Metro Effectual: City residents emit less CO2, study says

[marmar]

from Grist magazine:



Metro Effectual
City residents emit less CO2, study says
Posted at 6:58 AM on 29 May 2008


Residents of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the United States emit less carbon dioxide pollution per capita than the U.S. average, according to a new study. The Brookings Institution analyzed data on household and transportation energy use and found that the average U.S. resident was responsible for about 2.87 tons of carbon pollution a year, but that residents of the U.S.'s 100 largest metro areas had footprints of just 2.47 tons a year on average. Among the 100 largest cities, Honolulu residents were responsible for the least per capita emissions: about 1.5 tons per person per year. Lexington, Ky., fared the worst among the ranked cities with about 3.81 tons of CO2 per person per year. Overall, West Coast cities fared better than Eastern ones due to warmer climates, more aggressive energy-reduction policies, higher fuel and electricity costs, and a greater reliance on hydropower. To lower everyone's footprint, the study authors recommended increasing funding for mass transit and clean-energy R&D, and passing federal legislation to put a price on carbon emissions.


http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/29/cities/

[Warpy]

1. It also stands to reason that people heating and cooling

less space in the city would also reduce their carbon footprint considerably over most suburbanites in spacious single family houses.

Add to that there is a severe limit on how much STUFF an urbanite can cram into a typical urban living space, and you'll reduce it even more.

I doubt they considered either of those factors, though.

[Selatius]

4. I'm guessing that's the origin of the term "McMansion."

Having said that, though, a big part of the reason for a smaller carbon footprint is that in many urban cores, there is at least half-way decent mass transit, and it's a lot easier to walk to buy food than it is in rural areas that suffer from extremely poor planning and sprawl. Those areas you need to have a car, especially if there is no mass transit.

[kestrel91316]

2. I am proud to live in the #2 city. We are trying to seriously be even

MORE green. Villaraigosa wants to get our waste stream diverted to the tune of 70% within the next 4 or 5 years.

[marmar]

3. That threw me....I never think of LA, with its mustard-colored summer haze, as being green.....

.... Good for Angelenos.

[kestrel91316]

5. Remember, we are the original granola eaters here in CA.

LA actually has a semi-functional mass transit system these days. You should have seen what a pathetic bus system it had 25 years ago.......

[marmar]

6. It seems that LA has been more aggressive than most cities in mass transit policy these days....

.... Out of sheer necessity..... I remember once trying to go from my hotel to Amoeba Records in Hollywood a Sunday morning a couple of years ago (about a 12-mile trip) and it took an hour and 20 minutes. :crazy:

[kestrel91316]

8. I'm in the San Fernando Valley. I haven't gone "over the hill"

except to go to LAX in YEARS. The traffic over there is quite insane.

[phantom power]

7. There was a good response...

to another recent post:

I am the Mayor of Huntington Beach, California, a full service city of 200,000 residents, 27 square miles, 1200 employees and 8.5 miles of beach. We have nearly 200 police vehicles, 3 helicopters, 15 fire engines/trucks, 7 ambulances, 1 HazMat vehicle, and 1 medical decontamination unit. In addition there are hundreds of miscellaneous vehicles and trucks for public works, marine safety, building department, water department, and administration. All said, we consume 495,000 gallons of gasoline/diesel/jet fuel per year. For every $1 fuel goes up, it is a half million dollars out of our general fund budget.

http://local.theoildrum.com/node/4057

Another poster observed that this amounts to only 2.5 gallons of fuel per person per year, which isn't very much. It is another way to get at the idea that urban living is in many ways very economical.

[truedelphi]

9. I Bet the study didn't bother to find out if the city dwellers

Had UPS and Fed Ex up to their fifth floor condo or not - the fact that a person doesn't drive around themselves doesn't mean that they don't generate a lot of carbon in their footprint.

You can shop online all day and never leave your little cocoon, while you put half a dozen vehicles a day out on the road.

[bluesmail]

10. Isn't it from BigCorp? They're just laying the blame on us

collectively, it's us and our needs. Aww