Although the environmental movement has been around for years, many communities are just starting to understand the importance of incorporating green practices into urban planning, business practices, and governmental regulations. Large and small cities have started writing green policies into their planning and development codes, and citizens are petitioning to get green initiatives on local ballots.

By demanding the incorporation of green practices and environmental regulations in planning and development decisions, environmental advocates are affecting how sustainability is incorporated in their towns and cities. When looking at cities across America, it’s easy to see that there are plenty of cities who have been “going green” for years (such as Portland, Oregon), and other communities that are just stepping up to the green challenge. Regardless of what cities have done in the past, the fact that so many cities are taking steps to build sustainability into their communities is good for everyone. In an effort to find the greenest places in America, I’ve compiled a list of the greenest American cities using surveys from Country Home, SustainLane, Popular Science and Our Green Cities.

Methodology

Though focused on the same end result (the greenest American city), each of these 4 organizations used different criteria in determining what makes a city green. In compiling their list, Country Home looked at the official energy policies, green power, green buildings, and the availability of fresh, locally grown food in each community. I was disappointed that the Country Home data wasn’t explained in greater detail, but also found it interesting that the cities on their list were comparable to the cities selected by the other organizations.

Popular Science provides the detailed methodology used in determining their top 50 cities, which includes a ranking of sustainable practices in the Electricity, Transportation, Green Living (buildings, construction, development), and Recycling/Green Perspectives of each city. If you’re interested in learning exactly how Popular Science selected their 50 greenest cities, make sure you check out these case studies that break down the methodology used in the survey.

To figure out their list of sustainable cities, Our Green Cities applied their own “Index of Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously,” a checklist that looks at smart growth activities, land usage, transportation, energy policy, pollution, and sustainable projects taking place in each of the cities. If you’re interested in what makes a city sustainable according to Our Green Cities, you can read their definition here.

SustainLane applied an impressively comprehensive method of determining the greenest cities in America, and offers an in-depth explanation of their methodology on their website. Using primary and secondary research to compile their list, SustainLane analyzed data collected from NGOs, city and state governments, federal agencies, their own interviews and surveys, and public data sources (such as academic research and media studies) to find the top green cities in America.

And the Winners Are…

1. Portland, Oregon

2. Greater San Francisco Bay Area, California

3. Seattle, Washington

4. Chicago, Illinois

5. Boston/Cambridge

6. Boulder, Colorado

7. Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota

8. Eugene, Oregon

9. Denver, Colorado

10. Albuquerque, New Mexico

The cities on this list have worked hard to incorporate green building practices, renewable energy sources, and innovative land use policies into their communities. Portland has 35 LEED certified buildings and strict limits on development, while San Francisco has planted fruit trees on city streets and made recycling a top-priority. If you’re interested in learning more about the eco-policies that guide these cities, check out the SustainLane rankings. SustainLane provides a wealth of information on each of their top 50 green cities, and you might just find ideas on how you can get your own city on the list in coming years.

Additional Resources on Sustainable/Green/Eco-Friendly Communities

Center for Sustainable Cities

Sustainable Measures: Sustainable Community Indicator Checklist

Regional Environmental Center Sustainable Cities Project

The Institute for Sustainable Cities

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Top Three Sustainable Cities in the United States

So apparently the Bush administration has figured out a new way of getting around those tricky executive agency reports and recommendations - they simply ignore them! On June 25, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration decided they didn’t need to read the EPA’s report on carbon emissions, so they simply ignored the email containing the document.

Written in response to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling re: Massachusetts Et Al. v. Environmental Protection Agency Et Al., the EPA report concluded that greenhouse gases produced are harmful pollutants, a danger to people and to the environment, and must be controlled. Before the court handed down its April 2007 decision on the matter, the EPA had refused to determine whether greenhouse gases were pollutants and subject to regulations laid out under the Clean Air Act. Because of this (in)decision, the EPA promulgated a lack of regulatory authority over matters pertaining to the environmental impact of greenhouse gases.

In an effort to force the federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants, Massachusetts Et Al. (consisting of 12 states, 3 cities, 13 organizations and America Samoa) sued the EPA, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, National Automobile Dealers Association, Engine Manufacturers Association, Truck Manufacturers Association, CO2 Litigation Group, Utility Air Regulatory Group, and 10 carbon emitting states in federal court. Arguing that greenhouse gases are pollutants and must be regulated, as mandated under the Clean Air Act, Massachusetts Et Al. brought suit in an effort to force the EPA to begin regulating the pollutants.

In the 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA must in fact make a determination as to whether greenhouse gases pose a danger to people and the environment:

In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law. We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

In response to the court’s findings, the EPA drafted a report which conclusively determined that greenhouse gases are pollutants according to the Clean Air Act, and must be regulated and controlled to avoid further harming people and environment. Once submitted to the White House for review however, the report ended up in a kind of email-purgatory, where it sat unread and lacking official status. I guess it would have been hard for the President to claim that Barney ate his email, so instead he just pretended that he never got the message.

So instead of being forced to read the report and accept the fact that it really is the EPA’s job to regulate carbon emissions, the administration, by stonewalling, prompted the EPA to go back and revise their original report. Since receiving the original report (but not reading it), the White House put pressure on the EPA to scale back their findings, and draft a new, less conclusive version. The new report reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant, but offers no recommendations and does not conclusively classify greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Decision on US carbon regulation postponed until next year
• EPA resists greenhouse gas regulation
• Administration disavows its own global warming report.

My friend Tim bought a Toyota Prius a few weeks back. Normally when one of my friends buys a new car I don’t feel inclined to write a blog post announcing it to the world, but in this case I feel differently.

Tim does not fit the basic demographics of your average hybrid car owner. According to a December 2007 Scarborough Research study that examined the behaviors of hybrid car owners, the typical hybrid car buyer is older, more affluent, physically active/outdoorsy, liberal and highly educated as compared to the average car buyer.

According to the study:

• 42% of hybrid owners make $100,000 or more per year;
• Hybrid owners are more than twice as likely as all U.S. adults to have a college degree;
• 38% of hybrid owners identify themselves as Democratic, and 34% identify themselves as Independents;
• Hybrid owners are 10% more likely than the average American to vote in every Presidential Election;
• Hybrid owners are generally physically active, with 33% stating they belong to a gym or health club (as compared to 18% of the total population);
• Twice as many hybrid owners purchase organic food than do average American.

In looking over this study, it’s clear that Tim does not fit the typical picture of a hybrid owner. Tim is a heavy machine operator - he operates a Caterpillar Excavator that has a 160-gallon gas tank which he empties on a daily basis. Last I checked, Tim wasn’t pulling in $100,000 annually, though I’m sure he wishes he were!

Tim’s a young guy too - he’s probably about 36, doesn’t have a college degree that I know of, and doesn’t belong to a gym. And while Tim is active (you kind of have to be to drive a Caterpillar Excavator) - he sails and boats when it’s nice - I couldn’t imagine him doing Pilates or Yoga - 2 other characteristics of hybrid owners. I couldn’t really imagine Tim admitting to eating organic food, though I’m sure he consumes it at times - rather, when I think of what Tim eats I think of meat, potatoes and beer.

When talking to Tim about trading in his 2000 Mercury Mountaineer, he stressed the fact that his truck gets 19-20 MPG (highway driving), and 15 MPG in the winter. His new car is going to save him upwards of $300 a month! When talking about why he bought a Prius, Tim says, “They left me no choice.” The cost of fuel has risen so high that Tim has had to change his habits significantly to fight back and not spend so much money on fuel.

The fact that Tim made the decision to buy a Prius means more than that he is an outlyer when it comes to his age, income and lifestyle choices. Tim is the canary in the coal mine - he is the warning that the time is NOW for us all to change our behaviors and start paying attention to how our individual actions affect our environment, our communities and our world.

Car companies should sit up and take notice when SUV-driving, heavy machine operating guys like Tim trade in their 4-wheel drive for hybrid technology. While Tim’s motives may not have been 100% environmentally propelled, the fact is that his actions will have an environmental impact as he lowers his carbon footprint and enters the world of forced environmentalism.

This past week I decided that I have Green Guilt. There are aspects of my life that could be a little more environmentally responsible (not the least of which is the fact that I drive 500+ miles a week - mostly because my job is a 70 mile-a-day commute). In thinking about all of the large and small things I do that aren’t very environmentally friendly, I thought it might help me break my bad habits if I write up a list and post it for the world to read. This way, my sins will be on display for all, and that might make me more likely to act responsibly, if only to point to the fact that I’m changing my way.

So here it is, my list of green sins:

1. I drive upwards of 500 miles a week. And while I try to limit my driving to commuting, necessary errands and visits to friends/ for my personal life, I sometimes make unnecessary trips. There’s a bus from downtown Portsmouth out to Newington (about 5 miles). I like to go to the bookstore out that way on occasion, but I have to admit that I never take the bus. Likewise, I visit my doctor in Boston every couple of months, but rarely ride the MBTA Commuter Rail to do so.

2. I don’t recycle at work. My workplace does not have a recycling program in place, and I’ve not made any inroads into establishing one. My best friend has been working on a hardcore recycling program for her workplace (and she works in the biotech industry, which makes it particularly difficult to do this kind of thing because of all of the biohazard requirements they have to follow), and I can’t even find out if we can get paper recycling bins for underneath our desks. And while I do try and bring my recyclable bottles home with me and toss them in the recycling bin here, I don’t always succeed in my efforts.

3. I throw away food. This one kills me. What tends to happen is that I go to the grocery store with high ideals and purchase enough produce to last me two weeks. Upon arriving home, I cut up the veggies and store everything in my fridge for easy consumption later. Over the course of the week however, I just won’t eat the food that’s in my fridge. Sometimes I eat out, sometimes I eat with friends, and sometimes I simply don’t eat. At the end of the two weeks, I’ll go to clean out my fridge and make room for new food, and end up throwing what had been perfectly good green peppers and broccoli into the garbage.

4. On the weekends I go out and leave the radio on in my apartment. Don’t ask me why - because I seriously don’t know why I do this, I just do.

5. I occasionally forget my mug when I get coffee at the local coffee joint. When I do forget my mug, I don’t always recycle the plastic cups that hold my iced Java - though I will say that I do make a good effort to recycle these, except of course when I’m at work. The fact that I buy my coffee pre-made from the local coffee joint isn’t so great either, though I almost always grab my morning elixir from locally owned and operated shops - Breaking New Grounds and Popovers on the Square, both in downtown Portsmouth.

6. Sometimes I get my coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

7. When it’s hot outside (really hot), I love to drive around with my windows open and the air conditioning on!

8. I still purchase synthetic clothing that’s made in countries like China, Malaysia, and Thailand. It’s not that I want to purchase these kinds of clothing, it just so happens that I can’t really afford organic cotton and hemp clothes that are hand-made in the USA. In my favor, I never throw out any clothes, I recycle and reuse them or donate my old outfits to charity.

9. Although I do buy a great deal of organic and locally produced foods, sometimes I can’t afford to do so. Some of the organic food that I do buy comes in individual servings (Amy’s Kitchen is my biggest sin on this front), and some of the organic food is mass-produced in California, than shipped to New Hampshire for my consumption (again with Amy’s Organics).

10. My favorite drink is Polar Seltzer Water - which comes in 1 liter plastic bottles and which I can drink 2 of each day when given the chance. I also buy Vitamin Water, Tazo Tea and Poland Spring Sparkling Water every once in a while. I do however, recycle all of the bottles.

With the publication of this list, I am going to try and make some real changes in my life and start acting more responsibly. Green guilt isn’t a good thing to carry around, though it can be used as a motivating factor. Let me know about your green guilt - what kinds of environmentally-distressing things are you still doing? What holds you back when you think about all of the good things you’re doing to make this planet a greener place?

I promise that I’ll report back soon and let you all know what kinds of changes I’ve made and what I can cross off this list of green guilt!

Researchers from Purdue University, Colorado State University, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have published a new map of the US that offers a visual picture of this country’s carbon emissions from roads, factories, power plants and neighborhoods. Developed by Project Vulcan, and sponsored by NASA/DOE under the North American Carbon Project, this high-resolution interactive map shows the release and movement of carbon dioxide in greater detail than has been previously captured.

The interactive map is presented in a 5 minute video on YouTube,? and may be viewed here: Revolutionary CO2 Maps Zoom in on Greenhouse Gas Sources.

According to the April 7 press release about Project Vulcan:

To create the Vulcan maps, the research team developed a method to extract the CO2 information by transforming data on local air pollution, such as carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions, which are tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and other governmental agencies.

The Vulcan maps are revolutionary in that they track data on an hourly basis, and show carbon emissions in 100 times more detail than has ever been examined. In the past, carbon emissions were estimated according to population levels, and states reported their carbon levels infrequently. When calculating carbon emissions using this old model, the assumption was that highly-populated regions were the biggest carbon emitters, while rural and sparsely populated regions had lower carbon emissions.

According to data compiled from this new model of carbon emissions however, sparsely populated regions can be big greenhouse gas emitters if they are home to coal burning power plants or highways that cut through vast swaths of uninhabited areas. Researchers were surprised to find that the relatively uninhabited San Juan County in New Mexico is number 6 in nationwide carbon emissions. With 2 coal burning power plants in the county, San Juan’s carbon emissions are higher than those of heavily populated areas such as the Washington DC Metro region, New England and New York City. You can view the top 20 carbon emitting counties in the US here.

The Vulcan Project research is groundbreaking on many levels - the merging of various sources of carbon emissions data onto one map, the ability to track the movement of greenhouse gases over time, the inclusion of a variety of sources of carbon emissions, and the level of detail in mapping the data. With all of this information being modeled onto one map, we have a more complete picture of what carbon emissions in the US look like than ever before. Let’s hope that policy makers and public officials take this updated information into account when they consider where and how to make a dent in the carbon dioxide being emitted into our - and other nations’ - atmospheres.

While most of us are still driving conventional gas-powered clunkers (like my Jeep Cherokee for example), car companies have started producing more alternatives to the internal combustion engine. If you are in the market for a new vehicle, consider buying a vehicle that is at least partially powered by an alternative fuel source.

1. Hybrids. The best known of the hybrids, the Toyota Prius starts at $21,1000 and boosts an impressive 48 miles per gallon (mpg) city driving, 45 mpg on the highway and 46 mpg combined (when the car switches between electric and gasoline power). The 2008 Nissan Altima Hybrid, is another attractive option, but has limited availability and can only be purchased in California, New York, New Jersey and throughout New England. The Altima gets about 35 mpg and can run for 600 miles on one tank. Starting at $25,070, the Altima is pricier than the Prius, but larger, more stylish and also ranked #1 among mid-size hybrids by Motor Trend Magazine.

2. E85 Ethanol. The Chevrolet Impala E85 is considered a flex-fuel vehicle and runs on a blend of 85% Ethanol and 15% gasoline, or a combination of the two. The fuel economy of the Impala is nowhere near as good as that of hybrids however. The Impala is listed at 18 mpg city driving and 29 mpg on the highway. Interestingly, while looking around the Chevrolet website, I found that their 2008 Aveo (which is built with a traditional gasoline engine), gets better gas mileage than their flex-fuel vehicles with 24 mpg city driving and 34 on the highway. If you’re in the market for a large truck, consider the Ford F150 E85. Starting at $17,520, the Ford F150 has all of the power and towing capacity (up to 11,000 pounds) of a Ford truck, but its fuel emissions are not where they could be. With a listing of approximately 14 mpg city and 19 mpg highway driving, its clear that Ford needs to step up its research and development into more fuel efficient heavy-duty trucks.

3. Diesel. Volkswagen is launching a line of new diesel-powered vehicles in the US this year, and according to their site, the cars will be legal in all 50 states. While the Volkswagen Sportwagen is not yet available in this country, it’s been rumored that the hatchback is coming early this year and will boost an impressive 50 mpg fuel economy. According to HybridCars.com, diesel versions of the Touareg and Jetta TDI will also be for sale in the US in the spring of 2008.

Even with these new technologies, it is clear that we must demand better options for powering our vehicles. Buying a car, truck or SUV with an alternative fuel source is a great start, but to really affect change we have to start demanding better technologies, more efficient fuels and higher fuel emission standards. A good place to start making demands is by voting in more environmentally-friendly (and less big auto/oil friendly) legislators or by writing your legislators in Congress.
You can find a comprehensive list of cars, SUVs and trucks powered by alternative fuels on HybridCars.com.

If you are shopping for a higher end vehicle you might notice a very expensive line item on the Window Sticker you have never seen before. The Gas Guzzler Tax was enacted in 1978 as part of the larger Energy Tax Act and it penalizes a buyer who chooses to purchase a vehicle knowing that it does not meet certain fuel efficiency standards. This is the opposite of the Electric Vehicles tax credit which gives you back up to 10% of your vehicle’s current value.

The Gas Guzzler calculation of efficiency changes from year to year based on EPA testing but a good rule of thumb is if your vehicle will be getting less than 22.5 MPG you will most likely be paying the tax. The actual amount of the tax also changes depending on how much below that 22.5 MPG value the cars is. If you are close to it, it can be as little as $1,000 but if you are at 12.5 MPG or lower, expect to pay an extra $7,700.

There are simple ways to avoid this tax and help the environment while you can purchase the vehicle you want. Take a look at the Chrysler 300 which comes in 6 different models. Only the SRT8 which comes with a 6.1 Liter engine is subject to the tax because of it’s 18 MPG rating. That is an extra $2,100 you are paying over the next lower model which has a 22 MPG rating and no Gas Guzzler Tax.

At this time, SUVs are not subject to this tax. So even though the Lexus GX-470 gets only 18 MPG you would not have to pay the additional $2,100 in the Gas Guzzler tax. However, legislation will be moving through congress to change the definition of an SUV from a light truck to a car which would then make it subject to the Gas Guzzler tax.