THE GREEN APPLE: New York City took fourth in this ranking of U.S. cities by climate change contribution, thanks to mass transit and its density of denizens.
Image: ©DIANE DIEDERICH
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
If you care about reducing your emissions of greenhouse gases, then you might want to move to Honolulu, Los Angeles or Portland, Ore., according to a new study from The Brookings Institution. These three metropolises boast, respectively, the lowest three per capita levels of world warming pollution (read: carbon dioxide) in the nation's top 100 metro areas.
"Large metropolitan areas give their inhabitants smaller carbon footprints," says energy policy expert Marilyn Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta (ranked 67th), lead author of the study. "Footprints are the smallest in areas with high density and good rail transit."
"Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America" examined fuel use in transportation and energy use in homes, landing, from fourth to 10th ranking, New York City; Boise, Idaho; Seattle; San Jose, Calif.; San Francisco; El Paso, Tex.; and San Diego.
But the survey did not take into account key municipal contributors such as commercial buildings and industry—or transportation other than that on highways, thereby neglecting the carbon output of the air freight resupply on which Honolulu relies. The researchers also used the U.S. Census Bureau's metropolitan boundaries, allowing cities like Los Angeles to avoid having the carbon emitted by its legions of suburban commuters count against its total. Weather played a role as well. Cities in moderate climes fared better than those whose residents must expend more energy to cool and heat their homes.
The report, the first of its kind, reveals that southern and eastern cities contribute most to climate change. The reason: residents there rely more on coal and cars than denizens in other parts of the country. "The nation's carbon footprint has a very distinct geography," Brown says. "Those who live in an area relying on coal and gasoline are likely to see a large increase in energy costs. There is a business and economic vulnerability that these metropolitan areas have."
The residents of Lexington, Ky., Indianapolis and Cincinnati emit the most greenhouse gases—nearly 2.5 times as much carbon on a per capita basis as their peers at the top of the list with smaller footprints. But these cities have the added burden of being major regional transportation hubs; in other words, their per capita emissions burden is skewed upward by the freight needs of the rest of the country, according to senior research analyst Andrea Sarzynski at Brookings (based in Washington, D.C., ranked 89th).
Rounding out the bottom 10 biggest emitters per capita are: Knoxville, Tenn., Harrisburg, Pa., Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Nashville, Louisville, Ky., and Toledo, Ohio.
The report authors say the goal of the study is to show cities how to reduce emissions by taking a page from those already keeping a lid on them. The research also demonstrates that city dwellers in general are faring better than their country (or suburban) cousins, because of mass transit and densely packed populations in smaller areas.
But despite climate change warnings, city emissions continue to rise, creeping up by slightly over 1 percent per year since 2000. Environmental scientist Martin Parry at the University of East Anglia in England and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns this week in Nature Reports Climate Change that the trend must be reversed and emissions slashed by at least 80 percent to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
The study authors recommend that the federal government put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, establish a national renewable energy standard and, also, fork over funds for research and development of new energy sources. "Energy R&D should be in line with health care and national defense in terms of spending," Sarzynski says. "The feds really seem to be behind."
The report also calls for reform of existing federal policy, including a shift from funding highways to mass transit and realigning the mortgage interest deduction so as to no longer reward those who purchase the largest and most energy-wasting homes. "Metropolitan regions and the built environment are often neglected when talking about solutions [to global warming]", Brown adds. "They are major emitters and they are poised to be part of the solution."
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentGlobal warming is a religion, not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is based on the false assumption that we may assume that global warming which ceased several years ago was caused in majority effect by human activity. The base assumption should continue to be under study, but as of now, overpopulation and pollution are more important topics for taking care of the planet when it is quite possibly a red herring or merely a political game to use global warming as a tool to give diktats to the world for communist ideals. Note: Mars, and Jupiter have verifiably undergone global warming as well. Data for the other planets, I don't know yet, but Neptune also may be included but inconclusive at this time. We live in an interglacial period, at my latitude I would worry more about having 5000 feet of ice over my head the way it ways about 10,000 years ago more than global warming. Turn up the heat I say!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can understand why some people would prefer not to believe in global warming. It is inconvenient. However the evidence is overwhelming, even the small number of researchers who origionally rejected it are now keeping quiet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut less than their lifeless burbs.
Global WarNing, y'all got it wrong
Well Christ I never knew that global warming was a religion and not science. I mean, that would make the National Academy of SCIENCES the damn Pope! Right? Who'da thunk?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNational Academy of Sciences
NASA
NOAA
IPCC
WMO
UNEP
All the top scientific organizations in the world... religious zealots! Crazy world!
Give me a break. If you're going to make statements like that, then you have to accept that you're ignoring the statements from the top scientific organizations on the planet.
> Global warming is a religion, not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell Christ I never knew that global warming was a religion and not science. I mean, that would make the National Academy of SCIENCES the damn Pope! Right? Who'da thunk?
National Academy of Sciences
NASA
NOAA
IPCC
WMO
UNEP
All the top scientific organizations in the world... religious zealots! Crazy world!
Give me a break. If you're going to make statements like that, then you have to accept that you're ignoring the statements from the top scientific organizations on the planet.
It is has been interesting in the discussions about global warming we never hear about other solutions like sulfur dioxide in the air to cool the atmosphere or deploying shading satelites or sequestering carbon in the ground using a nuke plant to power it. I don't think we need the scientific community to only point one way because it aids in a general environmental discussion, we first need to talk about how to cool the planet down before we get evangelical about how bad society is for consuming fossil fuels
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe earth is an insulated ball. Homeostasis point moves when you add insulation (CO2), but can move back by reducing solar radiation. Thus, put some balloons in orbit to deflect sunlight away from the earth (about 1.6% of the sky). I would take about 4 shuttle trips full of big balloons the size of 1962's Echo 1 to move the homeostasis back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy has SA not published an article regarding the global temperature freefall of 2007-2008? The earth underwent the most dramatic temperature change in the last 100 years--it cooled substantially!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe vast majority of the northern hemisphere is currently experiencing a very delayed crop planting, with many crops already planted in the US killed off recently because of extreme cold fronts clashing with moisture laden air masses from the south.
These fronts are abnormally cold, and are also the reason we've had an unbelievable number of violent, tornado spawning, thunderstorm systems.
These phenomena support global cooling, since global warming theory diminishes temperature and pressure gradients between the polar, temperate, and tropical regions.
Yet another observation in direct opposition to AGW theory, yet the religion of global warming carries on...its unreal.
AGW is just a bad joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should all be trying to save energy from limited supplies of natural resources, but should not worry about the CO2 scam. If we had just cut out 100% of Human CO2, then CO2 in the atmosphere would still have increased by 78.5 parts per million from natural sources and that is 4 times the total human CO2 of 19 parts per million. Do not believe this CO2 scaremongering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you start with a conclusion and only study factors which support your conclusion, you can "prove" just about anything. Recent studies showing city dwellers have a smaller carbon footprint than their country cousins take a very shallow approach. The city mouse walks or takes efficient public transportation to the grocery store - seems like a small CO2 footprint. But consider that the larger the population, the further out you have to go to bring in food by refrigerated truck to the grocery store to support the population. It takes more farming acres to support a large population, so the average distance to the farms increases with population. Add to that the fact that you have to travel great distances to get past the asphalt to the first farm and the energy consumption increases more. The refrigerated truck upon reaching the city limits then has to travel through densely populated, high-traffic areas resulting in poor mpg. Since public transportation is not practical in in farming communities, country mouse has to drive to get supplies to grow food for city mouse. This driving is counted against the CO2 foot print of the farm community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one reads the many, many reports concerning Global Warming, on fact quickly becomes clearly understood. Global Warming is not about warmer temperatures everyear. Global Warming is about a climate in chaos. Overall temps will rise. But it is not just about the inqreased frequency of exterme heatwaves. It is about tremendous snowfalls, record-breaking low temperatures and of course increased storminess. Indeed, many science points to the polar icemelt chilling the North Atlantic, disrupting the Gulf Stream. In other words northern Europe including the British Isles experiencing a 'mini-ice age'. Ala, Europe circa 1700s when Belgian canals froze solid every winter. But still overall, world temps will be dramatically warmer overall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmm, saying that Los Angeles is the city with the second lowest carbon footprint, due to density and great railway system makes the whole article unbelievable. No one uses public transport in LA, they drive at least 20 to 40 minutes to do ANYTHING, and it is not dense. It's actually one of the least sustainable places in the world, it's citizens more car-dependent than any city I have ever encountered. Come on, author of this article, have you been there? This article actually ranks LA above San Francisco (!!!) in carbon efficiency due to "density and railway system." That is just not true. I understand they discounted everything but the proper limits of Los Angeles county, but that's still unbelievable. If LA is one of the most "green" cities, we are doomed. It only has about 14 million cars driving in it every day, more than many countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmm, saying that Los Angeles is the city with the second lowest carbon footprint, due to density and great railway system makes the whole article unbelievable. No one uses public transport in LA, they drive at least 20 to 40 minutes to do ANYTHING, and it is not dense. It's actually one of the least sustainable places in the world, it's citizens more car-dependent than any city I have ever encountered. Come on, author of this article, have you been there? This article actually ranks LA above San Francisco (!!!) in carbon efficiency due to "density and railway system." That is just not true. I understand they discounted everything but the proper limits of Los Angeles county, but that's still unbelievable. If LA is one of the most "green" cities, we are doomed. It only has about 14 million cars driving in it every day, more than many countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen brother! They don't fool us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen Brother, they don't fool us!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry but you are deceived by the deceivers. The Data has been tampered with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this