Should this article not be titled "The 50 Greenest Cities in the United States"?
If the writer of this article intended it to be about the 50 Greenest Cities of the United States OF America, she should have titled it as such. As a citizen of Canada, one of the countries of the Americas, and a recent immigrant to the United States, I am continually reminded how the people and government of the United States has usurped the title of American for themselves.
Unfortunately this is incorrect and every citizen of North, Central and South America deserve and are entitled to use the term American.
I hope this comment reminds the many professional writers out there that the country is the United States OF America and not America itself.

This is actually kind of disheartening. Seriously, on a 30 point scale, the 50th cleanest city only has 10 points? And, only 12 cities score in the 20's. Now, I realize that they couldn't have evaluated every single city in the USA, but there's a lot of cities out there. With the technologies that we have today, I would think that we could easily have all 50 cities in the 20's by this scale's ratings.

koalaklb, I'm not going to argue that people in the USA don't think that America means the USA, but... I have lived outside of the USA for or a majority of the last 6 years of my life. If you mention "America" to the people in the countries that I have been in, which numbers 4, they would all immediately think of the USA. So, before you get too down on the citizens of the USA for thinking this way, remember that much of the world is in the same boat.

koalaklb, I am a Canadian, living in Vancouver and I don't know of any fellow Canadians who really are concerned about your problem. Americans are people from the US, period. That is how the language has evolved. Anything else is just silly semantics that make Canadians look foolish, grasping, and overly insecure.

Dreambrother808 is right on the money. I live in North Carolina, United States. All a person has to say is the United States and everybody knows you come from the United States of America. Also, Zielmann is right. All the cities could be in the 20s but they are at least making some improvements. Fluorescent bulbs are a good start, but there is also a good amount of mercury in them to so there are pros-and-cons.

What was that topic again? Whining Canadian immigrates to America from a country in the Americas? Green with envy perhaps?

Yeah sure, I know that I'll receive a bunch of junk from you guys but hey, some cities are a little more advanced than the article says. For instance I live in Greensboro, NC which happens to be last on the list. I'm glad that we made it and all but there are some things that the article doesn't take into account like the fact that Greensboro already has its own Green Hotel: The Proximity Hotel. It's not something that has been planned for the future, unlike the rating Boston got for something it doesn't have already, it is here now. I'm actually doing an investigative study through the International Baccalaureate Program on the Proximity's facility, it's quite interesting. It is going for its Gold LEED rating and will eventually go for Platinum, the first building ever. Also, Guilford County, where Greensboro resides, just bought $15 million of land from a developer to save it from becoming parasitic suburbia and made it an extension of a state park. I am not trying to raise the status of my city, however, I just believe that the study was not comprehensive enough to allow the average city a fair chance. Also, the article only provides a list but no real data and information about the other cities and why they received their respective rating. At least make it available on the internet or something. Plus this would be helpful for my IB Group 4 Project which will help me compare other Green buildings to the Proximity Hotel.

I enjoy an article about the green rating of our cities. It's a shame this isn't much more important to our country and that the best city on this list is only a 23.1, thats 7 points missed out of a 30 point scale and it is in first place. We definitely need to shoot higher for our green policies so we can be known as a green nation. I would like to thank Elizabeth Svoboda, Eric Mika and Saba Berhie for there time and realization that people don't like to have to search through an article to find the results, it was plainly listed in one clear page with a rubric and grading scale.

I'm glad to see Austin in the Top 10, but I agree there is much work to be done. This kind of dataset is easier to visualize/digest when overlayed on a map. Here is an example of how PopSci.com can do so in the future:

InspiredAustin.com - Map of 50 Greenest Cities

Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level...

http://www.eredux.com/states/

I live in P-town, OR. Good stuff. As far as the "America" comment, I have lived in the U.S.A. all of my life and laugh at people who think the US IS America...which I guess is a lot of people? I mean, Mexico is in America...etc. But I try not to let it bother me.
Anyway: YAY PORTLAND!

I notice that Alexandria, VA made the cut (mostly for transportation, which it owes to the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority) but no other jurisdictions in the area made the cut. This is because the Washington region is made up of counties: Fairfax County, Arlington County, Montgomery County, PG County... all of which are not in the purview of this study. What I can't tell is if DC isn't on here because it failed (possible) or because it's neither a city nor a state (more likely). DC has a green building policy (requiring all new buildings a minimum green building standard), has very high transit ridership, offers renewable mix energy to residents, and has a city-wide recycling program, including regular e-waste collection.

It's always good to look carefully at the parameters of the study. Many regions are doing good work in this realm, but aren't technically defined as cities.

Kudos to all the included cities but I have to wonder how much due diligence was used in researching the data. Chicago is the supposed category leader for Green Space with 12,000 park acres for a city population of 2.8 million. Louisville, KY only receives a score of 2.5 for Green Space yet it has 123 parks totaling > 14,000 acres and is home to the nations largest municipal urban forest (Jefferson Memorial Forest @ 6100Acres.) All this for a city with a population (census) of 555,000.

I am so sorry about all the cities that are worse than Chicago. The recycling system has ways to go, as it is being clogged with toxic waste from plastic disposables. The army of janitors who only clean the visible areas of parks know better of how much plastic is left there that will never be recycled. Most businesses scoff at the idea of reducing packaging and do not even offer recycling. Even the emblematic Millennium Park's franchise sells junk food in big bulky unrecyclable plastic. Last summer the number of recycling bins next to waste bins in the parks was one every thirty feet, with special labeling, and opening areas to make it truly obvious as to what was being collected, yet people still threw garbage at the recycling bins and recyclables at the garbage bins. Events held in parks, both public and private distributed as much free trash plastic as possible. It looks like they use the excessive amount of bins to justify the waste. No wonder people think that recycling is a joke. I believe that as long as plastic disposables are allowed, companies will just be so happy to use more of it, and use more trucks to haul it away. Last summer it was held as a wonder that compressors are now used in beaches to pail all the trash before taking it away. The city is PROUD that beaches are now official part of the landfill system, and people have yet another reason to dump trash near a water body. During the past decade, I have not seen ANY campaign in Chicago to REDUCE waste. All the supposedly green efforts go to how to hide the waste of uneducated citizens, while keeping them uneducated and making them proud of the record number of waste bins and janitors available. This is a bad example, and I hope other cities consider how bad it works. Chicago is just a city of free waste, like a child that has a tantrum if it cannot have the latest disposable trash everybody nearby has.

What do you think Detroit, MI would score?

It is upsetting to see that Charlotte and Atlanta did not make the list. Both of these cities need to work on their green image. I hope they both make it onto the list in the future.

I found it an excellent article and I hope we will see more like it. I was particularly impressed with Chicago's cogeneration scheme. They use waste heat to generate more electricity. In my small northern town, we use waste heat from a pulp mill to heat an industrial-size greenhouse where we grow new tree seedlings to replant our forests.

Cogeneration means using waste heat for something else and it is obviously a means of reducing our fossil fuel consumption.

I think Popular Science would have better served their readers by throwing darts at a map for this top 50 list. I am surprised to not see some highly recognized "green" cities in the list, such as Sacramento, San Diego, and Charlotte. I would add, that there are cities on this list that really have nothing going on. I am frankly surprised at the poor quality of this article.

I agree with sacbella that PS's list of fifty green cities lacks substance and thoroughness. The 1.5 million residents in Philadelphia Pennsylvania use less than half the amount of energy that the average American uses, because of our walkable mixed-use communities and comprehensive network of trolleys, subways, light rail and buses. In 2006, SustainLane's top ten green cities included Portland Oregon at number one and Philadelphia at number eight right behind number seven, Boston, Massachusetts. I can almost forgive Popular Science for skipping DC because of it's unique ambiguous status, but how could they miss Charlotte, NC, and Philadelphia Pennsylvania. Philadelphia has the largest urban park in the world and is described by our world renowned Pennsylvania Horticulture Society as a city within a park. Our new mayor has a clear vision to build on Philadelphia's assets to become the Greenest City in America. With a great network of local farms, community gardens, and the Philadelphia Orchard Project creating food production throughout the region, Philadelphia is a model that deserves not only recognition, but also replication.

By failing to use due diligence in their research Popular Science has missed one of the most important stories of our time. Europe's economy is soaring past the USA, because their development is not as dependent upon cheap oil and suburban sprawl. In America, our oldest cities and towns have truly sustainable land use plans that are not dependent upon the dangerous and pollution emitting automobile. America's oldest cities are the most sustainable.

I am just glad that people are getting the word out about what we need to do about global warming and other global problems. Although we need to improve...a lot.

Nice, not only is Portland the #1 most sustainable city (ranked by Sustainlane in '06), but now Portland is the #1 greenest city too :)

-Milan Cole, Realtor
http://www.jmaproperties.com/

While they did touch a couple contributing factors to a green city, this article has failed to evaluate many other factors that vital to protecting the environmental concerns.

There is nothing in this article about water conservation, recycling, or pollution. Water is one of the quickest depleting natural resources, but does not get the attention that energy does.

There are many cities out there that a promoting water recycling and gray water usage, which lowers the amount of water drawn from local water supplies and aquifers. These "local water" supplies are usually lakes and rivers that are vital parts to the local flora and fauna.

Not only that, many cities are researching ways to prevent containments from entering the water supplies. This is done by tighter regulations on discharges, requiring business owners to manage their storm drains and keep them clean, and many other items.

There is much more into a green city than what is between my comments and the topics of the article.

I think calling the report "America's Greenest Cities" is really mis representative, as there is soooooooooo much more involved into a "Green City". If you applied the full spectrum of environmental impact and sustainability, this list would change a lot.

Obviously waste wasn't involved in this or EVERY major city would not be on here, New York City to say the least. They put off way more garbarge and send it more places because they have to room for it. Big cities contaminate water supplies for the actual majority of the population.Just look how dirty the water surrounding New York City is, disgusting.

I thought this study was really interesting, but out of curiosity, where did this data come from? I'm trying to find recycling rates broken down by city and am having a really hard time finding this information, I'm wondering if the data source used in this study may be helpful to me. Is this study just limited to 50 cities or is it expanded upon somewhere else? I'm also really interested in finding out what National geographic society's green guide is? Please help!

I agree with Mrimpatient's comment that the article title is misleading. In the photo gallery case study, they state, "New York is already one of the world’s most energy-efficient cities—an average New Yorker uses about half the electricity an average San Franciscan does." However, San Francisco scores 6.8 for Electricity vs. New York's 2.8 because the score is based on renewable energy sources. In NYC, A majority of energy usage is from buildings, and because New Yorkers live in apartment buildings and confined spaces, they are, probably unwittingly, "green". Density, while not a trailblazing idea, and not always feasible, should not be discounted as a strategy for energy efficiency. Of course, with density, total carbon footprint for the New York City area must be high. New York should invest more in renewable sources; if they did so, the impact would be tremendous.

It's interesting that the 50th place has scores of 2 for everything but recycling, one of the oldest green initiatives in the country. It's sad in a way, that such low numbers can put a place in the top 50. I live in Austin, which is pretty high, and from a policy perspective these brief pieces of information are telling. We could stand to bump up the transportation aspect and one point would put us one higher on the list. Of course, increasing every number would be best.

Time flies like the wind,
Fruit flies like bananas.

This is really afordable medical science. I love the idea. I want to try it out, but I don't want to go without eating! Let me know when they develop a 3D scanning version, such as how the old Sony camera lenses could see through objects by bouncing light off the object.

Signature: Royce Barber of Often reading: The Message, The Bible in Contemporary Language.
ankara nakliyat evden eve nakliyat ankara nakliyatankaradaki nakliyat firmaları ankara nakliyat evden eve nakliyat ankara
ankara nakliyat ankara taşımacılık ankara nakliyat ankara evden eve nakliyat nakliye ankara ankara nakliyat evden eve nakliyat
ankara nakliyat evden eve nakliyeci ankara
ankara nakliyat ankara taşımacılık şirketi ,ankara nakliyat firmaları
very nice blogs.
thanks.

A city in NJ actually made this list? And one of the WORST cities too. Did Corzine pay to get this one on the list? LOL

good article
العاب-العاب بنات-العاب فلاش-العاب اطفال-العاب تلبيس
العاب طبخ-العاب ذكاء-العاب بنات فقط-صور حب-صور بنات
thanks

I cannot believe I am again hearing literally the silliest politically correct argument out there; that the US is usurping the term "American" by user koalaklb. I will dispense with this drivel quickly.

1) I have never, in my entire almost 50 years of life, EVER heard a US citizen say we were the ONLY people who could use that term American. I mean Rush, Shawn Hannity, even right-wing kooks have never claimed it. Only liberal-leaning people have claimed it. Of course, they have never offered any proof of their claim.

2) The word "America" is actually part of the US's official name! Even koalaklb mentions it. If we can't call ourselves Americans, then I guess that someone named John Paul Smith can't call himself Mr. Smith. And btw, I don't see Canada or the countries of Central/South America using the word America in their names (if ones does, I mean no offense). If these countries love the name America so much, how come they don't use it in their official name?

Maybe I should change my UN to koalaklb2 and claim that koalaklb is not the only one who can use the name koalaklb. How dare he!

Point made. Thanks.

I cannot believe I am again hearing literally the silliest politically correct argument out there; that the US is usurping the term "American" by user koalaklb. I will dispense with this drivel quickly.

1) I have never, in my entire almost 50 years of life, EVER heard a US citizen say we were the ONLY people who could use that term American. I mean Rush, Shawn Hannity, even right-wing kooks have never claimed it. Only liberal-leaning people have claimed it. Of course, they have never offered any proof of their claim.

2) The word "America" is actually part of the US's official name! Even koalaklb mentions it. If we can't call ourselves Americans, then I guess that someone named John Paul Smith can't call himself Mr. Smith. And btw, I don't see Canada or the countries of Central/South America using the word America in their names (if ones does, I mean no offense). If these countries love the name America so much, how come they don't use it in their official name?

Maybe I should change my UN to koalaklb2 and claim that koalaklb is not the only one who can use the name koalaklb. How dare he!

Point made. Thanks.

It's great to see the efforts that U.S. cities are making to be collectively more environment conscious especially since Americans are busier now than they've ever been. Everyday we all have tons to do: Errands, shopping, dining, dancing. Sometimes we're so busy it seems hard to find a place in our calendars to give back to the community...sometimes the key is just finding creative ways to do your part.

I found this really cool site www.izzitgreen.com and it instantly helped me incorporate more love for the environment into my life and daily routine and Izzitgreen.com is just a fabulous way to tap into the green community. You can find restaurants, stores, services, theaters, coffee houses, and all kinds of other local businesses and services that meet your everyday needs, but only those that do it in an Earth Friendly way! These places are all reviewed on the site by members of the green community and you will also learn exactly what each business does to take care of our Environment and how it makes a difference. The challenge here is this: Use www.izzitgreen.com instead of the search site you normally use to find local businesses and as a result, you will begin to only use the ones that are Earth friendly. Therefore, overall as a team we can drastically reduce commercial waste and pollution!

I hope this helps!

People should know that mayor Menino has been trying to sell one of City of Boston's largest areas of legally protected public parkland, ever since he was elected. The 210 acre park, which is just outside the city, known as Mary Cummings Park is home to a State priority habitat for rare species. But the last proposals were to turn it into a golf course to make the City some money or to strip the land of its trees to plant along city streets. According to the Globe when asked about selling the land for development "Menino said that if the solution were that easy, the city would have latched onto the idea years ago." It is a complete joke to rate the City of Boston government as #3 when they can't even keep their greedy corrupt hands off the park land they are supposed to hold in trust.

wow Syracuse New York #18 on the list really surprising to me .Lived 30 minutes from there for 33 year till moved to Traverse city MI.Last year had been working in Syracuse for last 2 years and did not see anything green there.I know that they are trying to clean up the Onondaga lake the most polluted lake in America and building the worlds biggest mall.I know the state of New York has a great recycling program for trash glad to see it up there on list but have not personally seen the greenness there.Go green at www.greenclothing4u.com