generated, more-efficient sources, cut CO2 emissions by 60 percent within the next 20 years, and offer incentives to residents who improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The city has also set stiff taxes on personal transportation to limit congestion in the central city, hitting SUVs heavily and letting electric vehicles and hybrids off scot-free.
San Francisco, California, U.S.
Nearly half of all 'Friscans take public transit, walk, or bike each day, and over 17 percent of the city is devoted to parks and green space. San Francisco has also been a leader in green building, with more than 70 projects registered under the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED certification system. In 2001, San Francisco voters approved a $100 million bond initiative to finance solar panels, energy efficiency, and wind turbines for public facilities. The city has also banned non-recyclable plastic bags and plastic kids' toys laced with questionable chemicals. Next thing you know, they'll all be wearing flowers in their hair.
Bahía de Caráquez, Ecuador
After it suffered severe damage from natural disasters in the late 1990s, the Bahía de Caráquez government and nongovernmental organizations working in the area forged a plan to rebuild the city to be more sustainable. Declared an "Ecological City" in 1999, it has since developed programs to protect biodiversity, revegetate denuded areas, and control erosion. The city, which is marketing itself as a destination for eco-tourists, has also begun composting organic waste from public markets and households and supporting organic agriculture and aquaculture.
Sydney, Australia
The Land Down Under was the first country to put the squeeze on inefficient, old-school light bulbs, but Sydney-dwellers took things a step further in March, hosting a city-wide one-hour blackout to raise awareness about global warming. Add to that their quest for carbon neutrality, innovative food-waste disposal program, and new Green Square, and you've got a metropolis well on its way to becoming the Emerald City of the Southern Hemisphere.
Barcelona, Spain
Hailed for its pedestrian-friendliness (37 percent of all trips are taken on foot!), promotion of solar energy, and innovative parking strategies, Barcelona is creating a new vision for the future in Europe. City leaders' urban-regeneration plan also includes poverty reduction and investment in neglected areas, demonstrating a holistic view of sustainability.
Bogotá, Colombia
In a city known for crime and slums, one mayor led a crusade against cars that has helped to make Bogotá one of the most accessible and sustainable cities in the Western Hemisphere. Enrique Peñalosa, mayor from 1998 to 2001, used his time in office to create a highly efficient bus transit system, reconstruct sidewalks so pedestrians could get around safely, build more than 180 miles of bike trails, and revitalize 1,200 city green spaces. He restricted car use on city streets during rush hour, cutting peak-hour traffic 40 percent, and raised the gas tax. The city also started an annual "car-free day," and aims to eliminate personal car use during rush hour completely by 2015. Unthinkable!
Bangkok, Thailand
Once known for smokestacks, smog, and that unshakeable '80s song, Bangkok has big plans for a brighter future. City Governor Apirak Kosayodhin recently announced a five-year green strategy, which includes efforts to recycle citizens' used cooking oil to make biodiesel, reduce global-warming emissions from vehicles, and make city buildings more efficient. Bangkok has also made notable progress in tackling air pollution over the past decade. Though the city's pollution levels are still higher than some of its big-city Asian counterparts, its progress thus far is impressive.
Kampala, Uganda
This capital city is overcoming the challenges faced by many urban areas in developing countries. Originally built on seven hills, Kampala takes pride in its lush surroundings, but it is also plagued by big-city ills of poverty and pollution. Faced with the "problem" of residents farming within city limits, the city passed a set of bylaws supporting urban agriculture that revolutionized not only the local food system, but also the national one, inspiring the Ugandan government to adopt an urban-ag policy of its own. With plans to remove commuter taxis from the streets, establish a traffic-congestion fee, and introduce a comprehensive bus service, Kampala is on its way to becoming a cleaner, safer, more sustainable place to live.
Austin, Texas, U.S.
Austin is poised to become the No. 1 solar manufacturing center in the U.S., and its hometown utility, Austin Energy, has given the notion of pulling power from the sun a Texas-sized embrace. The city is on its way to meeting 20 percent of its electricity needs through the use of renewables and efficiency by 2020. Austin also devotes 15 percent of its land to parks and other open spaces, boasts 32 miles of bike trails, and has an ambitious smart-growth initiative, making it a happy green nook in what's widely perceived as a not-so-green state. To put it mildly.
Runners-Up
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.
Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) is striving to make his hometown "the greenest city in America." There's lots of literal greenery: under his leadership, Chicago has planted 500,000 new trees, invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the revitalization of parks and neighborhoods, and added more than 2 million square feet of rooftop gardens, more than all other U.S. cities combined. And there's plenty of metaphorical greening too: the Windy City has built some of the most eco-friendly municipal buildings in the country, been a pioneer in municipal renewable-energy standards, provided incentives for homeowners to be more energy efficient, and helped low-income families get solar power.
Freiburg, Germany
Home to the famously car-free Vauban neighborhood and a number of eco-transit innovations, Freiburg is a tourist destination with a green soul. The city has also long embraced solar power.
Seattle, Washington, U.S.
Mayor Greg Nickels (D) has committed his city to meeting the emission-reduction goals of the Kyoto climate treaty, and inspired more than 590 other U.S. mayors to do the same. True to its name, the Emerald City is also planting trees, building green, and benefiting from biodiesel and hybrid buses.
Quebec City, Canada
Dubbed the most sustainable city in Canada by the Corporate Knights Forum, Quebec wins big points for clean water, good waste management, and bike paths aplenty. C'est magnifique!
Kate Sheppard contributed to this list.
Learning how to count to 350
More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Threaded
ids Posted 1:31 am
20 Jul 2007
Daley's city not so 'green'
By Michael Hawthorne Tribune staff reporter June 18, 2007 p.1
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/06/18/2719505.htm
Daley's 20% green-power goal for 2006? In reality, not 1 watt
by Michael Hawthorne, Chicago Tribune Nov. 20, 2006, p.1
http://www.airpollutionnews.com/2006/11/20/7612/daleys-20 ...
Permalink
pm06420 Posted 2:52 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
davedenali Posted 4:55 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
LynnW Posted 8:30 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:13 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
grantnw Posted 3:26 pm
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
ErikB Posted 4:11 am
22 Jul 2007
I heard somewhere that Manhattan NY residents have a carbon footprint 1/3 the average American!
They can easily walk or ride mass transit to work or the store so 80% dont even own a car. They live in big buildings that share walls saving in heating and cooling loads.
"NO IMPACT" man also lives there. He lives with a zero carbon footprint! Only in Manhattan.
Permalink
sbgerhard Posted 3:01 am
23 Jul 2007
Good cities are the sustainable way to live on this planet. No matter how many gizmos we are packing into our suburban homes, we will never even make them acceptable in terms of being a sustainable solution.
A while ago, an architect in Colorado loosely associated with the Rocky Mountain Institute published a study that compared the carbon footprint of a very unaware city dweller in Philadelphia (he would leave the windows open rather than turn the heat off, etc...) living in an average row house in that city, with a green conscious person living in some tricked out earth ship off the grid in -- let's say -- New Mexico.
The person in Philly won without trying.
We cannot become a sustainable country as long as we insist on our suburban settlement patterns which generate sprawl.
Remember, suburbs were invented to discourage workers from organizing into unions, by feeding the selfish instincts inside of them. "As long as a man can walk around his house, he won't become a communist".
This fear is the underlying fear that drives people against their own interest, and makes us all still accept unsustainable practices.
Funny, huh - fear of communism, still the same old boogie man, now prevents us from effectively combating climate change.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 4:22 am
23 Jul 2007
Permalink
ErikB Posted 7:20 am
23 Jul 2007
#1. Most important, they have made it illegal to build on their surrounding farmland since about 1970 so they have stopped sprawl!
#2This has made it necessary to grow more upward and increase density. They invented the "skinny towers" that pack their downtown and many other places, which dont block all the sun.
Not only has it helped stop sprawl but it has made their downtown remarkably VIBRANT! Robson, Davies, Granville and Denman streets are packed with pedestrians all day and night long even during weekdays.
Storees dont close until 11 pm or so!
#3 No freeways go through Vancouver! Freeways just encourage people to live further out in the burbs which is what has ruined American cities. After 6 pm American downtowns (except Manhattan) become ghost towns.
#4 They built a great light rail mass transit called "SkyTrain" which is now being greatly expanded before the 2010 Olympics. It will be a subway under their downtown. Each Skytrain station is surrounded by half a dozen or more skinny tower apts and condos.
One criticism though is that their downtown is very congested with cars as well. SOmetimes the cars block pedestrians crossings at red lights. I think the Skytrain extension will help alot but I think they need to think about a downtown street car system like Portland is doing now and possibly more bicycling lanes and streets.
Here's a great article comparing Portland, Vancouver and Seattle.
"Who is the Smart Growth Leader?"
Hint: it’s not Portland
By Clark Williams-Derry
Great Lakes Bulletin News Service
Vancouver has achieved remarkable success in directing growth to people-friendly, land-saving neighborhoods. Excellent planning helped. So did the resolve to put far-sighted Smart Growth principles into effect.
Portland, Oregon is a success story among mid-sized American cities. Its downtown grew more vibrant over the last two decades, attracting new residents and businesses at a time when many other cities were drying up. At the same time, its pioneering growth boundary — in place since the mid-1970s — limited sprawl while protecting farmland and open space..............
http://mlui.org/growthmanagement/fullarticle.asp?fileid=1 ...
Permalink
lorax Posted 8:20 am
23 Jul 2007
Permalink
daiquiri ice Posted 2:08 am
24 Jul 2007
I signed up for Gristmill just to say - I am through with this blog. You've got it all wrong.
The greenest cities in the world are in those with the least per-capita carbon emissions. Period. None of them are in the United States...Think Mexico. Rio. Places where the poverty is so grinding people can't afford low-density housing and cars.
If we limit the discussion to American cities (ridiculous, but useful for discussion purposes)..let me just break it down for you, like I do for the sustainably-uninitiated I work with every day. The biggest threat to our environment, by far, is the emission of greenhouse gases. Buildings and cars are by far the most intense consumers of energy and emitters of greenhouse gases. Therefore, the most important factors in evaluating the "greenness" of a community are housing density and proximity to commercial centers via public transportation. By increasing building mass, you save energy. By increasing building mass and density, you share energy needed to heat and cool with your neighbor , and save building materials. By taking public transportation every day, you slash your carbon footprint a hundredfold.
In which city, in the United States, are you most likely to go your entire life without driving a car? Live in an energy-efficient apartment? Walk everywhere? Have HALF the carbon footprint of the average American? ...Guys?
New York City is not a small, wealthy provincial city, such as San Francisco (#8), where people can afford to consume slightly more intelligently (though doing more harm than good with the biodiesel...it could probably be argued that the higher the income, the higher the carbon footprint, given higher rates of consumption and - most likely - jet fuel consumption). New York City is a city that is probably going to hit 11 million in the next ten years, a metropolitan region with millions and millions more. It is by far the country's largest regional economy. And already has, per capita, HALF the carbon footprint of the rest of the country. We win. Hands down.
Maybe we're judging this pageant on ambition alone.....did you completely miss out on what Bloomberg's PlaNYC, announced earlier this year, lays out? It targets, among other goals, a 30% reduction in carbon emissions. Given New Yorkers already have, I repeat, on average, HALF the carbon footprint of everyone else in the USA (especially in #15...Austin, Texas - what are you smoking?), if this happens it will absolutely transform the way energy is generated and consumed on the Eastern Seaboard.
Speaking of - there's not a single city west of the Mississippi on your list. Grist is based in Seattle - a runner-up. Is this just a coastal diss? A beauty contest? NYC has more parkland than any other city in the country - over 20% of the total land area!. PlaNYC aims to create even more! One million additional trees will be planted here by 2030. ONE MILLION TREES.
What does it take to give you all a clue? You can build the greenest frigging office building in the world, and enact all the quasi-suburban "smart growth" initiatives you want, but if even just 1 out of 5 people still drives a car, you're spewing greenhouse gases at a rate that dwarfs the amount saved.
If your standards of sustainable judgement are so devolved, quite frankly, NYC can afford to ignore them. We have our own plan. And well over TEN YEARS worth of conscious greening:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/report_i ...
http://www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/ddcgreen/
Please take a look. Look at it now, rather than ten years from now. Apologies for my tone, but I am working hard everyday to help transform the Western-style model of consumption that is destroying our planet, and it is precisely this kind of idiot thinking from within the ranks of the well-intentioned that makes my job so difficult. Let me make it easy for you, guys - just do two things, for us New Yorkers - stop driving everywhere and stop building new low-density commercial and residential.
Thank you.
PS - Sydney? Are you kidding? Largest per-capita emitter of carbon ... oh forget it
Permalink
daiquiri ice Posted 2:11 am
24 Jul 2007
Permalink
wkaesler Posted 3:21 am
24 Jul 2007
Permalink
Scout Posted 3:48 am
24 Jul 2007
Permalink
jfranz Posted 6:12 am
24 Jul 2007
The answer, of course: the financial, consumer and service economies; "clean" economies of capital that depend heavily on the productions of dirty industry now scattered around the world. These now more remote dirty economies sustain the false "clean economy" of New York. Stop beating your chest about being the Green Kings of America, just because you evaluation of "sustainability" extends no further than the city limits. The smokestacks of worldwide resource exploitation that makes the financial, consumer and service economies of New York possible, and makes New York's "sustainability" credentials so impressive, means that only by the most one-dimensional consideration is New York a "Green" city.
It's like setting the rest of the world on fire and, just because your city isn't presently burning, pronouncing your superiority; even when you're the place people still go when they're looking for a light. Just because the timber and soot is no longer in the streets of Manhattan, doesn't mean the city is clean.
Permalink
ErikB Posted 6:56 am
24 Jul 2007
Please re read my post about Van BC above. what they are doing in Van BC which is easily the greenest city on the continent now with their vigorous Smart Growth anti-sprawl efforts. .
I franz, we are talking about the most sustainable way to build a modern city. MANHATTAN has by and large already achieved that. High density ,verticality and mass transit options are the answer. It is capitalism you are complaining about.
That is a different topic altogether. Go to Van BC and see how a modern city should be built. It is the sprawled out cities like Detroit that are what the US has to go to war for oil. If evrybody lived like a Manhattanite we would use 1/4 the resources we do now! They dont even buy cars there! And Manhattanites are the richest county residents on average in the US!
Permalink
daiquiri ice Posted 7:22 am
24 Jul 2007
Regarding the carbon footprint of the economic foundations of the city, NYC's biggest industry is publishing. The publishing industry relies on intellectual capital, ie brain power, which, I believe, is zero carbon.
Jobs in the financial sector - ie those that one could say are directly benefiting from globalism and economic exploitation - total less than 800,000 (including domestic financial services). Compare this with the 3.5 mil working in education, and government.
JFranz, are you trying to propose there is a fundamentally "green" economy?
Honey, all money's funny. Once it changes hands, there's no such thing as a clean dollar bill.
Permalink
ErikB Posted 7:55 am
24 Jul 2007
Permalink
daiquiri ice Posted 8:27 am
24 Jul 2007
W/r/to NYC, "sprawl" in the traditional sense is not possible because of existing de facto growth boundaries. NYC - and I mean all 5 boroughs: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and Staten Island - has both natural growth boundaries, as in the Hudson river, East river, and the bay - as well as the already-built-up urban pressure of Nassau County/Long Island. It is impossible to "sprawl" in the traditional sense, since there is no surrounding virgin land to annex. NYC's problem right now is providing for new population growth within an already extremely dense urban fabric.
Also, I would argue that those of us in the outer boroughs have carbon footprints that are comparable to Manhattan's, and waaay below the American norm, since most of us take the train..
The NYC metro area does not have a metro government, but we do have metropolitan transit authority..not just the subway, and the buses (the entire fleet uses CNG and hybrid-electric) but the Long Island Railroad and Metro-North (serving upstate NY). NYC is also served by New Jersey Transit and the Port Authority of NY and NJ..and countless other public transportation agencies. I don't know what the total ridership is but I'm sure it is staggering, when you consider it in terms of the equivalent # of cars.
ANYway. So the left coast haters hated us off the list. We luv y'all anyway. We would kindly appreciate it though if you would reconsider the terms of this discourse, and shift your energies from debating the right kind of crap to buy (dont buy any of it!) to helping public transportation achieve the level of national prioritization (read: appropriations) it deserves. Furthermore, you really should give us our propers for over a hundred years of right-thinking in that department. Think about it. The subway is one of the most resiliently democratic institutions this country has..
respect.
PEace out.
Permalink
ErikB Posted 10:10 am
24 Jul 2007
Permalink
IL enviro Posted 12:38 pm
24 Jul 2007
Permalink
jfranz Posted 3:27 am
25 Jul 2007
Anyway, the point is/was that the ecological impacts of NYC extend far, far beyond it's municipal borders. And moreover, this extended ecological impact is larger for NYC than for almost any other city in the world. Yes, for the most part, it's a generic critique of global capitalism, and not specific to NYC. However, NYC remains the epicenter of that destructive system, and it's green cred is questionable in that context.
Oh, and others have already commented on limiting definitions of NYC to municipal boundaries. Sprawl in the Greater New York Metro Area isn't slowing down, and New York can't wall off it's ecological identity from the surrounding communities which sustain the city.
Permalink
ErikB Posted 6:28 am
25 Jul 2007
Meanwhile look at Detroit or Houston which have had low density auto dependent sprawl as their strategies for growth. They are both rated as some of the worst places to live in the US.
There is a massive conspiracy with an auto dependent agenda here in the US with Big Oil at the head of the snake. They hate anything to do with Smart Growth or mass transit. They want more sprawl , more roads, more cars and SUVs. NYC is one of the few places in the US standing up to this Big Oil monster. Like I said , only 20% of the Manhattanites own cars which has Big Oil worried. Big Oil and Detroit are the twin headed monsters of the US auto dependent oil hungry globalism machine. SO you should focus your hatred and energy in the fight against them. They are the reason we are in the mideast. They are the reason for terrorism.
Permalink
ids Posted 1:14 pm
26 Jul 2007
The failed Blue Bag recyling program was created by Henry Henderson, Daley's first Director of the Environment. Now Henry Henderson is on the board of the Illinois Environmental Council representing NRDC. He'd of given the researchers a nudge to call Daley's Chicago green.
In July, Wal-Mart gave Daley the 2007 Mayors' Climate Protection Award.
http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/politics/2007/07/11/if-you ...
That may have given the researchers additional reason to call Daley's Chicago green.
This Summer, the Illinois Sierra Club is showing off the "Cool Globes" on the Chicago's Lakefront
http://illinois.sierraclub.org/
- btw, there's a few of them Globes sponsored by BP- that may have given the researchers reason to call Daley's Chicago green.
The Shiny Bean in the picture (part of the 3x over budget $1B "Millennium Park"), that is pretty and may have given the researchers reason to call Daley's Chicago green.
Daley's current project to invest on a Southside park a $1B temporary stadium for his 2016 Olympic bid for Chicago, may have given the researchers reson to call Daley's Chicago green.
The $1B's Daley has earmarked to expand O'Hare and increase global dimming from Chicago may have given the researchers reason to call Daley's Chicago green.
The new mercury controls on the two Chicago coal-fired power plants may have given the researchers reason to call Daley's Chicago green, afterall, the Fisk plant on Cermak has been operating at its site for over 100 years without mercury controls.
That might be more of the homework for the researchers, to help you understand their results, if that helps.
Permalink
Portlander Posted 3:30 am
28 Jul 2007
Permalink
Alli Posted 7:14 pm
30 Jul 2007
Permalink
PDXistence Posted 6:24 am
01 Aug 2007
For instance, police frequently set up stings at stop signs on popular bike routes (i.e., on Portland's wonderful "bike boulevards": side streets which are designed to discourage car traffic while encouraging bikes, and which are often packed with bicyclists during rush hour), and give out tickets of over $200 to bikers who don't come to a foot-down complete stop. This even when the bikers are making right turns at the stops, and even when the bikers slow enough to make sure the way is clear. Essentially using a technicality to extract $242 a pop from safety-minded, conscientious members of the community that the city uses to tout its eco-friendliness.
It's a good lesson for residents of other cities who want their communities to become more bike-friendly: even as bicycles relieve traffic congestion, make people healthy, and prevent pollution, they're viewed by many as encroaching on what is traditionally considered the car's territory. Police, especially those that chase down bikes from behind the wheel, or on motorcycles, can be the least welcoming to bicyclists, and the most fiercely protective of car territory.
Permalink
Grandur Posted 8:07 am
01 Aug 2007
This airport and its operations are protected by politicians in all the political parties. Lax rules and regulations concerning this airport's operations is something that we who live in the Reykjavik area have to accept. Even if these rules and regulations are lax, they are not followed and there is nobody who tries to enforce them. Small airplanes are without exhaust systems; they fly lower than is allowed and they do not follow the routes they are expected to follow. Some of them are literally illegal, but there are not many who care so they get away with it. Complaints from the general public go into the garbage bin immediately.
If you want to enjoy bird singing and tranquillity in Reykjavik's parks on a nice summer day, forget it. You will only hear noisy airplanes of all sizes and some of the smaller ones are without exhaust systems. You want to watch Tv? Fine, but close the windows. You want to have a chat with somebody? Fine, but go inside and close the door. Not even in the night you can be sure of peace from noisy airplanes. Noise pollution is pollution, and a bad and disturbing one. That Reykjavik is on the list of the 15 Green Cities is a big joke and a big mistake.
Permalink
Julien Posted 9:23 pm
01 Aug 2007
If you read Spanish go on their website to know more about an alternative vision of Barcelona's urban, social and environmental issues: http://www.asfes.org/campanyes-asf/Postals/Galeria.htm
Permalink
adammacia Posted 9:56 pm
04 Aug 2007
The towns do recycle most rubish and food waste is turned into fertilizer, but this is just a small fracture of good things.
My big family and I are nearly all vegetarian, and we are oposed in the industrial farming wich is killing our enviroment, I don´t understand how polititians don´t see the disaster aproching.
Adam from Manlleu, catalunya, near andorra (Iberian peninsula).
http://www.peta.org (visit this US web page)
Permalink
zingbot Posted 9:05 am
06 Aug 2007
What would be helpful is to target goal areas (carbon footprint, sprawl factor, metro area footprint, urban agriculture, greenspace and transportation data) and look at the world's leader in each. Then places can have some serious pride about accomplishments.
My personaL biggest issue on this list was with London. They haven't even completed the policies for which they are being given credit. NYC mayor did exactly the same thing and didn't make the list. Paris just started bike sharing, has a great transit system and is overflowing with park space. Why not them?
Permalink
Warren Posted 3:11 pm
14 Aug 2007
http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/
It has a published methodology
http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/methodology.j ...
and is based on 2,000 data and info points of largest 50 US cities, including public transportation ridership rates (Hello, "Green City" Austin: 2 percent?!!), walk or bike to work.
It's also in book form "How Green is Your City?" http://www.howgreenisyourcity.com
Permalink
xephemeroptera Posted 1:34 pm
18 Aug 2007
Permalink
Benz Posted 9:22 am
20 Aug 2007
I live in Reykjavik and work as an environmental consultant since half a year ago and I can only agree to what have been said in earlier comments about Reykjavik . I can also add that waste water treatment is almost non-existing with only mechanical cleaning and then 300 meter long pipes straight out in the ocean. The environmental regulations here are just a joke compared to most other countries and even if there are some intentions from different actors in the city, Reykjavik is neither a green city today nor will it become one in a foreseeable future.
Permalink
stvash Posted 8:25 am
30 Aug 2007
Permalink
fce2 Posted 8:44 am
03 Sep 2007
The ranking's #1, Reykjavík, features like 5 parks with trees in total. And that's it for the green spaces, unless you count grass medians between roads or mossy lava desert covering huge spaces that separate districts of the city spread in a car-dependant sprawl that makes 60's LA look like smart planning. Ppl drive to take a stroll, to walk the dog, hell they even drive to get drunk downtown. The mentioned hydrogen buses fleet, the whole THREE of them, is not supported anymore and is and has been cruising the streets empty because the citizens prefer to clog the roads in their oversized, gas-guzzling american pickups and SUVs. Concerning the land usage, basically everything that isn't a road, is a parking lot. There is no rail transport at all ("not needed yet", according to government, reminds of 60's America again) and the buses are expensive (single fare equals 2.5L of gasoline), unreliable, and generally useless given their weird routes and low frequency (i.e. travel to IKEA from my house takes 10mins on a car, and 64mins on 2 buses with lovely 24mins waiting for transfer in the middle of the desert). The clean Icelandic air that Icelanders love to boast about, is something you get to breathe maybe at early Sunday morning, other times it being turned to stinky smog to the point that during low-wind periods like last spring, children and ppl with respiratory problems are advised to stay home. Wherever you go, you see parked cars idling, because their owners don't bother stopping the engines when they go shopping or wait for someone, and during my work as machine operator I´ve became used to sight of 45-ton excavators burning 50L of diesel an hour, running during the whole shift, regardless the operator was working another machine, sleeping, having one of 30min coffee breaks or a lunch.
Recycling barely exists here, and if it wasn't for cans/PET bottles you get paid for, it would remain just one of these things Icelanders, having little else to try, would be "different" at. Not only ppl don't recycle, they don't even reuse, let alone think of reducing. It is common to just throw away perfectly working bikes, TVs or furniture when one decides to buy some new model. Electrical energy for homes comes from green sources, yeah (mostly because Iceland hasn't got any fossil fuels of its own), but its usage per capita is highest in Europe, and its industrial utilization usually means third world type uses like aluminium smelters not only having a huge carbon footprint but also getting the power from hydroelectric not geothermal plants, construction of which brings major damage to the real Icelandic wildlife outside of the overconsuming, careless, diesel-breathing, car-inhabited capitol..
Btw. the liquid waste goes to the Ocean not- or almost bot treated at all! Talking of experience, I've been building the sewers in Mosfallsbær for several months until it turned out there is no treatment plant they'd lead to, just the shore! Beat this, environmental experts!
Oh and I guess I didn't mention the Greater Reykjavík population of ca. 180,000 drives 140,000 cars? And no, not Priuses, more like Fords, Dodges, Chevrolets or 70+cm-diameter wheeled Arctic Toyotas that sound like dozers and exhaust black smoke.
But now thanks to your #1 place, widely covered in local newspapers, the Reykjavík dwellers can now sleep assured they are actually green capitol of the world, and care even less..
Permalink
Ardent Posted 1:28 am
28 Sep 2007
There are also big plans to reduce carbon emmissions and make London more sustainable.
London with it's 1700 Parks and Open Spaces, is quite a green city.
I was surprised New York, London's sister city wasn't on the list, NY as one of the lowest carbon footprints of any big major city.
Paris, London's other sister city, is also a verey green city.
However I feel London deserves it's place for being bold and introducing new legislation, congestion charges, sustainable development plans and a future long term green environmental plan to
secure a year in year out reduction in carbon emmissions.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:25 pm
16 Nov 2007
I can still visit farmers markets within the city.
We are working on bicycle routes.
Most of all it's a unique blend of sprawl and farmland and urban clusters like downtown.
You can still find real food here in the markets.
You can see and taste the food of ethnic groups from India, Southern Black, Thai, Ukrainian, and many more.
Kent is place where we can take parts of the old agrarian lifestyle, the new high tech lifestyle, the town and the sprawl and put it all together.
I live in an apartment complex that blends a community center, cars, and inner play areas and picnic areas.
But don't come to Kent...we have enough already...and we are working to make it better.
Use us as a model!
Permalink
coolville Posted 8:01 pm
21 Nov 2007
I have so many comments about wrong stats and misinformation on the list that I don't even know where to start.
Permalink
brenna Posted 3:13 pm
19 Jan 2008
PDXistence- I wonder if the police action has more to do with so many accidents involving bicycles than with taking money from their riders? I do agree, though, that if that is the case, they need to go after the drivers of cars much more aggressively than the bikers.
Permalink
kaikai Posted 12:12 am
20 Jan 2008
Other reasons why Tokyo could be one of the greenest cities:
-They use their own grocery bags(called eco-bags)
-They completely separate their garbages into burnable, unburnable, plastics(recycles), paper,etc
-Most newly built houses are energy efficient
-Hybrid cars sell the most
-Use of solar energy for electricity is popular
-Beef consumption is not too high
-Most of them have two or less kids
-They don't use too much disposable products such as plastic plates, paper towels, etc
Permalink
greenguy29 Posted 6:30 am
17 Mar 2008
Permalink
sfliberal Posted 4:08 pm
20 Apr 2008
"in 2003 38% of all transit ridership in the U.S. occurred in the NYC area, 7% in Chicago, and 5% in SF"; Well, considering that NYC is 8+ times the size of SF, then that means SF has an almost equal ridership, and unlike NYC, people can actually ride their bikes on the streets, which is even more green than subways and buses.
Sorry, no major city in the East Coast deserve to be on this list. San Francisco, Vancouver, and Portland truly deserve to be. NYC is way behind on recycling and protecting the balance of urban and nature. This is something that New Yorkers just do not understand. They live in a rat race in a concrete jungle. Sorry, but just having subways is not enough.
Congratulations San Francisco, Vancouver and Portland! And, to the disgruntled New Yorkers, "Fugghetaboutit!"
Permalink
barney Posted 9:25 am
20 May 2008
Permalink
vjczar Posted 4:04 pm
01 Jun 2008
Permalink
Sarah Taylor Posted 2:59 am
17 Jun 2008
<sarah@windustrious.org>
Permalink
ken1 Posted 12:18 pm
02 Sep 2008
* Into sustainability?
* Always on the lookout for green trends?
Help us shine some light into your corner of the map. Send us your perspectives (humorous, tragic, ironic) on living green in your gray city.
* Is it easy to use your city without a car?
* What energy sources would suit your city best?
* How would you reform the city's spaces, if you were queen/king?
The more specific you are, the more your city's flavor will emerge. Geek out or wax poetic. Dig deep for your inner-urbanist.
http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-ranking/green-urban-li ...
Some ideas:
* Tell us the story about the commuter rail that doesn't exist (voted down yet again). Would it run near your neighborhood, if it did?
* Tell us about the successes. Does the city leadership have the right idea? Are there projects run by nonprofit organizations or businesses worth mentioning?
Formal contest ends September 12th, but we'll take submissions after that as well.
Cheers!
http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-ranking/green-urban-li ...
Permalink
robert693 Posted 7:10 am
12 Sep 2008
Permalink
human power Posted 3:47 pm
24 Sep 2008
Portland green? No, just a slightly lighter shade of brown than some other cities with an unjustified sense of accomplishment.
Permalink
muthu Posted 11:09 am
20 Nov 2008
---------------
Muthu
lSale By Owner
Permalink