ABOUT

Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund.

About our authors.


FEED

 Subscribe in a Reader

Subscribe by Email


Mixed Greens
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.


FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

    TIPS

    Did we miss something? Email Enviroblg.


    BLOGROLL


    STAY CONNECTED

    Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]


    Healthy Home Tips for Parents

    Eco-nomics, the new kind of economics

    Please don't disrupt my endocrines!

    Taking pollution personally


    FEATURED

    Please don't disrupt my endocrines!

    Healthy home tips for parents

    Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square

    Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list

    Cheatsheet: Bisphenol A

    7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs



    Ask EWG

    What can I do about fluoride in my water?

    What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?

    What is "fragrance"?

    Which infant formula is best?

    Are stainless steel water bottles safe?

    Is mineral-based makeup safer?


    SEARCH


    ARCHIVE

    « Protecting Alaska? | Main | Lead: Bad for brains, bad for society »

    LA's compact carbon footprint, with caveats

    By Bill Walker

    June 1, 2008

    postcard_final.jpgOn a list of the greenest cities in the U.S., as measured by global warming impact per person, you expect to find Portland, Seattle and San Francisco — all relatively compact, transit- and bike-friendly places. New York City makes the list, with its network of subways and throngs of pedestrians. But the second-greenest city in the country is . . . Los Angeles?

    That's right, according to a new study by the prestigious Brookings Institution that ranks the 100 largest U.S. metro areas by their carbon footprints from transportation and residential use. But as Margo Jefferson reports in the LA Times, there are more than a few caveats:

    [B]efore the boasting starts, some words of caution: The calculations did not account for the fact that half the city's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. Instead, Brookings used a state-wide average that included the hydroelectric and nuclear plants in Northern California.

    Omitted from the data are emissions from industries and commercial buildings, and from local roads apart from federal highways.

    The researchers also chose metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Those areas may allow for a uniform geographical comparison, but in the case of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area, that omitted commutes from as far as Ventura, San Bernardino or Riverside counties.

    "The data is fuzzy," said Andrea Sarzynski, a senior research analyst at Brookings. "We do the best we can."

    Other than New York, each of the 10 cities with the heaviest carbon footprints were east of the Mississippi. That's partly because Eastern cities are more reliant on dirty-burning coal for their energy. (Don't be so smug, Westerners: We rank better because our region uses a lot of nuclear power.) The East is also colder in winter and hotter in summer than the West Coast, requiring greater use of heating and air conditioning. That's one reason Honolulu ranks No. 1.

    The heaviest carbon footprints in the country, according to the study, belong to Cincinnati (98), Indianapolis (99) and Lexington, KY (100). Washington, DC (great mass transit, but also sprawling suburbs, cold winters and hot summers) is 89th.

    « Protecting Alaska? |