A new town near me was billing itself as being sustainable. Was in the planning stages for years and looked cool. Was called "Babcock Ranch." Fast forward to now, and it's just another suburb, but it's ✨solar powered.✨ As if that offsets the horrible car-centric planning, golf courses, and bicycle gutter lanes at all.
@@Stevie-J Maybe future cities wouldn’t be car-less but less cars. Smaller vehicles that wouldn’t be used on a daily basis as you’d have access to all your amenities within a walking distance or biking distance. And if you wanted to go to another town or city, why not take the train that’s been made efficient like the Japanese ones that come every 5-10 minutes. Cars are not necessary for living, maybe in todays world yes, because we’ve literally built our country around cars. But recognizing that, we can begin to make changes in a different direction.
@@Stevie-J, yes, of course; free to buy petrol, tires, insurance, maintenance, parking fees, sit in traffic, look for a parking-space; so very, very ‘free’.
One transportation metric I really like is vehicle miles traveled per capita. It takes into account carpooling, transit, walking, biking, all into one stat. I think it does a good job of rewarding the shorter trips and trip mode diversity that come from compact land use, which really gets to the heart of transportation sector emissions. The best (lowest) performers on that list include some cities that didn’t appear in this ranking, including San Juan, Puerto Rico and (my city!) Pittsburgh, PA
no way! 2 of my fav cities! But yeah PGH has great bike lanes and micromobility options and a fairly solid bus system for a city of it's size (300k, #40ish in the country)
the state of nevada and las vegas in particular actually recycle almost all of their water. when we talk about colorado river water rights they are actually extremely sustainable. they still have a long way to go in other ways tho
Las Vegas is one of the best cities at conserving water in the US. As mentioned, they're all in on water recycling, but they also have an active _ban_ on non-functional grass. So yes, it might have golf courses, but it's phasing out residential lawns - which are a significantly greater source of water loss in most cities than a handful of golf courses.
Great video as always! However, I have few suggestions. 1) Sustainability is not just environmental, it also includes social and economic aspects. Therefore, I think it's important to consider things such as, housing affordability etc. 2) Different cities define their urban boundary in different ways. For example, some cities do not include most of their suburbs within their boundaries while some do. So it not always an apples to apples comparison.
@@seanowens1006 Exactly. For home ownership, the purchase price per square foot in Manhattan is $1600. Los Angeles is $550 and Chicago is $240. I live in Chicago. If I moved to Manhattan and I wanted a condo for the same price, I would go from 800 sq feet to 120. My current bedroom is 130 sq feet (10x13). That's called living in a boarding house because I would have to share a bathroom and kitchen.
@Earth+ PEDANTIC POLICE ALERT! Neither of your arguments are valid. Please learn how to use dictionaries and encyclopedias. 1) This video is about environmental sustainability, not livability. 2) Absolutely NO city includes the suburbs in "their" boundaries. The phrase you are looking for is "metropolitan area". He never mentioned suburbs and repeatedly mentioned city laws/policies/infrastructure. He made valid comparisons.
@@Nyx773 1) The title says 'sustainable'. Sustainability includes environmental, social, and economic. Not just environmental. 2) Some cities does not have most of their residents living within the city boundary. While some cities do have most of their residents living within the city boundary. So when you compare two cities, you need to consider that as well. Otherwise, you give advantage to one city, where they exclude most of their population..
Definitely keep the existing ones going, the current most likely replacement for a decommissioned nuclear plant is a new gas plant. Nuclear almost exclusively serves baseload power, and only coal, nuclear, gas, and hydro can serve baseload, and all of them have downsides. (Atleast as of now) Edit: typo
I disagree with keeping old ones running. I worked in nuclear power and there are a couple of things that happen called neutron and hydrogen embrittlement. Neutron embrittlement is a process where released high speed neutrons can directly dislodge atoms within a steel’s crystalline lattice with the accumulating damage leaving the steel in a state reminiscent of Swiss cheese over time. Hydrogen embrittlement is a process where released hydrogen radicals can infuse into and dislocate atoms within the steel’s crystalline lattice which also degrades the tensile strength of steel over time and it does so more quickly under high temperatures and pressures. Both of these modes embrittle steel and the nature of nuclear power ensures that the ideal environment to create embrittlement failures exists within every PWR reactor design which is why nuclear reactor core pressure vessels have a predetermined lifespan. Extending them by government decree simply because we want it is rolling some rather large dice.
I have said this before for the reasons you mentioned. NYC is the most environmentally friendly city in the USA because it’s sustainable by design. Many other cities are trying to greenwash fundamentally environmentally unfriendly places.
New Yorker here. I agree with you, but it is crazy sometimes to look out at the skyline and remember that it was once a lush forest island, home to many indigenous people. I love NYC and it is a true testament to the definition of a city, but it is always important to remember the vastly different world that was forced to die.
Ironically, NYC is also obscenely corrupt and hostile to small businesses and they're doing very little to actually address homelessness and unsustainable real estate costs(both residential and commercial). Also, the NYC Subway is disgusting. They might fit the bill, but they have a lot of work to do, to actually make it a nice place to live.
Yeah some of the "techs" here are interesting enough but 1000x better than using innovative technology to improve performance is not needing to use them in the first place... dont need high performance pavement coverings if you just have far less pavement.
New Yorker here and New York was mostly swamp , brooks and streams . Also most buildings use steam to power A/C , heating and govt / private cars , buses etc are converting to hybrid or electric.
NYC, like most cities, has "exported" it's unsustainability across it''s rivers to other jurisdictions. Does it count if New Jersey is pumping out pollutants to sustain New York? Should it count if barges full of trash are dumped in the ocean? I don't think so...
And Salt lake City is one of the most environmentally destructive in the US ... the West will soon be seeing a major disaster with the Great Salt Lake being dried up to water green lawns in the desert. These lists need to look beyond the surface of what cities SAY they are doing.
but if it’s applicable to all cities, then it isn’t really relevant, is it? of course my point isn’t that it’s fine or we shouldn’t worry about it, but more that blaming a societal issue which everyone has to work on is a good general point about sustainability but kind of a bad one when it just comes to ranking cities that all do that against each ither
@@linusoppenheimer9248 Sustainable means so much more. Where's the food coming from, what about their water supply? You need to look at what comes in and out of the city and how it's delivered. I'd be interested in the per capita fossel fuel usage.
@@nelsondrueding6726 again, i agree, though i’d point out ny’s water supply is sourced from some reservoirs upstate and is very clean and sustainable. that said, the same is true of any city.
nice to see the work behind the rating- it's definitely making me suspicious about the other 'most sustainable' awards I've seen out there. Thanks for a great vid :D
Yeah, no way Houston could be considered sustainable. Have you been there? It is the most sprawling, car dependent place I’ve ever been. And to get anywhere, you need to get on a highway, which is often 4, 6 or more lanes across. There is no zoning so when you buy a property, you can build almost anything you want. My first time driving in I thought I spied “downtown” three times. Turns out no, there’s just three different clusters of high rises.
It's a tough list to make. I've lived in some of these cities and I studied and worked in sustainable policy for years, so here are some of my comments and suggestions: 1. For building energy use, you could have weather-normalized the consumption data to account for "heating degree days" which would put colder climate on par with warmer ones. Some cities' buildings have higher energy needs due to their climate, but those cities have done a lot to incentivize insulation and heat pumps (Boston, New York) 2. You mentioned that Burlington, VT (where I'm from) is powered by 100% renewable energy. While this is true, the majority of the energy comes from a scrap wood power plant that does NOT use CHP! So while the plant is renewable, there are still high carbon emissions and it's not nearly as efficient as it could be. The other major energy source is from a 100 year old dam on the Winooski River which Burlington simply bought the credits for to get to 100%. Not new energy, just newly credited to Burlington. All that being said, Burlington has a great building energy efficiency program! 3. I didn't see anything about water management - NY has a world-class system where New Yorkers pay a surcharge on their water bills which funds nutrient management on farms along the Hudson River! Other cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas are pumping water out of the Colorado River at an unsustainable rate to feed their growth. 4. Glad to see that composting made the list, but what about agriculture in general? Some cities have great farmers markets, community gardens, and programs that bring in food from nearby towns. Overall, it's a real challenge to make a list like this, but I'm glad you provided your methodology and brought in some expert opinions. And ultimately, I think I agree with you anyway that New York is #1!
Call me overly proud of my new hometown but I think Chicago could actually be #1. A lot of care is being taken of our little river on both branches and our lakeshore. All the city's public buildings -- and these are some big buildings -- are powered (the city tells me anyway) by a solar farm in central Illinois. Gas is taxed at 42 cents / gallon by the state -- compare that to 31 cents by Wisconsin. We have many bikers and non-meat eaters (like yours truly). We have big community gardens. The CTA is great transit even if the elevators are urinated in sometimes (but New Yorkers must be used to that too). Granted, there's a lot of the city I haven't visited yet but I think it's fair to say we've made huge progress in the past 40 years.
NYC! I'm going to stan for Astoria Queens. High density but not via high rises, bike lanes, and easy access to the subway. NYC is also moving towards congestion pricing to reduce car usage even further
Love this! That said it’s sad Portland got immediately kicked out for gas in new construction - building code is preempted by the state! Obvs the state should follow suit, but holy moly dragging rural OR kicking and screaming into good policy is one of the hardest feats I can think of
You're right that preemption makes this whole thing much more complicated. Also rules out any cities like Austin, Texas, or other progressive cities in conservative states. Maybe I'll do a future video about it! Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
@@distilled-earth thanks for the thoughtful videos! This channel has been awesome so far. Preemptions are definitely a nuanced topic and one I think is worth exploring!
Great video concept! These sorts of rankings are so hard because there are so many confounding variables, and picking the statistics that accurately reflect the things we desire are often not measured, or are really hard to find.
Really enjoyed this breakdown, and it was nice to see my hometown of Ithaca, NY on the list! However, we do have a composting program. It's a drop-site model instead of at-home pickup, but it's pretty well distributed throughout the community.
The idea that smaller but more dense housing is better for the climate than larger but fewer spread out homes is absurd. Also, the only reason hydro and nuclear technology is "controversial" is because they won't bring in a massive profit for private companies.
Your videos are well produced, edited, scripted, and logical. The lighting, levels, audio stingers, and jokes are on point. I love watching them with the repetitive exception of your robotic hand emphases! I can't unsee them! I think it would be more natural if you just let yourself be a little more still, and save them for the important parts, or do more varied gestures. Just a thought and keep on putting out these great videos.
Truly such a great video that everyone could benefit from! Thanks for compiling the list and doing the work to create this. Ames Iowa was a shocker & Burlington already having 100% sustainable emissions is pretty incredible!
Your ultimate winner may seem obvious and boring, especially to those of us in the urbanism space, but I definitely it was the correct one. Kudos for being so thorough on this though!
Tacoma, Washington has a composting program, AND the second largest city park in the country: Point Defiance. We have many green spaces disbursed throughout the city, Many parts of the city are fairly walkable, and we are working on our public transportation system...
Remember that demographics matter too. Tiny apartments are great unless you have kids. You don't want to inadvertently encourage cities to discourage a growing or at least sustainable population.
Real estate developers are straight up doing that here in NYC most of the new buildings are basically only made for 1-2 people & not families. Its really infuriating while they price the working class out.All they are focused on is Rent Seeking & using housing as a commodity & not a necessity
So much can be done and it's great to see what is already being implemented. We bought a piece of land to build an example of how people can live and work very sustainably in a village near Berlin, but we don't receive enough funding and we absolutely need money to repair the roof of the main building so that we can, among other things can put a solar system on it.
The irony is that there are old towns/cities with mixed use buildings, walkable sidewalks, room for biking that are already very efficient. They knew how to do this years ago. All we have to do is enhance /tweak what works.
capitalism demands perpetually-increased consumption. American cities have been designed to feed this need for profits (via car-centric design) rather than what works for people's health and happiness.
Ppl too often want bigger, more. Resulting in sprawl so they can drive their giant Tahoe to their large single family home. Also there was “white flight” that saw ppl leaving urban/dense cities and a boom in suburban life. Basically everything is built around cars, older cities weren’t.
Nyc has been working on a compost program for about 4 years now. They actually placed a permanent compost bin on my block just recently and I do not live in a wealthy or centrally located neighborhood. They are also working on making some bus routes free as well as implementing very high tolls for cars to drive into the season. They are alO implementing more and more bike lanes and closing down roads to turn them into pedestrian walkways.
I'm surprised that DC didn't score higher on some of these metrics. Proud to see it on the public transportation list and the green spaces. I know that 10 years ago DC had one of the highest trees per person ratio.
If you'd like to learn more about NYC being sustainable, read "Green Metropolis" by David Owen. It's a love letter to the city and stands in defense of it
Something huge that you didn't go over is water. Water use vs rainfall. Water sources, ect. Fresh water is actually a hugely limited resource that we are using like crazy.
I was waiting for a Burlington mention!!! Yeah i work with the city on their sustainability. For the past 3 years Burlington has had free public transit and a lot of green space!!! Plus UVM is introducing geothermal on campus!
By far and away the two largest avenues of energy consumption, and therefore emissions, are transportation and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, but the bulk of this is really just heating). NYC wins hands down primarily because of these two factors. NYC residents drive the least of all Americans and are the most likely to live in large multiunit structures which are vastly more efficient to heat and cool, even though NYC is in a climate zone where heating and cooling are necessary.
curios, with places like nevada that are in a desert climate and where i'll assume grass doesn't grow very easy, would lots of green spaces even be realistic ? Especially with the water crisis going on in those states(nevada, socal, y arizona)
We Americans need smaller refrigerators with all that food waste Edit:. If you look all lost waking around in New York, a helpful New Yorker will offer you directions. That's a sustainable practice.
Phoenix and any other city under 40 degrees latitude need to put white roof requirements into place. Not just roads but houses and commercial buildings need white roofing at those warm latitudes.
NYC may be sustainable but it is also one of the fastest warming places on the planet (outside of the poles) and will likely reach 5° warmer before the whole globe reaches 3°. While I live here and agree it is one of the best places to live green, there is a lot to be addressed and people shouldn’t just pick up and more here for some American green renaissance. All cities in our country and the world can do so much more and if every city starts implementing policies for green infrastructure than we will be much more prepared to slow down the rate of heating of our planet. I am also not telling people not to move here just that there is so much to do and every city needs dedicated people who want to make a change!
Curious what the criteria was to be considered a city? There are some small cities that are under 100k residents that are found very well in some of the categories mentioned in the video. The other criteria that should be considered for sustainability, outside of adaptability to climate change, is providing key resources for it’s population like food and water. Sustaining a 100% reliance on global supply chains may not be a sustainable solution if resiliency is considered. That would virtually eliminate New York. Very complex issue, and it’s admirable you made a video to discuss the topic.
Flooding, Hurricanes, Wet-Bulb temperatures, Flooding, Humidity, ridiculous traffic congestion, horrible public transit I lived there for 35+yrs and finally got the F out
As much as I love SLC, it's infamously had some serious air quality problems, especially around the winter as a consequence of the lake effect. It's also pretty spread out, if you're considering the metropolitan area and not just the city limits.
Baltimore's greenspace is enough for the over 1mil people who once lived here, even though our current population is under 600k. The green space per capita here is great. Not surprised we couldn't make the final cut though, as we do have much bigger fish to fry in terms of policy and problems to solve
NYSERDA is incentivising Passive House construction for new multi-family projects in NY, which ends up being mostly in NYC. That city seems to have more certified Passive House projects and dwelling units than any other city in the USA; as one of about 2 dozen PHI accredited Passive House building certifiers in N.America, including Canada, I can tell you that NYC is probably responsible for about a third of the certified PH projects we bid on in the USA, all of which are huge multifamily new construction. So I would concur with the conclusion of this videographer. Only Vancouver in Canada has more large Passive House projects, and that city actually has a certified Passive House mandate for large new construction projects. Vancouver is also nearly entirely powered by hydropower, & has good public transit, which probably makes it the most sustainable city in Canada.
I kind of feel there might be more to consider as new york would be the last place anyone would consider as sustainable imo. its surprising how well its doing however despite all the bad things a person would typically hear about new york. As someone also stated in an earlier comment there was a lot of mention about considering the social aspect of sustainability, but it felt like while it was mentioned a lot the only thing I can tell that was considered in that aspect might be the bike lanes and such. none of the other points felt like they were related to a social aspect of sustainability. I might have missed it but were examples even given for what would count as a social aspect of sustainability because if so I must have missed that part of the video.
New York should absolutely be the first place people think of as sustainable, mainly because urban density rather than suburban sprawl will basically always be less emissions and consumption per capita. Plus as he mentioned, a pretty substantial amount of their energy sources are renewable and they’re doing more than just about any other city in the US to prioritize public transit and cycling over personal vehicles as the primary mode of transport for people’s day to day activities
@@JordanPeace I supposed you're right, though new York is often depicted as a disgusting, rodent infest, smog filled city. Of course these are often in movies and TV shows, however if there has been tremendous effort to change this if new York was in fact like this at one time plus have shown great progress then I suppose it would make sense and im in support of new York continuing. I do think another factor that should also be considered is the environmental effect as a whole. I admit idk what per capita means but if it doesn't mean the city as a whole then the number might just be an average and averages can easily be misleading.
@@raventhorX oh don’t get me wrong, New York is still disgusting and rodent infested with trash on the sidewalks (although the smog is basically nonexistent at this point which is probably the biggest quality of life improvement) But they’ve also installed so many new protected bike lanes or dedicated bike paths in recent years including some pretty major ones across bridges between Manhattan and Brooklyn/Queens, implemented the ban on gas stoves to reduce localized household carbon emissions, and are actively considering policies like congestion pricing that should significantly reduce personal vehicle traffic in the denser parts of the city where cars really shouldn’t be in the first place unless they absolutely have to Per capita basically just means per person, so while New York is definitely energy and resource intensive, it’s actually much more efficient and sustainable than suburban alternatives, since each individual person uses significantly less resources and infrastructure in comparison to less dense and more car-oriented places. It might sound counterintuitive at first, but dense urban cities with good transit and cycling infrastructure are significantly better for the environment than suburbs, and still would be even if everyone in the suburbs had solar panels on their roofs and drove electric cars everywhere
Hmm… one note. With regenerative braking on electric cars, you have one pedal driving, which virtually eliminates brake pad dust/ pollution. That with no gas engine is very significant.
A smaller home is not the sole reason for lower energy usage. I used to live in an almost untouched 1940s home that was 2 bed/1 bath, and 800 square feet. It was leaky and drafty as hell, single pane windows, a haphazardly thrown together central HVAC system that cats got under the house and molested, and we had $300 a month electric bills in the winter because on TOP of all of that, the sumbitch had ZERO insulation. I know some houses in Texas built by Matt Risinger that are 3000+ square feet and spend only 2/3 what I spent on electricity, and I can guarantee they're running more TVs and other BS, too. My point is: last I checked NY and the like have a LOT of *_old_* buildings. 7:46 Also, this is the dumbest and most tyrannical thing done recently that affects more than just a relatively niche community. The rich are most definitely going to keep their gas stoves, and gas stove cooking is an entire order of magnitude better when it comes to ACTUAL cooking on the hobbyist to professional level.
Minneapolis not making the biking cities list is hilarious, 4th most bike friendly city. Also: Rank on the Green City Index - Minneapolis ranks high - #10 overall - on the Green City Index. Bike trails and green spaces - The city boasts hundreds of miles of bike trails and 67 state parks. In fact, Minneapolis has the third-highest percentage of green space in the Index coming in at 20%, compared to the average of 12% for the rest of the cities in the Index. Green transportation - Minneapolis has also implemented a number of green initiatives to clean up and revitalize urban areas while improving access to greener forms of transport through programs like the Pedestrian Master Plan, Minneapolis Bicycle Program, Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program, and a bike-sharing program. In fact, Minneapolis is committed to adding 163 miles of new bike trails and has already nearly reached this goal. Cost of living - In terms of affordability, Minneapolis ranks #19 out of 119 cities worldwide for cost of living.
just found your channel via your guest video @ Simon Clark's channel on nebula. even as a European it's interesting what US cities do and don't do to mitigate the impact of climate change.
I did figure that you'd end up giving the award to New York, since David Owen came to the same conclusion in his book, Green Metropolis, and he used the same criteria you did. Nonetheless, I really like your research methods and how you drew your conclusions along the way. This would be a great Ted Talk!
I kept saying, nyc even before I played the video. I screamed when I found out I was right. I just knew I was wrong even though it was a constant guess.
4:20 I disagree with this. I think that building a city in an ideal climate zone for humans is an important factor in determining its sustainability. Some of the grosses examples of unsustainable cities are the result of imposing humanity on a hostile environment (e.g., requiring the city to transport water, power, and food over long distances in order to support the population). If a city is located in an area that reduces its overall energy consumption and external dependencies, that by definition makes it a more sustainable city.
NYC and Chicago imo … I live in DFW Texas, and I’ll continue to say Chicago and NYC. Offer the best perks vs bad shit. It’s advance and 10 years ahead from the south. Hopefully I cam move back to Chicago after 20 years in Texas. Coming home, chicity!
(6:58) The addition of Salt Lake City (a city so low on water scientists have said it will collapse in five years) to the list shows how dangerous it is to love a politician so much you're willing to die for them. (7:57) Las Vegas is literally a megalopolis built in a desert. Their water level is so low that Hoover Dam may stop providing them electricity and the local economy is being drained of liquidity by megacorporations. But, you know, that one gas stove law. (9:40) The one and only mention of "water". (9:57) Are we really sure that Santa Monica and Los Angeles aren't the same place?
Salt Lake City uses the Salt Lake County dump and coordinates with them. They run an extensive composting program with a designated can for compostable materials at each house. The compost is for sale to county residents for $30 per pickup load and I've used it for decades. They even have compost can inspectors and they write you a note for putting unpermitted compost material in the can like lumber, animal feces, etc. You screwed up here dude. Is the rest of the video this poorly researched?
I was also surprised to see SLC knocked out for composting. I wonder if it didn't show up since the Brown cans are called "yard waste" instead of "compost." Or if he meant something completely different by "composting program."
For every floor added to the height of a building is that much more space to be left to farm or for forestation. I've always known NYC was saving the land elsewhere by using air instead of land to achieve its purposes.
On nuclear . . . It's necessary, very necessary, if we want to weens ourselves off of fossil fuels. As much as I love renewables, they need a base load generating capacity that complements them. And for that, we don't have anything better than fission reactors. Now that said, my ideal world is one where we use modern high safety designs in tandem with as much renewable capacity and load shifting as possible to keep the number of needed reactors to the absolute minimum. Nuclear is, in fact, very safe when properly engineered and regulated, but that doesn't mean it should be built to excess.
Methodology: The small college towns with high transit ridership probably have a university shuttle service that a lot of students use, so they aren't a template that "regular" cities can use. Also, it's quite fair to measure a city by what climate zone it's in. Pushing far north locks in heating needs forever, just as pushing into the desert locks in cooling needs and water problems. This leads to the idea that green spaces should be green, as in leafy without irrigation. This removes Las Vegas from consideration, as almost no vegetation grows there without irrigation. Brown space yes, green? We're talking about Las Vegas. Conclusions: NYC is only 8x the global emissions per person! Yay! What a great example of sustainability.
Your conclusion is pulling some numbers out of your arse. Global per capita emissions are 4.7 metric tons. NYC per capita emissions are 6.1 metric tons. The per capita CO2 emissions in the US are 14.7 metric tons. New Yorkers definitely contribute to less emissions and waste than most other Americans, especially because most of them are living in small appartments and don't have cars. And you seem to be completely oblivious of how the rest of the world is living in the present. You imagine most people are living like bush man? It's 2023. Shuttle service in college towns? Ever heard of busses. All of your cities could implement a good public transport system, like other nations do.
What's the advantage of living in the most "sustainable city" (NY), if you can't "sustain your life", as you are always afraid someone could kill you when leaving your home?
Ha, sorry to be what I'm sure is one of many weird Portland defenders in the comments, but we do have a county-level ban on natural gas in new county buildings. I'm honestly also a bit surprised we've not gone further yet!
I knew New York was going to win before watching this video. High degree of public transport, walkability, and density makes it the obvious winner. Unfortunately it is not affordable.
3:07 This house is beautiful! Is it some random CO home or can you rent it? > > YAAAAY!!! Washington, DC won as the 5th Most Sustainable City in the United States. YAAAY!!! I think our Metro ridership needs to increase along with less use of fossil fuels. I❤DC!!!
New York is also beginning to sink because of the weight of its buildings so unfortunately I feel like that is a sign of unsustainability which I feel should at least donk it down one on the list
Really thorough research and great quality video! I would love to get your thoughts on some of the work I have been producing on my channel about similar topics if you ever get the chance. Thanks!
Well, i wouldnt take a transit city with a system over 5o years old since its grand fathered in and too expensive. Colorado or Minneapolis makes more sense or even some spots in VA
Is that figure about NYC using nuclear power still true? They recently closed Indian Point, which was the only nuclear reactor servicing NYC that I knew of.
I'm honestly surprised las vegas is considered to have more green space than my current state of colorado. What defines what counts as green space though?
Mostly parks, "green space" doesn't, and normally isn't, green in Vagas mostly rocks, sand, and dry yellow grass. Tho that doesn't mean they don't exist, there is just much more non-green parks and lots of them too. It could also count the insane number of mountains, trails, and possibly golf courses.
Ummm agriculture transportation is one of the top producers of CO2. NYC's food transportation is the highest in the country. Mid-sized cities are far more sustainable than large cities for this reason. I used to work in NYC and it was full of trash, everyone eats at restaurants, and the businesses' recycling services are scarce, if any. All but one friend moved away from NYC to cleaner mid-sized cities like Miami, Denver, San Diego, and parts of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Why isn't it "fair" to judge cities based on where they are built? Would you choose to build a city in a 120 desert or a frozen wasteland? No, you would only do so if you had no choice.
A fyi… Salt Lake City does have a composting program which goes against what you claimed in the video… www.slc.gov/sustainability/waste-management/curbside/compost-can/
