north america green city index

US and Canada Green City IndexAssessing the environmental performance of 27 major US and Canadian cities

A research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by Siemens

32

Contents

016 Category findings 016 CO2

017 Energy017 Land use018 Buildings018 Transport019 Water019 Waste019 Air020 Environmental governance

004 The cities00

006 Expert advisory panel

008 Introduction

010 Results

012 Overall key findings

021 Exemplar projects021 Energy and CO2

Los Angeles: A comprehensiveapproach to renewables

022 Land useThe million-tree strategy in NYC

023 BuildingsCommunity power works in Seattle

024 TransportDenver: From T-Rex to Fastracks –an integrated mobility concept

025 WaterCutting water consumptionin Calgary

026 WasteSan Francisco recycling: Popularlaws have dramatic effects

028 Methodology0032 City portraits032 Atlanta036 Boston040 Calgary044 Charlotte048 Chicago052 Cleveland056 Dallas

060 Denver064 Detroit068 Houston072 Los Angeles076 Miami080 Minneapolis084 Montreal088 New York City092 Orlando096 Ottawa

100 Philadelphia104 Phoenix108 Pittsburgh112 Sacramento116 San Francisco120 Seattle124 St Louis128 Toronto132 Vancouver136 Washington DC

US and Canada Green City Index


The US and Canada Green City Index

measures and rates the environmental

performance of 27 cities in the US and

Canada. The cities were picked

independently rather than relying on

requests from city governments to be

included, in order to enhance the Index’s

credibility and comparability.

4 5

The cities New York City

Philadelphia

Boston

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Denver

Dallas

Atlanta

Charlotte

Orlando

Miami

Houston

San Francisco

Sacramento

Seattle

Vancouver

Calgary

ChicagoCleveland

Pittsburgh

St Louis

Minneapolis

Detroit

Washington DC

Toronto

MontrealOttawa

6 7

Expert advisory panel

Gareth DohertyLecturerHarvard University Graduate School of Design

Gareth Doherty currently teacheslandscape architecture, and urbanplanning and design at the HarvardUniversity Graduate School ofDesign (GSD). Together withMohsen Mostafavi he editedEcological Urbanism, published byLars Müller Publishers in 2010. Mr Doherty is also a founding editorof New Geographies, a journaledited by doctoral candidates atHarvard GSD. He received a doctorof design degree from HarvardUniversity, and a masters of liberalarts and certificate in urban designfrom the University of Pennsylvania.Mr Doherty’s recent research hasfocused on paradoxes of green inarid urban environments.

Andreas GeorgouliasCo-founder and researcherZofnass Program for Sustain-able Infrastructure, HarvardUniversity

Andreas Georgoulias is a lecturerand a founding member of theZofnass Program for SustainableInfrastructure at the HarvardUniversity Graduate School ofDesign. His research focuses onlarge-scale sustainable develop-ments and infrastructures. Dr Georgoulias has worked indesign and constructionmanagement with Obermeyer,Hochtief and the US GeneralService Administration, and ininfrastructure financing withHVB/UniCredit. Recently, he hasbeen a consultant for new citydevelopments in Saudi Arabia andPakistan, and he conducts researchon sustainable urban economicsfor the Gulf Encyclopedia ofSustainable Urbanism for QatarFoundation.

Mark Alan HughesDistinguished Senior FellowUniversity of PennsylvaniaSchool of Design

Mark Alan Hughes is a distin-guished senior fellow of the TC Chan Center for BuildingSimulation and Energy Studies. He is also associate director forPolicy, Markets and Behavior at theUS Department of Energy’s EnergyEfficient Buildings Hub at thePhiladelphia Navy Yard.Additionally, Mr Hughes is a facultyfellow of the Penn Institute forUrban Research, a senior fellow ofthe Wharton School’s Initiative forGlobal Environmental Leadership,and a distinguished scholar inresidence at Penn’s Robert A. FoxLeadership Program. Previously heserved as chief policy adviser toPhiladelphia Mayor Michael Nutterand was the founding director ofsustainability for the city.

Rich KasselSenior AttorneyAir and Energy Program,Natural Resources DefenseCouncil (NRDC)

For two decades Rich Kassel hasbeen a leading advocate for city,state and federal programs thathave reduced pollution from USvehicles. In the 1990s his DumpDirty Diesels Campaign broughtgreater public awareness to thediesel pollution problem in UScities. Through his work to developNew York City Transit’s clean-fuelbus program, he helped create amodel for low-emission transitfleets that has been replicated incities worldwide. Most recently, hehas worked closely with theadministration of New York MayorMichael Bloomberg to develop andimplement the transportation andair quality components of PlaNYC2030, New York City’s sustainabili-ty plan.

Tom WrightExecutive DirectorRegional Plan Association(RPA)

Tom Wright is the executivedirector of Regional PlanAssociation and a visiting lecturerin public policy at PrincetonUniversity Woodrow Wilson Schoolof Public and International Affairs.He lectures widely on growthmanagement and regionalplanning, and supervisedproduction of the Draft Vision Planfor the City of Newark (2006), theNew Jersey State Development andRedevelopment Plan (2001), and A Region at Risk: The Third RegionalPlan for the New York–NewJersey–Connecticut MetropolitanArea (1996). He has taught at theColumbia University GraduateSchool of Architecture, Planningand Preservation, the LincolnInstitute of Land Policy, and theNew Jersey Institute of TechnologySchool of Architecture.

Rae ZimmermanProfessor of Planning andPublic AdministrationNew York University's Robert F. Wagner GraduateSchool of Public Service

Professor Rae Zimmerman hasdirected the Institute for CivilInfrastructure Systems at NYU’sWagner School since 1998. Her academic and professionalexperience focuses on urban areaproblems from the perspectives ofinfrastructure, sustainability,climate change, the environment,natural hazards and security. Shehas authored or co-authored over100 articles and book chapters inthese areas. She is a fellow of theAmerican Association for theAdvancement of Science, and pastpresident and fellow of the Societyfor Risk Analysis. Her advisoryappointments have been withnumerous agencies, including theUS Environmental ProtectionAgency, the National ResearchCouncil and the National ScienceFoundation.

Don ChenSenior Program OfficerFord Foundation

Since joining the Ford Foundationin 2008 Don Chen has worked onreforming the rules that shapemunicipal and regional growth bypursuing integrated approaches toaffordable housing, publictransportation, land use andcommunity planning. His grantmaking at the Ford Foundationsupports institutions working toreduce poverty and provideeconomic opportunities for low-income people through equitabledevelopment in US metropolitanareas. Previously, Mr Chen was thefounding executive director andCEO of Smart Growth America,where he led efforts to create theNational Vacant PropertiesCampaign and the Transportationfor America Campaign. He was afounding board co-chairman of theEnvironmental LeadershipProgram, and served on the boardsof West Harlem EnvironmentalAction and Grist magazine.

A panel of global

experts in urban

environmental

sustainability advised

the Economist

Intelligence Unit in

developing the

methodology for the

US and Canada

Green City Index.

The EIU would like to

thank the members

of the panel for their

time and valuable

insight.


8 9

US and Canadian cities: laboratories for an urban future

The United States and Canada, already largely urban, are becoming ever more so.

According to the United Nations PopulationDivision, 82% of Americans and 81% of Canadi-ans lived in cities in 2010 and these proportionsare set to continue rising, reaching 90% for theUS and 88% for Canada by 2050. This is not anew phenomenon. As early as 1955, two-thirdsof the populations of both countries lived incities. Urbanization, though, has now reached astage where rural America has begun to shrink.In absolute terms, the rural US populationdropped by 12% in the last 20 years and the UN

A unique IndexThe 27 cities selected for the US and Canada Green City Index were chosen with a

view to representing a number of the most populous metropolitan areas in the United

States and Canada. The cities were picked independently rather than relying on re-

quests from city governments to be included, in order to enhance the Index’s credi-

bility and comparability.

The methodology, described in detail in a separate section in this report, has been

developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit in cooperation with Siemens. It relies

on the expertise of both organizations, a panel of outside urbanization experts, and

the experience from producing the European Green City Index in 2009, as well as

the Latin American Green City Index in 2010 and the Asian Green City Index in

2011. One of the great strengths of the US and Canada Green City Index is the

breadth of information it uses. For every city 31 individual indicators are evaluated,

often based on multiple data points. Value also comes from how the Index is pre-

sented: each city is assessed in nine categories and ranked against the others to in-

dicate its relative position. The process is transparent, consistent and replicable, and

is designed to reveal sources of best practice.

examines the key findings from the nine indi-vidual categories in the Index: CO2, energy, landuse, buildings, transport, water, waste, air andenvironmental governance. Third, the reportpresents a variety of leading best-practice ideasfrom across the US and Canada. Fourth, it givesa detailed description of the methodology usedto create the Index. Finally, an in-depth profilefor each city outlines its particular strengths,challenges and ongoing environmental initia-tives. These profiles rightly constitute the bulkof the report because the aim of the study is toshare valuable experience.

predicts it will decline another 14% in the nexttwo decades, even as the overall national po p u -lation rises. A similar trend is expected to emergein Canada around 2020. Not surprisingly, the two countries’ cities play afundamental role in national life and help toperpetually redefine what it means to be Ameri-can or Canadian. Cities are cultural and intellec-tual centers. They drive economic activity. Andthey are the main recipients of new ideas fromimmigrants, the vast majority of whom settle incities when they arrive. Cities are ideal laborato-ries for innovative responses to their countries’challenges, including environmental issues. It iswell known that city life can exacerbate prob-lems such as harmful greenhouse gas emissions

or urban sprawl, but increasingly cities are alsogenerating unique solutions to these chal-lenges through effective local policies.The US and Canada Green City Index, a researchproject conducted by the Economist Intelli-gence Unit, sponsored by Siemens, seeks tomeasure and assess the environmental perfor-mance of 27 major US and Canadian cities acrossa range of criteria. This report presents the keyfindings and highlights from the Index, and isintended to provide stakeholders with a uniquetool to help cities in the region learn from eachother in order to better address the commonenvironmental challenges they face.The report is divided into five parts. First, itexamines the overall key findings. Second, it

IntroductionUS and Canada Green City Index

10 11

Overall

City Score

1 San Francisco 83.8

2 Vancouver 81.3

3 New York City 79.2

4 Seattle 79.1

5 Denver 73.5

6 Boston 72.6

7 Los Angeles 72.5

8 Washington DC 71.4

9 Toronto 68.4

10 Minneapolis 67.7

11 Chicago 66.9

12 Ottawa 66.8

13 Philadelphia 66.7

14 Calgary 64.8

15 Sacramento 63.7

16 Houston 62.6

17 Dallas 62.3

18 Orlando 61.1

19 Montreal 59.8

20 Charlotte 59.0

21 Atlanta 57.8

22 Miami 57.3

23 Pittsburgh 56.6

24 Phoenix 55.4

25 Cleveland 39.7

26 St Louis 35.1

27 Detroit 28.4

CO2 Land useEnergy Buildings

ResultsUS and Canada Green City Index

City Score

1 Vancouver 91.4

2 Miami 90.1


4 Los Angeles 86.5

5 Ottawa 86.0

6 Seattle 84.7

7 Toronto 81.6



10 Montreal 80.1

11 Boston 79.0


13 Dallas 77.5

14 Denver 76.0

15 Calgary 75.4

16 Sacramento 67.6

17 Phoenix 66.3

18 Charlotte 59.8

19 Chicago 58.5

20 Atlanta 57.0

21 Orlando 52.2

22 Detroit 43.8

23 Minneapolis 40.2

24 Pittsburgh 38.8

25 Houston 32.1

26 St Louis 10.9

27 Cleveland 1.2

City Score

1 Denver 86.0

2 Boston 82.4


4 Vancouver 80.1

= 5 Los Angeles 77.8

= 5 Toronto 77.8

7 Minneapolis 76.5

8 Chicago 75.9

9 Phoenix 72.9


11 Houston 71.0

12 Seattle 69.8


14 Cleveland 68.0

15 Pittsburgh 67.6

16 Dallas 65.8

17 Orlando 64.2

18 Calgary 62.5

19 Miami 61.5

20 Ottawa 56.9

21 Charlotte 55.7


23 St Louis 50.2

24 Sacramento 49.0

25 Atlanta 44.8

26 Montreal 33.8

27 Detroit 27.3

City Score


2 Minneapolis 80.1

3 Ottawa 75.0

4 Boston 74.9

5 Vancouver 74.1


7 Philadelphia 67.7


9 Charlotte 64.6

10 Miami 59.2

11 Calgary 57.8

12 Montreal 57.7

13 Houston 56.8

14 Seattle 56.2

15 Chicago 56.0

16 Orlando 54.5

17 Toronto 54.3

18 Denver 53.3

19 Pittsburgh 50.7

20 Phoenix 49.6

21 Los Angeles 45.3

22 Sacramento 44.4

23 Dallas 43.1

24 St Louis 38.0

25 Atlanta 36.7

26 Detroit 35.8

27 Cleveland 28.1

City Score

1 Seattle 98.2



4 Pittsburgh 78.5

5 Vancouver 77.2

6 Denver 68.8


8 Atlanta 66.7

9 Houston 66.4

10 Boston 62.1

11 Calgary 56.0

12 Los Angeles 53.5

13 Toronto 53.4

14 Chicago 51.3

15 Dallas 49.6

16 Orlando 42.3

17 Sacramento 41.7

18 Minneapolis 37.0

19 Montreal 36.4

20 St Louis 33.8


22 Ottawa 28.2

= 23 Miami 26.7

= 23 Phoenix 26.7

25 Charlotte 26.2

26 Detroit 18.1

27 Cleveland 16.7

Transport

City Score



3 Vancouver 66.6

4 Montreal 65.3

5 Ottawa 65.1

6 Chicago 64.7

7 Minneapolis 63.9

8 Denver 60.7

9 Seattle 59.8

10 Sacramento 56.0

11 Dallas 54.4

12 Houston 53.6


= 14 Miami 51.2

= 14 Pittsburgh 51.2

16 Calgary 50.8

17 Boston 50.2

18 Orlando 49.4

19 Cleveland 47.9

20 Atlanta 47.6


22 Toronto 47.1

23 St Louis 44.4

24 Los Angeles 42.9

25 Charlotte 40.8

26 Phoenix 38.0

27 Detroit 37.5

Environmentalgovernance

City Score

= 1 Denver 100.0

= 1 New York City 100.0

= 1 Washington DC 100.0

4 Seattle 96.7

= 5 Houston 94.4

= 5 Los Angeles 94.4

= 5 Philadelphia 94.4

= 8 Minneapolis 93.3

= 8 San Francisco 93.3

10 Vancouver 91.1

11 Charlotte 88.9

= 12 Atlanta 87.8

= 12 Chicago 87.8

14 Pittsburgh 85.6

15 Boston 84.4

= 16 Dallas 82.2

= 16 Orlando 82.2

= 18 Calgary 76.7

= 18 Sacramento 76.7

20 Montreal 74.4

= 21 Miami 62.2

= 21 Ottawa 62.2

= 21 Phoenix 62.2

24 Toronto 60.0

25 Cleveland 56.7

26 Detroit 16.7

27 St Louis 5.6

Water

City Score

1 Calgary 94.1

2 Boston 91.8


4 Minneapolis 88.2


6 Vancouver 86.6

7 Denver 85.6

8 Ottawa 84.9

9 Charlotte 84.8

10 Toronto 83.5

11 Seattle 83.3

12 Chicago 82.2

13 Los Angeles 81.7

14 Orlando 81.0

15 Houston 80.5

16 Dallas 78.7

17 Miami 78.2

18 Phoenix 77.4

19 St Louis 77.0

20 Sacramento 76.3

21 Atlanta 71.7

22 Pittsburgh 71.6



25 Cleveland 56.1

26 Montreal 47.2

27 Detroit 38.8

Waste

City Score


2 Seattle 83.1

3 Los Angeles 81.9

4 Toronto 78.6

5 Minneapolis 72.6

6 Sacramento 72.2

7 Vancouver 69.0

8 Ottawa 66.2

9 Montreal 63.7

10 Houston 59.5

11 Calgary 58.8

12 Orlando 58.0


14 Chicago 55.2

15 Boston 54.7


17 Denver 51.9


19 Dallas 41.8

20 Charlotte 40.9

21 Phoenix 40.5

22 Atlanta 29.6

23 Miami 28.4

24 St Louis 26.6

25 Pittsburgh 25.5

26 Cleveland 22.2

27 Detroit 0.0

Air

City Score

1 Vancouver 95.1



4 Sacramento 89.1

5 Los Angeles 88.7

6 Philadelphia 82.9

7 Seattle 80.5

8 Montreal 79.5

9 Toronto 79.2

10 Denver 79.0


12 Atlanta 78.2

13 Ottawa 76.7

14 Boston 74.3

15 Chicago 70.3

16 Charlotte 69.5

17 Dallas 67.4

18 Orlando 66.4

19 Phoenix 65.2

20 Cleveland 60.0

21 Miami 57.8

22 Minneapolis 57.0

23 Calgary 50.8

24 Houston 49.3

25 Pittsburgh 40.1

26 Detroit 37.4

27 St Louis 29.5

12 13

more resources to environmental topics. “A lotof environmental performance in the US is basedon the individual actions of cities rather than acentrally regulated and monitored system,”says Andreas Georgoulias, a lecturer in theDepartment of Architecture at the Harvard Uni-versity Graduate School of Design. A strongerlocal economy, therefore, enables cities toembark on projects and make environmentalinvestments with higher costs and longer timehorizons. However, the link between income and overallIndex scores is weaker in the US and Canadathan it was in either Europe or Asia. Relativelylow-income Vancouver, for example, placessecond overall, suggesting that other factorshave a significant influence on the results. Whatmight these factors be? There are a couple ofpossibilities.

While there is a correlationbetween wealth and environmen-tal performance, it is weaker inthe US and Canada than in Europeand Asia

There is a correlation between how cities perform in the US and Canada Green City

Index and their income (as measured by GDPper capita), just as there was in the Europeanand Asian Green City Indexes. Wealthier citiescan afford better projects – environmental orotherwise. They are also more able to deploywell-financed departments with relevant exper-tise to introduce and monitor appropriate envi-ronmental policies. In the US, for example,municipal governments are able to set theirown environmental priorities and budgets, andconsequently wealthier cities are able to devote

First, there are differences in environmental pri-orities between US and Canadian cities. Canadi-ans are more aligned with Europeans when itcomes to carbon emissions and energy use.They are more willing than Americans to investin emissions reductions and energy efficiency.On the other hand US cities prioritize differentenvironmental areas like water and air quality. A second important factor is that, in the US,environmental ambition is often wrapped upwith other public policy goals such as economicdevelopment and poverty alleviation, especiallyin lower-income cities. As Mark Hughes, distin-guished senior fellow at the PennDesign and TCChan Center of the University of Pennsylvania,explains, urban planners and policy makers seeenvironmental sustainability as part of a morecohesive attempt to address a range of prob-lems. He presents the example of Philadelphia,

which despite its high poverty rate does betterthan some more affluent cities in the Index inareas such as land use and environmental gov-ernance. In Philadelphia, he says, “sustainabilityis about poverty reduction not carbon reduc-tion.” Across the US, he argues, “there are high-and low-income constituencies for sustainabili-ty.” In other words, this connection between sus-tainability and development means that lower-income cities will address environmental issuesas part of a larger strategy to tackle poverty.

US cities – a more integrateddevelopment approach and activepolicy can improve performance

In the US, cities on both coasts, such as San Fran-cisco, New York, Seattle and Boston, rank at thetop. Part of this is economic: these are also some

of the wealthiest cities. The strength of the eastcoast cities, however, tells an important storyabout how local governments have successfullyintegrated environmental programs into broad-er development strategies to simultaneouslyrevitalize their economies and make urban areasmore livable. Dr Hughes recalls that west coastcities used to have significantly better environ-mental records than those in the north-east.Cities like San Francisco, Seattle and Portland,influenced by the US conservationist move-ment, which was born in the American west,were more concerned about the impact thaturban growth had on the surrounding environ-ment. The Sierra Club, one of the largest envi-ronmental organizations in the US, was found-ed in San Francisco in the 19th century, and theroots of Portland’s comprehensive land use poli-cy can be traced to the start of the last century.

In the past decade, however, eastern and north-eastern cities have begun to address sustain-ability problems more vigorously. The catalysthas not been merely concern for the environ-ment. Confronted with the long-term decline inthe manufacturing economy, cities have intro-duced sustainability efforts in an attempt toincrease their competitive advantage, therebyattracting jobs and stimulating economicgrowth. In particular, older cities have tried torevitalize urban infrastructure dating back wellover a century, such as narrow streets, compactlots, and vertical commercial and residentialbuildings. Once viewed as unpleasant con-straints on development, these are now regard-ed as the building blocks of a more sustainableurban environment – decreasing the cost ofenergy and transportation for businesses andcitizens residing in the city.

Overall key findingsUS and Canada Green City Index

1514

The Index results illustrate how effective theseintegrated approaches can be: cities from bothcoasts have converged – a remarkable feat ofcatch-up for the easterners. There remain somedifferences in emphasis. New York and Boston,for example, now do particularly well on landuse, which is a weaker area for west coast cities.West coast cities in contrast are trailblazers inrecycling. Overall, though, the results are verysimilar.This is more than just history – it suggests a wayahead for some of those cities ranked low in theIndex. Cleveland, St. Louis and Detroit sharethings in common beyond geographic proximi-ty. These cities have seen their traditionalsources of economic growth decline in recentdecades, and have been confronted with formi-dable challenges, including population loss andshrinking city budgets. As with the high per-

formers in the Index, environmental issues arejust one part of a mix of sometimes difficulthurdles. The experience of their peers suggests,however, that the solution will likely need to bea holistic one that includes a consideration ofsustainability as an integral element from thebeginning, rather than as something to be con-sidered once the economy is back on track.

US and Canadian cities lead onwater infrastructure, recyclingand harnessing the private sector

Environmental problems in US and Canadiancities are well-documented: greenhouse gasemissions are high by any standard and urbansprawl remains a challenge. However, US andCanadian cities excel in several areas. Waterinfrastructure, recycling levels and environ-

mental governance mechanisms are compara-ble to the best cities the Green City Indexes haveevaluated around the world. For example, theaverage leakage rate, 13%, is lower than in anyother continent and 26% of waste is recycled,compared with 28% for the 15 richest cities inEurope. Americans and Canadians are also innovating in the area of urban sustainability, as the exem-plar projects show. For Americans in particular,though, with their long tradition of private sec-tor and non-governmental organization (NGO)activity, this innovation is not always throughgovernment institutions. For example, the Clin-ton Foundation – an American NGO – recentlyjoined forces with C40 Cities, an organization oflarge global cities committed to combating cli-mate change. Similarly, Dr Georgoulias of Har-vard points to the Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) building stan-dards, which were created by the US GreenBuildings Council – a non-profit organizationthat has a large number of corporate membersfrom the building industry. He notes that suchinitiatives, which can take place without top-down central organization, might be particular-ly useful examples for those in “developingcountries where a central administration is eithernot very strong in driving individual action orwould like to encourage private institutions todeliver some of the environmental leadership.”In addition, as illustrated in the individual cityportraits later in this report, many US and Cana-dian cities operate dedicated sustainabilitydepartments within the municipal govern-ments, and even slightly outperform Europeancities on their commitments to internationalenvironmental covenants and regularly pub-

lishing environmental reports (see also “Cate-gory Findings” on page 20).

Canadian cities in the Indexoutperform the US when wealth istaken into account

Canadian cities have a reputation for beingmore environmentally conscious than US cities,but a first glance at the Index tells a differentstory. Vancouver, which is one of five Canadiancities in the Index, places second overall, butthe other four are clustered around the middleof the ranking. If wealth is taken into account,how ever, all of the Canadian cities punch wellabove their weight. Despite an average percapita GDP $7,000 lower than the average ofthe 22 US cities in the Index, Canadian citiesrank nine to ten places higher than they would

be expected to given their lower income. Onefactor in Canadian cities’ strong performancecould be their robust environmental policies.Canadian cities have higher policy scores onaverage – at 78 points out of 100 overall, com-pared with 70 for American cities, whichdemonstrates the commitment they have madeto improving environmental performance.Another factor could be cultural differences inattitudes towards willingness to accept environ-mental regulations, but here it is important toavoid over-simplification. Canadians certainly have a long history of envi-ronmental activism – Greenpeace was born inVancouver in 1970 – but the modern environ-mental movement in the US, especially in thewest, also grew up in the 1960s and both coun-tries have conservation movements reachingback over a century.

16 17

Category findingsUS and Canada Green City Index

CO2

Active CO2 emissions reduction policies havehelped cities in the US and Canada Green CityIndex fall below national emissions levels. How-ever there is still significant room for improve-ment, particularly among US cities. � On average, residents of all Index cities emit14.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide per capitaannually. The difference between US and Cana-dian cities is large, with the former emitting 16metric tons per person and the latter only abouthalf that much, at 8.1 metric tons. � The emissions figures for the US cities may beslightly high as the best available and compara-ble city data comes from 2002, while the Cana-dian numbers are from 2008. Between 2002and 2008, however, national per capita carbonemissions in the US fell by just 3%, so the urban

emissions figures are not likely to have droppedsignificantly, with few exceptions. � These emission figures in both the US andCanada are on average higher than in Europe orAsia. In the European Green City Index the aver-age was 5.2 metric tons per capita and for theAsian Green City Index it was 4.6. In the latter,the Chinese cities, the largest emitters, aver-aged 7.6 metric tons of carbon emissions. � The emissions from the Index cities do, how-ever, outperform national averages calculatedby the World Bank. US per capita emissions in2002 were 19.8 metric tons (19.3 in 2007), com -pared to 16 metric tons in the 22 US cities in theIndex (in 2002). Canada’s national 2007 figurewas 16.9 – more than twice the 8.1 metric ton-average of its Index cities. Some cities, such asVancouver, at 4.2 metric tons, or New York, at8.6 metric tons, are well below national averages.

� In terms of carbon emissions per unit of eco-nomic output, US and Canadian urban areas aremore in line with their international peers, pro-ducing 296 metric tons per $1 million of GDP(200 on average in Canada, 319 in the US). Theaverage of the 30 cities in the European GreenCity Index was 260 metric tons. However it isimportant to compare like with like: all of the USand Canada Index cities fit into the top half ofEurope’s income scale. For the 15 wealthiercities in Europe (with an average income ofabout $63,000), emissions per $1 million ofGDP are 75 metric tons, again, far below US andCanada figures.� On the policy side, 26 of the 27 US and Cana-da Index cities measure carbon dioxide emis-sions to some extent, and 21 out of 27 have set acarbon reduction target seperate to any nationaltarget.

Energy

Energy is another challenge for many US andCanada Index cities. Electricity use is high evenwhen taking into account the underlying level ofeconomic activity. � Most cities have only partial or even no poli-cies to promote the use of green energy in homesor businesses through subsides or tax breaks.Projects to increase locally produced energy are also typically underdeveloped. Only threecities – Denver, Orlando and Toronto – score fullmarks in these areas.� US and Canada Index cities lag behind theEuropean cities in the same income range. Amajority of the high-income European cities hadimplemented all of the green energy policiesevaluated in the Index.� On average, US and Canada Index cities con-

sume 52 gigajoules of electricity per person,although this covers a huge range, from 10 giga-joules to 152 gigajoules. This average is signifi-cantly higher than the 7.2 gigajoules consumedper person in the Latin American Green CityIndex, which is the only other Green City Indexwith comparable figures for electricity use. Partof the difference comes from the higher level ofeconomic development in the US and Canada. � When looking at economic efficiency of elec-tricity use, US and Canadian cities do relativelybetter, using an average of 332 gigajoules per$1 million of GDP, while the Latin Americanaverage is 761 gigajoules. In this case, though,the Canadian cities consume a considerablyhigher 581 gigajoules per $1 million of GDP,whereas the US cities consume an average of277 gigajoules per $1 million of GDP. � A lack of data on the proportion of renewable

energy used by cities and on overall energy con-sumption makes it difficult to present a morecomprehensive picture of energy use.

Land use

US and Canada Index cities have large amountsof green space – although often this is com-bined with low population density. Consistentwith this, they tend to have good policies onparks and trees but are less active in containingurban sprawl.� On average 12% of the area of Index cities isgreen space.� Some cities are able to mix higher densitywith maintaining parkland: New York and SanFrancisco are the two highest density cities, but20% and 17% of their areas are green spaces,respectively. More often, though, low-density

1918

cities tend to have more space for parks andother green areas. � The average density for Index cities is 8,100people per square mile, which is about 2.5 timesless than for the Asian cities, at 21,100 peopleper square mile, and is also less than in LatinAmerica (11,700) and in Europe (10,100).�All but one city has at least some policy to sus-tain and improve the quantity and quality ofgreen space, and two thirds have active treeplanting programs. The latter can be quite large:MillionTreesNYC seeks to plant and care for amillion trees over the next decade.� Only 11 cities, however, get full marks formeasures to prevent urban sprawl. In 2011 theCommission for Environmental Cooperation – aCanada-US-Mexico joint government body –identified growth in urban land area as a leadingenvironmental issue deserving greater attention.

Buildings

Most cities are encouraging residents to havemore energy efficient buildings, but are notrequiring energy audits in which buildings areinspected for energy usage. Moreover, wide-spread regulations on the energy efficiency ofnew structures are not leading to a large numberof Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED)-certified buildings.� All but a handful of cities provide residentswith energy efficiency education and incentives

to retrofit, as did European cities with compara-ble incomes. � All but four cities regulate energy consump-tion for new buildings.� Less common in the US and Canada, however,are comprehensive requirements for energyaudits: just three Index cities require such audits. � On average, the Index cities have 6.4 LEED-certified buildings per 100,000 inhabitants. Thisfigure varies drastically between cities, however,with as many as 18.3 per 100,000 inhabitants inAtlanta while some Index cities have construct-ed fewer than one LEED-certified building per100,000 people since 2000, when the certifica-tion was introduced.� The lack of energy consumption data forbuildings makes more comprehensive compar-isons of performance difficult.

Transport

Policies to promote green transportation arewidespread in US and Canada Index cities, butthese have little effect in practice. Althoughmany US cities have ambitious goals to expandpublic transport, strained city budgets have pre-vented them from investing sufficiently in theseinfrastructure projects. Both US and Canadiancities also face a cultural battle, with most citi-zens seeing no need to get out of their cars. � All but three cities provide at least some sup-port for the use of public transport, and all but

one encourage the public to use green means ofgetting around, as well as providing green publictransport vehicles. The presence of most ofthese policies is as widespread as in the wealth -ier cities of Europe. � Even more common than in Europe are incen-tives for efficient car use (all but two cities havesuch incentives) and road traffic managementmeasures (all but one have them).� Infrastructure is another story: US and CanadaIndex cities on average have only 1.7 miles ofpublic transport network for every square mileof area, which is about half the 3.1 miles of Euro-pean cities of the same wealth. This, however,conceals a national difference: in Canada, theaverage figure is 6.2 miles of public transportnetwork per square mile, compared with just 0.7miles per square mile in the US. This seems to bethe result of choice rather than income: GDP percapita has no correlation with the size of publictransport networks.� Fewer people on average commute by car towork in the Canadian Index cities, at 74%, com-pared with those in the US, at 90%. In globalterms, however, both figures are remarkablyhigh. In the European cities with a similar levelof wealth, an average of 43% of commutersdrive. In poorer European cities, where cars areless affordable, this share is even lower.� Residents in high-density cities are lessinclined to drive than those in more sprawling,lower-density cities: seven of the eight high-

density cities in the Index have higher shares ofcommuters travelling to work by public trans-port, foot or bike than the Index average.� Culture has a role to play, too. Residents ofboth countries are very attached to the indepen-dence their cars give. And there is little need forresidents to shift to public transport when theoverall average commuting time is just underhalf an hour (27 minutes in the US and 35 min-utes in Canada).

Water

US and Canadian cities have efficient water infra-structure and robust policies regarding waterconservation. Nevertheless, their water con-sumption is far higher than in Asia, Latin Ameri-ca or Europe.� Residents of Index cities use an average of155 gallons of water per person per day, althoughthe range is very wide, with the best performer,New York, at 69 gallons per person per day, con-suming less than one quarter of the Index citywith the highest water consumption. � The overall average is about twice as high asin other parts of the world. In the European Indexit was 76 gallons, for Asia it was 73 and for LatinAmerica 70, indicating that even the best cities inthe USA and Canada are only average interna-tionally. � There is a strong correlation between higherGDP per capita and lower water consumption.

This is not only a result of being able to afford abetter infrastructure, as the link between GDPand lower leakage is much weaker.� Although water stress is not a universal issue,according to the Commission for EnvironmentalCooperation it affects 10% of the Canadian pop-ulation and 40% of US residents, especially inthe US southwest, suggesting that greater atten -tion to consumption may become necessary.� The high usage figures do not arise from alack of attention to water: all cities monitor theirwater quality to some degree and nearly all pro-mote lower use.� On the infrastructure side, the average leak-age rate is just 13%, which beats even thewealthy cities of Europe, at 16%.� Only four of 27 cities do not recycle water tosome extent – compared with 21 of 30 Euro-pean cities that do not recycle water, includingnine of the 15 wealthiest. The vast majority treatswastewater before discharging it.

Waste

Index cities have robust waste policies and dovery well in terms of recycling when comparedwith global figures. �Nine out of 27 cities get full marks in all wastepolicy areas and only one city scores no points.� The vast majority has at least some version ofselective disposal mechanisms and sustainablewaste management practices. The proportion is

similar to the European cities of similar income.� On average 26% of waste is recycled in allcities in the Index, compared with 28% in thewealthier European cities. � Two cities, San Francisco, at 77%, and LosAngeles, at 62%, recycle a higher amount ofwaste than any city in the European or GermanGreen City Index except one, Leipzig, at 81%.Two other cities recycle over half of their waste –Vancouver, at 55%, and Seattle, at 51%.�Although all European cities of similar incomehave comprehensive waste reduction strategies,only 14 of 27 US and Canada Index cities do,suggesting that waste reduction has notreceived as much priority in North America as ithas in Europe. However, inconsistencies in theway different cities measure waste generationmake it impossible to do meaningful compar-isons. It is therefore unclear how well Indexcities reduce waste. � Whether or not they reduce waste, however,US and Canada Index cities certainly recycle.

Air

Air quality is an area of strong policy focus inIndex cities, and denser cities have had somesuccess in reducing particulate matter and nitro-gen oxides emissions.�All but three cities have some form of air qual-ity policy and 20 Index cities even score fullmarks for this measure.

2120

� Air quality targets, on the other hand, areslightly less widespread: only 12 out of 27 citiesscore full marks for this indicator.� Nevertheless, denser cities are able to makean impact, whether through robust policies orless reliance on automotives: nitrogen oxidesand particulate matter emissions decline notice-ably with density.

Environmental governance

In their efforts to manage environmental gover-nance, US and Canada Index cities are compara-ble to those of the high-income European cities.

This, along with other areas of strong policy,suggests that environmental performance inthe US and Canada Index cities should improve.� The vast majority of cities have environmentalstrategies – at least to some degree. In particu-lar, every city has some type of environmentalcontact point, all but one have an environmen-tal authority, and all but two have an environ-mental plan endorsed by the mayor.� Conducting a baseline review and setting tar-gets across all environmental fields were theweakest areas for these cities, but even here, 11had done a comprehensive baseline review and14 had set targets in every area.

� Cities in the US and Canada Index demon-strate very similar records on urban environ-mental governance as the 15 European GreenCity Index cities in the same income range. Thepolicies covered in the environmental gover-nance category are about as likely to have beenadopted by US and Canadian cities as they are byhigh-income European cities. Some policies areslightly more common in Europe, such as city-level commitments to international environ-mental covenants; others are adopted a bit morefrequently in North America – for example thepublication of annual or biennial environmentalreports.

Exemplar ProjectsUS and Canada Green City Index

Los Angeles: A comprehensiveapproach to renewables

Los Angeles already performs well on CO2

emissions and energy consumption, with someof the lowest rates for both among the 27 citiesin the US and Canada Green City Index. It is not,however, resting on its laurels. Instead, LosAngeles is taking a comprehensive approach toalternative energy generation. Unlike manycities in the US and Canada, the municipalitydirectly owns the local power utility, the LosAngeles Department of Water and Power(LADWP). Through this body, the city is aggres-sively seeking to change its power mix. By 2020the LADWP plans to eliminate its use of coal,which currently accounts for roughly 40% ofpower generation, and to have 40% of electricitycome from renewables. By the end of 2010 ithad already achieved half the target, with 20%of the city’s power coming from renewablesources owing to projects like the 120-mega -watt Pine Trees facility, America’s largest munici-pally-owned wind farm. Overall, 47% of the city’s renewable powercomes from wind, 30% from hydro, 22% fromgeothermal and 1% from solar. Not all of thiswas generated in the city, however. The LADWPpurchases substantial wind energy from the Mil-

Energy and CO2ford Wind farm in Utah and geothermal energyfrom Mexican utilities.Although the LADWP understandably takes aleading role on renewable energy, other depart-ments are helping too. The Hyperion Waste-water Treatment Plant, the main sewage treat-ment facility run by the Department of PublicWorks, will soon begin capturing natural gas inorder to generate 70% to 80% of its own elec -tricity needs. Meanwhile, the smaller TillmanWastewater Treatment Plant has had nearly26,000 square feet of solar panels installed. Thedepartment is a partner in a unique pilot scheme,the Terminal Island Renewable Energy (TIRE)project, which injects biosolids – currently about25% of the city’s total – deep into the earth andcollects methane emissions.

Ideas from other cities

Chicago and Excelon, a major power generator,partnered to build Excelon City Solar, the largesturban solar plant in the US. Opened in 2010 andspread across a 41-acre brownfield site that hadbeen vacant for over three decades, the plantnow produces 10 megawatts of power, cutting14,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions annu-ally and creating several hundred local jobs. Enwave Corporation, owned in part by the cityof Toronto, turned an energy problem into asustainability opportunity. When the city had tomove its water-intake pipe deeper into Lake

Ontario, the water was too cold to be treated forconsumption. Enwave used the cold water toprovide air conditioning to downtown offices,saving 61 megawatts of energy annually. More-over, this process raised the water temperatureto a level sufficient for drinking-water treatment– thus eliminating the original problem. In 2005 Seattle’s mayor launched the “KyotoChallenge” encouraging American cities to meetthe Kyoto Protocol’s greenhouse gas reductiontargets. Since then, more than 1,000 mayorshave followed Seattle’s lead, signing the USMayors Climate Protection Agreement, whichincludes a commitment to meet or beat theKyoto emission targets to cut greenhouse gasemissions 7% below 1990 levels by 2012.


Washington DC has launched the CapitalSpacepartnership to unify green-space managementacross various levels of government. It is taking aholistic approach that concentrates on sixthemes: creating a greenway to link parks, im-proving public schoolyards, enhancing urbannatural areas, improving playing fields, enhanc-ing center city parks and transforming smallparks into public spaces.

The million-tree strategy in NYC

New York City, already the Index leader in landuse thanks to its high density and high propor-tion of green space, is seeking to vastly expandits urban forest. MillionTreesNYC, part of PlaNYC –a joint public-private partnership under the lead-ership of the city’s long term planning unit – is inthe middle of a ten-year project which, as thename suggests, aims to plant and care for a mil-lion trees inside the five boroughs. Since 2007,430,000 trees have already been planted. The scope of the project is impressive but so isthe strategic thinking behind it. For example,consider the target to plant 220,000 “streettrees”, defined as any tree growing on a publicright of way. This is a highly ambitious targetbased on a major 2006 tree census, which foundthat 220,000 was the absolute maximum num-ber of new trees that could fit in the remainingspace on city streets. In addition, the city hasfocused on street tree planting in six designatedTrees for Public Health neighborhoods. Thesewere chosen because they have low existingtree stocks and high hospital admission rates forasthma for children under five years old. Programofficials are also experimenting with innovativeways of keeping trees healthy, and are conduct-ing research on past urban reforestation projects.

Land use 25 large commercial buildings, and four hospi-tals. The goal is that each retrofit will lead toenergy savings of 15% to 45% for individualbuildings, and in total reduce carbon emissionsby 70,000 metric tons. Although funded partlyby a federal grant of $20 million, in addition to$120 million in local money, participating prop-erty owners will be required to contribute. Theplan, however, will provide loans, rebates andfinancing that let people pay for the retrofitsover time rather than up front. Specialists willadvise property owners on the upgrades mostappropriate for their buildings.Another goal in Seattle is to create about 2,000well paid, green jobs. Companies participatingin the Community Power Works program willhave to meet or exceed standards for laborwage, working conditions and training.


In 2010 Philadelphia created the RetroFIT PhillyCoolest Block contest, a public-private partner-ship between the city and a private chemicalcompany. Seventy-four blocks competed toreduce energy expenses in order to win cool roofs(made of material that reflects sunlight), air seal-ing and insulation upgrades. Meanwhile, fromSeptember 2011 Lincoln Financial Field, thecity’s football stadium, will be self-sufficient forpower, relying on 80 wind turbines, 2,500 solarpanels and a 7.6-megawatt co-generation plant.

Pittsburgh has instituted a Density Bonus thatallows new buildings to be 20% taller and have20% more floor space than normal for theirzone, if they are Leadership in Energy and Envi-ronmental Design (LEED)-certified. With the encouragement of the City of Denver,its Botanic Gardens, Colorado State Universityand other groups have identified a range ofplant species suitable to create green roofs(roofs covered in vegetation to absorb CO2 andprevent stormwater run-off) in a semi-arid cli-mate. Some of the city’s notable public buildingsnow have green roofs, including the US Environ-mental Protection Agency building, the CentralLibrary and the Museum of Modern Art.

Community power works in Seattle

Seattle recently launched its ambitious Com-munity Power Works program. It aims to retrofitabout 15% of buildings in central and southeastSeattle, including 2,000 homes, 75 apartmentbuildings, 120 small businesses (particularlyrestaurants, stores and cold-storage facilities),

2322

In 2008 San Francisco City Hall hosted an exhi-bition Victory Garden to encourage vegetablegrowing within the city. The garden producedover 100 pounds of food a week that was donat-ed to food banks. In 2008 Vancouver, one of the Index cities withthe highest density, adopted its own EcoDensityCharter, which focuses on reducing sprawlthrough relevant planning decisions. New York is not the only city trying to plant a mil-lion trees: Houston’s program, among otherfeatures, encourages companies to give theiremployees trees for planting as presents duringthe holiday season. The city of Denver and other partners are begin-ning consultations on the South Platte RiverArea-wide and Brownfields Plan. Rather thanfocus on individual sites, this regeneration pro-ject will first consider the needs of the entire2,000-acre corridor and then identify catalystprojects to help spark broad regeneration. Detroit Greenmap is a web page produced bySustainable Detroit – a non-governmental orga-nization – that shows users the location of sus-tainability-oriented business, organizations,recreation centers, green spaces and citizengroups.

Buildings

2524

Denver: From T-Rex to Fastracks –an integrated mobility concept

Denver has been investing heavily in masstransportation. In the early part of the last decadeit completed the $1.67 billion Inter-modal Trans-port Expansion Program (T-REX); about half themoney went toward widening two major high-ways – I-25 and I-225 – which were almost per-manently clogged during daylight hours. This,however, was no mere highway extension. Thehighways themselves received intelligent trans-portation systems that relay information to dri-vers and control access at onramps. Most of theremaining funds went toward a 19.1 mile exten-sion of the city’s light transit system, more thandoubling its existing network. Several of thenew rail stations were constructed with park-and-ride facilities, and all had links to the city’sbicycle network. The project also expanded busservices, and bridges were built across the high-ways for pedestrians and cyclists. The projectwas completed between 2001 and 2006, on timeand slightly under budget. Over 35,000 peopleper weekday use the new rail line and localbuses have seen increased ridership as well.Recently the city embarked on a project thatmakes T-REX look small. Fastracks is a $6.7 bil-lion program that aims, by 2017, to add 122

Transport miles of light rail – more than triple the existing35 miles. This will add six new lines as well asextensions to the existing three lines. The planalso includes an extension of the bus networkand 18 miles of bus rapid transit lanes. Accord-ing to the American Public Transportation Asso-ciation, it is the biggest public transportationproject since Washington DC broke ground on itsMetro system in the early 1970s. When com -pleted, Denver expects to boast one of the fivelongest rail systems in the country.


Montreal introduced Canada's first self-servicebike rental network, BIXI – a word derived fromthe combination of BIcycle and taXI – in 2009. Itis currently North America’s biggest bike sharingscheme, with approximately 5,000 bicycles and400 docking stations. After 3.3 million trips in2010, only 1% of bikes were lost or stolen. Theprogram has been introduced in Toronto and islikely to expand to Vancouver, Minneapolis,Washington DC, and even London. New York’s Green Light for Midtown programcreated expanded pedestrian plazas in HeraldSquare and Times Square, and rearranged trafficpatterns with a view to reducing congestion andimproving pedestrian safety in the Midtownarea. The results are impressive: there were 63%fewer injuries to motorists and passengers, and35% fewer pedestrian injuries.

For the last five years, Minneapolis has beenconverting all its High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. Theseremain free of charge for vehicles with morethan one person in them, but when the lanes areunderused, allow cars with single drivers todrive in them for a fee. The exact amount of thetoll depends on conditions and is updated everythree minutes. In 2011 Los Angeles unveiled its Electric Vehi-cle Pilot Program. To encourage the purchaseand use of electric cars, the city is offeringrebates of up to $2,000 for the first 1,000 appli-cants to defray the costs of electric vehicle homechargers and installation. City officials say theyhope to expand the rebate program to providebetween 3,000 and 5,000 home chargers in thenear future.Sacramento spent $110,000 in late 2010 toequip 184 city-owned vehicles with GPS-enabled fleet telematics technology – an inte-grated use of telecommunications and infor-matics. By relaying information about thesevehicles to a central point, the city is able toincrease the efficiency of driving routes, reducetrip distances, decrease idling, improve vehicleoperational efficiency and reduce emissions.Sacramento is planning to install the technologyon several hundred vehicles over the next fouryears and expects its total five-year investmentof $2.6 million to lead to savings of $800,000per year.

Cutting water consumption in Calgary

Since 2003 Calgary has been implementing its30-in-30 policy of reducing per capita waterconsumption by 30% over 30 years in order tokeep total demand steady as the populationgrows. As part of the plan, it has made water

meters mandatory. In 2010 Calgary’s water utili-ty began installing them in 53,000 unmeteredhomes – out of about 280,000 total residences.The city expects to install about 10,000 per year,finishing the project in 2014, and the impact islikely to be substantial. Local studies show thatthe introduction of a meter reduces the averagehousehold’s water consumption by around 60%. Although the meters are now compulsory, thecity is trying to win people over rather than useregulatory force to have them installed. In par-ticular, it is focusing on customer service. Resi-dents can book an installation appointmentonline anywhere from the next week to monthsin advance. They can also leave feedback andscore the installation team. Between November2010 and March 2011, the reviews all rated theservice as four or five out of five. Finally, themeters even help households save money.Installation is free and on average in 2009metered households paid C$41.89 per month,compared with C$50 per month for those still on the flat rate.


Phoenix is letting nature help with its waste-water treatment and gets an award-winningwetland in return. A portion of wastewater fromthe city’s 91st Avenue Wastewater TreatmentPlant is discharged into the manmade wetlandsof the Tres Rios park. The flora and fauna of the

wetlands help further clean the already treatedeffluent; the water also sustains diverse animaland plant life, including 143 species of birds.The original 25 acres of the park is currentlybeing expanded to nearly 400. Washington DC is having success with a planthat helps both waste reduction and water quali-ty. The Skip the Bag, Save the River programhelps fund the Anacostia Watershed TrashReduction Plan, an effort to clean up one of themost polluted rivers on the East Coast. City resi-dents pay a five-cent charge for every disposablebag received from stores, 80% of which goes toriver cleanup efforts. As of October 2010 thenumber of bags given out by Washington mer-chants had declined by 80% and the numberfound littering the Anacostia River by 66%. Since 2006 Houston has been using 20 Solar-Bees at Lake Houston, one of its drinking-watersources. These energy efficient solar-poweredaeration mixers oxygenate the water to help pre-vent algal blooms, which cause an unpleasantodor and taste. The low-cost solution has pro-duced reductions in energy costs of 28% andchemical costs of 78% compared with previousmethods of reducing the blooms.

Water

2726

San Francisco recycling: Popularlaws have dramatic effects

In 2009 San Francisco recycled 72% of itswaste, already far ahead of any city in the USand Canada Green City Index, thanks to a proac-tive policy stance. San Francisco had long recy-cled a wide range of different materials, and hadcharged residents and businesses on a pay-as-you-throw basis for non-recyclable garbage,which encouraged waste reduction. San Fran-cisco wanted to meet a longstanding goal torecycle 75% of waste by 2010. Officials alsowanted to reduce the amount of compostablematerial in the city’s waste, which made upmore than a third of the total material discardedby city residents. Unlike many cities in the US, San Francisco putmandates in place to achieve its recycling goals.In 2009 the city required residents and businessowners to separate recyclable materials fromwaste using special curbside containers. At thesame time, the city mandated a similar separa-tion of compostable material, the first such reg-ulation in the US. The impact was significant:total recycling went up to 77% and composting,meanwhile, rose from 400 tons a day before thelaw went into effect to 600 tons each day in theyear following the ordinance. This is not the first

Waste time San Francisco has used regulation toaddress waste issues. In 2007 the city prohibitedmajor grocery and pharmacy chain stores fromgiving out plastic shopping bags. The city esti-mates that the law has reduced its plastic bagwaste overall by 15% to 20%, or roughly five mil-lion bags per month.The politics of such restrictions are not alwayseasy. In the run-up to the recycling law, therewas some concern over the proposed maximumfine of $1,000 for individuals, so it was reducedto $100. For the most part, though, the lawseems to be very popular. The city was surprisedby how many people began sorting composta-bles well before it came into effect, and byDecember 2010 not a single individual or busi-ness had required a fine for non-compliance,which is monitored by city officials.


The tailgate party is a traditional part of enjoyinga football game, and in Pittsburgh the Pennsyl-vania Resources Council – a local non-profitorganization – and the Alcoa Foundation areusing it as an opportunity to promote recycling.At the last three Steelers home games and intothe playoffs, the Let’s Tackle Recycling Programprovided the opportunity for tailgaters to recycletheir trash and learn about the benefits of recy-cling. The scheme was very popular and in fivegames diverted eight tons of trash from landfills.

In Montreal, the Direction de l’environnementet du développement durable, working with theConférence régionale des élus de Montréal, hascreated an online database of waste materials toserve as a virtual warehouse for artists whomight want to use them. Houston, in cooperation with a local non-gov-ernmental organization, has created HoustonMulch – a brand of compost created from greendebris in the city. Available citywide since 2009,its environmental benefit in terms of loweringCO2 emissions is the equivalent of keepingaround 10,800 cars off the road.

Portland, located in the Pacific Northwest USstate of Oregon, is a recognized environmentalleader, and consistently performs well in numer-ous environmental and quality-of-life rankings.As early as the 1970s city planners began to takeproactive steps to contain urban sprawl, and safe-guard the city’s surrounding forests and farmlandagainst population growth. Since then, Portlandhas implemented a range of programs that haveensured its status as a model of sustainable urbandevelopment. The nation’s first car-sharing pro-gram was founded there and has since expandedto cities across the country. A bicycle-friendly city,Portland has over 300 miles of bikeways. And in2005, the Christian Science Monitor called thecity, “the new capital of the ecohouse move-ment.” Portland was not included in the US and CanadaGreen City Index because it fell outside the selec-

tion criteria, yet because of the city’s environ-mental track record it provides many examples ofbest-practice leadership that can serve as modelsto other US and Canadian cities. Here are three ofthe best:� LEED leader: Portland has 18.4 Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certi-fied buildings for every 100,000 people living inthe city, which is slightly more than any city in theIndex. It has mandatory LEED standards for city-owned buildings and offers incentives for LEED-certified private construction projects. One of thecity’s flagship LEED-certified buildings is the RoseGarden Arena, which is home to the National Bas-ketball Association’s Trail Blazers. It received anLEED gold rating in 2010.� Containing sprawl: Portland is a pioneer insmart growth policies to contain sprawl, datingback to a state mandated policy in 1973 to limiturban areas. By law, all municipalities in the statewere required to define their urban boundariesand restrict development outside the city limit.Portland established its boundary in 1979 andover the following decade the city’s populationdensity increased 50%. Today city zoning deci-

sions are based on minimum density require-ments and proximity to mass transit, and the cityhas policies in place to encourage walking andcycling in the city center rather than driving. Witharound 22,000 people commuting to work eachday by bicycle along the city’s 324 miles of bikelanes, Portland boasts the highest share of bicy-cle commuters of any large US city. �Reducing waste and promoting recycling:Portland has ambitious waste management andrecycling goals, including strong incentives. As aresult, the recycling rate compares with the bestUS cities in the Index, at 61%. The city’s goal is toreduce total solid waste by 25% by 2030 by work-ing with non-profits and other city organizationsto encourage businesses and residents to pur-chase durable, repairable and reusable goods,and to increase the amount they recycle. In addi-tion, the city is looking to improve its long-stand-ing recycling program by providing weekly curb-side collection of food waste and recycling, andshifting standard residential garbage collectionto every other week. Officials are also exploringthe possibility of making residential recyclingmandatory.

Portland – leadingby example

2928

ropolitan areas in the United States and Canada.The Index scores cities across nine categories –CO2, energy, land use, buildings, transport,water, waste, air quality and environmental gov-ernance – and is composed of 31 indicators. Six-teen of the Index’s 31 indicators are derivedfrom quantitative measurements – e.g., a city’sCO2 emissions, electricity consumption, preva-lence of public transport and levels of air pollu-tants. The remaining 15 indicators are qualita-tive assessments of cities’ environmental poli cies,aspirations and ambitions – e.g., a city’s com-mitment to consuming energy produced fromgreen and local sources, the extent to which itpromotes the usage of public transport andmakes efforts to reduce road traffic, the ambi-tiousness of its waste reduction and water man-agement policies, and the stringency of its envi-ronmental strategy.

The Index measures the environmental per-formance of 27 major cities in the US and

Canada and their commitment to reducing theirfuture environmental impacts. The methodolo-gy behind it was developed by the EconomistIntelligence Unit (EIU) in cooperation withSiemens. It builds on the work of the Green CityIndex series (Europe, Latin America, Asia andGermany) and aims to closely follow the struc-ture of previous indices. However, the Index hasbeen adapted to accommodate variations indata quality and availability in the US and Cana-da, and environmental challenges specific to theregion. An independent panel of urban sustain-ability experts provided important insights inthe construction of the Index. The 27 cities selected for the US and CanadaGreen City Index were chosen with a view to rep-resenting a number of the most populous met-

The goal of the study is to allow key stakeholdergroups, such as city authorities, policymakers,infrastructure providers, environmental non-governmental organizations, urban sustainabili-ty experts and citizens, to compare how theircity performs against other cities, both overalland within each of the nine categories.

Clusters

In order to conduct a deeper analysis of citytrends, the 27 cities in the Index were clusteredinto a series of groups, defined by the size of thepopulation, population density, area, income,temperature and share of industry. For each ofthe six measures, three bands were created bycalculating the mean of the relevant data for the27 cities and then calculating 0.5 standard devi-ation above and below the mean. Cities with a

data point less than 0.5 standard deviationbelow the mean in a given category wereassigned to the low band, cities with a data pointbetween 0.5 standard deviation below themean and 0.5 standard deviation above themean were assigned to the medium band, and

cities with a data point greater than 0.5 standarddeviation above the mean were assigned to thehigh band (see graphic above). Regarding the share of industry, cities weredefined as “goods intensive” if employment inthe goods sector was more than 15.8% of total

employment (labor force in the goods sector as apercentage of total labor force was used forCanadian cities); they were defined as “servicesintensive” if employment in the services sectorwas more than 88.1% of total employment(labor force in the services sector as a percent-age of total labor force was used for Canadiancities).

Data sources

A team of in-house and external contributorsfrom the EIU collected data for the Index in late2010. Wherever possible, the EIU used publiclyavailable data from official sources. Data sourcesfor US cities included the US Census Bureau, theUS Environmental Protection Agency, the USGeological Survey, the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, the Trust for PublicLand, Purdue University’s Vulcan Project, and theNational Transport Database. For Canadian citiessources included Statistics Canada, EnvironmentCanada and the Conference Board of Canada.When data was not available from nationalsources, it was collected from city agencies andauthorities. National sources were favored overcity sources given that data obtained fromnational sources is measured in a consistentmanner across the cities included in the Index.Particular attention was given to the geographi-cal level at which the data was collected, andefforts were made to collect data consistentlyacross the 27 US and Canadian cities in the Indexfor each of the 31 indicators. In practice, thissometimes in volved choosing city-level data ormetropolitan-area data depending on the geo-graphical area at which the data was more com-monly available for the range of cities covered inthe Index. The EIU made every effort to integrate the mostrecent data. When uncertainties arose regardingthe accuracy of individual data points, theagency or city official from which the data wassourced was contacted to confirm. The mainexception to the rule of using the most recentdata is for CO2 emissions for US cities. Here theEIU chose 2002 Vulcan Project data over dataavailable from city agencies because it ensuresthat CO2 emissions are measured consistentlyfor all US cities in the Index. In the several in -stances in which gaps in the data existed, theEIU produced estimates by scaling down datafrom larger geographical areas.For the purposes of comparability across US andCanadian cities, the EIU converted all metric unitdata from Canadian sources to units typicallyused in the US. The exception to this is for CO2

emissions, which were measured in metric tonsin their original source, Purdue University’s Vul-can Project.

Low Medium High

Population < 515,505 people 515,505 – 2,177,633 people > 2,177,633 people

Population density < 5,276 people 5,276 – 10,937 people > 10,937 people per square mile per square mile per square mile

Area < 97.6 square miles 97.6 – 324.2 square miles > 324.2 square miles

Income < $41,960 in GDP $41,960 – $49,991 in GDP > $49,991 in GDP per capita per capita per capita

Temperature < 50.1 degrees Fahrenheit 50.1 – 60.9 degrees > 60.9 degrees Fahrenheit Fahrenheit

MethodologyUS and Canada Green City Index

Qualitative indicators were scored by analysts ofthe Economist Intelligence Unit with expertisein the city in question, based on objective scor-ing criteria that considered concrete environ-mental actions, strategies and targets set bycities. Except in one case, qualitative indicatorsare composed of two or more sub-indicators.The qualitative sub-indicators were scored on ascale of one to three, with three points assignedto cities that met or exceeded the criteria estab-lished in the Index, two points assigned to citiesthat partially met the criteria, and one pointassigned to cities that showed no progresstoward meeting the criteria. The independentexpert panel provided input into the criteriaassigned to each indicator. After the sub-indica-tors were scored, they were bundled into a sin-gle qualitative indicator and rescored on a com-posite scale of 0 to 10.

Despite all of these steps, the EIU cannot rule outhaving occasionally missed an alternative reli-able public source or more recent figures.

Indicators

For the 16 quantitative indicators in the Index,the EIU first “normalized” the data points repre-senting each quantitative indicator on a scale of0 to 10, where the high benchmark was set bythe best-performing city for each indicator andthe low benchmark was set by the worst-per-forming city for the given indicator. The best-performing city for each indicator was assigneda score of 10, while the worst-performing cityfor each indicator was assigned a score of 0.Remaining cities were assigned a score between0 and 10 according to their distance from thehigh benchmark.

Index construction

The Index is a composite of all underlying indica-tors. To create the category scores, each indica-tor was aggregated according to an assignedweighting. In several cases, when indicators rep-resented similar measures of environmentalper formance, they were bundled together andassigned the weight of a single indicator beforethe category score was calculated. The categoryscores were then rebased on a scale of zero to100. Finally, to build the overall score for the 27cities, each of the nine category scores wereassigned an equal weighting (that is, multipliedby 11.1%) and summed to arrive at a final scoreon a scale of zero to 100. The decision to assignequal weighting to the category scores reflectsfeedback from the expert panel and research onmeasuring environmental sustainability.

30

List of categories, indicators and their weighting in the US and Canada Green City Index

CO2 emissions per Quantitative 33% Total CO2 emissions, in metric tons per US$m of GDP. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max unit of GDP of data for all cities.

CO2 emissions per person Quantitative 33% Total CO2 emissions, in metric tons per person. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max of data for all cities.

CO2 reduction strategy Qualitative 33% Assessment of the ambitiousness of greenhouse gas Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10. emissions reduction strategy as well as of the rigor of the city’s CO2 reduction target and emissions measurements.

Electricity consumption Quantitative 33% Total electricity consumption, in GJ per US$m of GDP. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max per unit of GDP of data for all cities.

Electricity consumption Quantitative 33% Total electricity consumption, in GJ per person. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max per person of data for all cities.

Clean and efficient energy Qualitative 33% Measure of a city's commitment to promoting green Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10. policies energies, developing green energy projects and increasing

the amount of locally produced energy.

Green spaces Quantitative 25% Sum of all public parks, recreation areas, greenways, Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max waterways and other protected areas accessible to the public, of data for all cities.as a percentage of total city area.

Population density Quantitative 25% Number of inhabitants per square mile. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max of data for all cities.

Green land use policies Qualitative 25% Assessment of a city’s efforts to sustain and improve the Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.quantity and quality (for example, proximity and usability) ofgreen spaces, and its tree planting policy.

Urban sprawl Qualitative 25% Assessment of how rigorously a city promotes containment Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.of urban sprawl and reuse of brownfield areas.

Number of LEED-certified Quantitative 33% Number of LEED-certified buildings (silver, gold or platinum) Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max buildings per 100,000 persons. of data for all cities.

Energy efficient building Qualitative 33% Assessment of whether a city requires energy audits and Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.standards whether energy consumption regulations require that new

buildings satisfy energy efficiency standards.

Energy efficient building Qualitative 33% Assessment of a city’s incentives for retrofitting buildings to Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.incentives improve energy efficiency and how widely it promotes energy

efficiency in homes and offices.

Share of workers travelling Quantitative 20% Percent of workers travelling to work by public transit, Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max by public transit, bicycle, bicycle, or foot. of data for all cities.or foot

Public transport supply Quantitative 20% Evaluation of availability of public transport, including length Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max of public transport network. of data for all cities.

Average commute time Quantitative 20% Average commute time from residence to work, in minutes. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max from residence to work of data for all cities.

Green transport promotion Qualitative 20% Assessment of how extensively the city promotes public Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.transport and offers incentives for less carbon-intensive travel.

Congestion reduction Qualitative 20% Assessment of a city's efforts to reduce congestion. Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.policies

Water consumption per Quantitative 25% Total water consumption, in gallons per person per day. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max capita of data for all cities.

Water system leakages Quantitative 25% Share of non-revenue public water leakages. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max of data for all cities.

Water quality policy Qualitative 25% Assessment of the level and quality of a city’s main Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.water sources.

Stormwater management Qualitative 25% Indication of whether a city has a stormwater Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.policy management plan.

Percent of municipal solid Quantitative 50% Percentage of municipal solid waste recycled. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max waste recycled of data for all cities.

Waste reduction policies Qualitative 50% Assessment of measures to reduce waste and make Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.waste disposal more sustainable.

Nitrogen oxides emissions Quantitative 25% NOX emissions per annum, in lb per person. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max of data for all cities.

Sulphur dioxide emissions Quantitative 25% SO2 emissions per annum, in lb per person. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max of data for all cities.

PM10 emissions Quantitative 25% PM10 emissions per annum, in lb per person. Scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on min/max of data for all cities.

Clean air policy Qualitative 25% Measure of a city’s efforts to reduce air pollution. Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.

Green action plan Qualitative 33% Measure of the rigor of a city's green action plan. Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.

Green management Qualitative 33% Measure of the extensiveness of environmental Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.management undertaken by the city.

Public participation in Qualitative 33% Measure of the city’s efforts to involve the public in Scored by EIU analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.green policy monitoring its environmental performance.

Category Indicator Type Weighting Description Normalization technique

CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Water

Waste

Air

Environ-mentalgover-nance

31

ric tons of CO2 per person, above the Index aver-age of 15 metric tons. It releases 390 metric tonsof CO2 for every $1 million of GDP, higher thanthe Index average of 296 metric tons, and alsothe highest amount among services-intensivecities. A large manufacturing base, despite ahigh reliance on services, helps explain Atlanta’srelatively high CO2 emissions per unit of GDP.Since 2002, when the CO2 data for all US cities inthis Index was collected, Atlanta has ramped upefforts to reduce its carbon footprint (see “greeninitiatives” below).

Green initiatives: Atlanta signed the US Con-ference of Mayors Climate Protection Agree-ment in 2006. Signatories pledge to reduce car-bon emissions 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. Tohelp meet that target, Atlanta has embarked ona “sustainability program” to reduce greenhousegas (GHG) emissions in municipal buildings.Assisted by state and fe deral funding, city

32 33

Atlanta

mental Design (LEED)-certified buildings in theIndex. Although the city places 21st in the watercategory, mainly because of a high leakage rate,it has strong policies to reduce water consump-tion. Atlanta is in the bottom half of the Index forCO2, energy, land use, waste and transport, sothere is still room for improvement in these cate-gories, particularly for controlling sprawl andrecycling. The city’s mayor, Kasim Reed, is lead-ing efforts to improve sustainability and hasannounced a goal for Atlanta to become one ofthe most sustainable cities in the US, in part bysecuring grants for a wide range of environmen-tal projects.

CO2: 20th, 57 pointsAtlanta performs well for its overall CO2 re -duction strategy, gaining some of the bestmarks in the Index for setting targets and moni-toring, but high carbon emissions drag downthe overall performance. The city emits 21 met-

A tlanta, the capital of the southeastern stateof Georgia, is a regional economic hub, with

one of the highest concentrations of Fortune500 companies in the US. The city has in particu-lar attracted several high-tech start-up compa-nies, which has led some to call it the Silicon Val-ley of the South. As a result, Atlanta’s economy isservices intensive, although manu facturingmaintains a strong presence. The Coca-ColaCompany, for example, has its head quartersthere. With a GDP per capita of around $42,200,Atlanta has the 16th highest income in the USand Canada Green City Index. Data for the Indexfor Atlanta is based on a mix of statistics coveringthe city boundary, with a population of 540,000,and the wider metropolitan area, which has apopulation of 5.5 million.Atlanta is ranked 21st overall in the Index. Itsstrongest category performance is in buildings,at eighth, bolstered by having the highest per-centage of Leadership in Energy and En viron -

authorities say the program, which started inFebruary 2008, had cut muni cipal GHG emis-sions 13% by October 2010. Atlanta has alsocompleted a citywide inventory of non-munici-pal sources of GHG emissions, which will pro-vide the basis of a “Community Climate ActionPlan”, although the specific plans and targetshave yet to be set.

Energy: 25th, 44.8 pointsAtlanta consumes the most electricity in theIndex on a per capita basis, at 152 gigajoules per person, much higher than the average of 52 gigajoules. Atlanta’s electricity consumptionper $1 million of GDP, at 357 gigajoules, is alsohigher than the Index average of 332 gigajoules.There are some mitigating circumstances, how -ever. The city’s relatively low population, com -bined with the numerous and energy demand-ing companies operating there, has driven upthe per capita figure. Atlanta scores better onpolicy areas. For example, through a mixture oftax incentives and subsidies, the city promotesgreen energy for both homes and businesses.

Green initiatives: Atlanta’s “Em-Powered toChange” program, started in February 2011, isdesigned to increase city-employee awarenessabout energy conservation. The goal is toreduce energy consumption 20% in city facili-ties over the next five years. In another initia-tive, Atlanta announced a partnership with aprivate automobile manufacturer in October2010 and will be developing an electric vehiclecharging network for the first delivery of elec-tric vehicles, expected during 2011.

Land use: 25th, 36.7 pointsLess than 5% of Atlanta’s administrative area isgiven over to green space, versus an Index av -erage of 12%. The city performs well for proac-tive measures on tree planting and brownfieldregene ration, but there are still policy chal -lenges in order to overcome a historical legacyof city planning that did not put a priority ongreen space. For example, Atlanta is one of onlya few cities in the Index that does not have anymeasures in place to protect existing greenspace from building development. There areplans to increase Atlanta’s green space by 40%through Atlanta Beltline (see “green initiatives”below) but city authorities concede it will takemany years before that target is achieved.

Green initiatives: Atlanta Beltline, a $2.8 bil -lion urban redevelopment project launched in2006 by city authorities in partnership with private companies, aims to convert a 22-milerailroad corridor into an integrated network ofparks, trails and public transit. Atlanta Beltline

0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

AtlantaBestAverage

will eventually connect 45 neighborhoodsaround Atlanta’s downtown. The project, whichhas no fixed timeframe for completion, includesthe redevelopment of 1,100 brownfield acres.

Buildings: Eighth, 66.7 pointsThis is Atlanta’s highest category placing, andthe city’s score is boosted by having the highestproportion of LEED-certified buildings in theIndex in relation to population, at 18.3 per100,000 people. Strict energy efficiency re -gulation for new buildings has increased thepace of LEED certification, but so too has thecity’s LEED commitment on municipal buildings(see “green initiatives” below). Atlanta’s overallbuildings performance would have been evenbetter were it not for the fact that the city doesnot require energy audits from property owners,and is relatively weak, by Index standards, inproviding incentives to retrofit buildings. Publicinforma tion on how to decrease energy con -sumption in offices and homes is also not asreadily available in Atlanta as it is in the majorityof Index cities.

Green initiatives: Atlanta passed an ordi nancein 2003 requiring any new construction of cityfacilities and city-funded projects, as well as ren-ovations, to be silver LEED-certified. Re novationwork has included Atlanta’s international air-port, which is on track for silver LEED certifica-tion in 2012. In the same year the ordinance waspassed, Atlanta installed a 3,000-square-footgarden on the city hall roof to reduce energyconsumption and improve stormwater manage-ment. The city’s sustain a bility program (see ref-erence in “green initiatives” for CO2) report edlyreduced city hall energy consumption by a quar-ter between February 2008 and October 2010.

Background indicators

Total population 1) 540,000

Administrative area (miles2) 1) 131

GDP per person (real) (US$) 2) 42,200

Temperature (24-hour average, annual) (°F) 1) 62

Goods employment (%) 2) 11

Services employment (%) 2) 89

Geographical basis: 1) City, 2) MSA


Air


34 35

Transport: 20th, 47.6 pointsAtlanta scores well for its efforts to promotegreen transport, but is marked down for relativelyweak congestion policies. Its public transportnetwork is relatively short compared to othercities in the Index, at 0.2 miles per square mile,compared with the Index average of 1.1 milesper square mile. The share of Atlanta’s workerstaking public transport, riding bikes or walking,at 5%, is much lower than the 13% Index aver-age. A common feature of low population den-sity cities, of which Atlanta is one, is low take-upamong workers of greener forms of transport.Municipal authorities have recog nized the chal-lenges and in 2009 created the city’s first-evercomprehensive transportation plan (see “greeninitiatives” below).

Green initiatives: Connect Atlanta, a wide-reaching transportation plan through to 2030,aims to expand its rapid transit network to put500,000 residents within a 10-minute walk ofrapid transit, up from the 70,000 residents whohave that access level today. The plan, an noun -ced in 2009, also aims to extend bike access togreen space from 1,000 acres to 3,400 acres.

Water: 21st, 71.7 pointsAlthough Atlanta turns in a middling perfor -mance in this category in general, the city doesexceptionally well in limiting water usage. Waterconsumption per capita is 122 gallons per day,which is below the Index average of 155 gallons.Despite being both a high temperature and aservice intensive city, Atlanta has much lowerwater consumption per capita than other cities

with the same profile, including many that are in the mid-temperature range. Strong policies,which include the promotion of lower waterusage (see “green initiatives” below), havehelped. But the performance on water con -sump tion is weakened by Atlanta’s water distri -bution system. Nearly a third of the water pass-ing through Atlanta’s system is lost to leakages,compared with the Index average of 13%, due to aging infrastructure.

Green initiatives: Atlanta offers rebates of upto $100 to replace older inefficient toilets withlow-flow models. The program, running sincethe beginning of 2008, has led to the re place -ment of more than 3,700 toilets, and nearly 22million gallons of water have been saved. The cityalso launched a toilet rebate program in October2010, targeting 108,000 apartments built priorto 1992, when water efficiency standards wereupgraded.

Waste: 22nd, 29.6 pointsThe city has one of the lowest proportions ofrecycled municipal waste in the Index, at 7%,compared with the Index average of 26%. Inaddition, it has one of the lowest rates amongother cities with incomes in the middle range.One reason is that the city has only recentlybegun to introduce recycling initiatives (see“green initiatives” below). And on waste policy,Atlanta has made only moderate efforts to re -duce waste creation. Local waste manage mentpractices, such as composting and the conver-sion of waste by-products to energy, are alsorelatively underdeveloped.

Green initiatives: Atlanta has been running apilot recycling program to incentivize house -holders to set aside recyclable waste sinceNovember 2009. The scheme, Rewards for Collecting all Recyclables Together (ReCART),involves 10,000 households. Each household is provided with recycling carts retrofitted withan ID tag, which is scanned for weight infor -mation and collection frequency. Householdsare then awarded points according to theweight of recyclables they put aside, which areallocated to their recycling account. The rewardpoints can then be redeemed with local ven-dors. The first phase of ReCART will last for up tothree years. A decision will then be made if it isviable for citywide expansion.

Air: 12th, 78.2 pointsAtlanta performs best for sulfur dioxide emis-sions, which at 12 lb per person per year are well below the Index average of 22 lb. Nitro -gen oxides and particulate matter emissions areslight ly above the averages. A robust set ofpolices, including targets, has no doubt helpedAtlanta’s air quality. It is also a low-density citywith a high-services economy, and other cities inthe Index with this profile also have lower sulfurdioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions.

Green initiatives: The municipal governmentruns various schemes to reduce traffic andimprove air quality, in partnership with state -wide and local groups. One example is a com -muter rewards program, which provides cashincen tives for using greener forms of transport.More than 70,000 commuters across Georgiahave signed up to the scheme. The city also con-ducts outreach events, including “Walk Day”and “Give Your Car the Day Off”, as well as subsi-dizing public transit fares for public employees.

Environmental governance: 12th, 87.8 pointsThe city turns in a strong performance for overallgreen management. It has a dedicated environ -mental authority, gives public access to infor -mation on the city’s environmental performanceand policies, and has made environmental com-mitments at an international level. The carbonemission reduction targets of the US Conference

of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, whichAtlanta signed up to in 2006, are in line with theKyoto Protocol. However, the city does not pro-duce any regular environmental reports, eitherannually or biannually, to monitor and evaluatepolicy implementation.

Green initiatives: Atlanta established theMayor’s Office of Sustainability in February

2008. As well as embarking on a series ofsustaina bility initiatives, which has focused onmunicipal opera tions, the division has securedstate and federal grants totaling $28 million tohelp fund environmental improvements. A sus-tainability sub-cabinet, tasked with improvingcoordination among government offices andtracking green house gas emissions, held its inau-gural meeting in February 2011.

Quantitative indicators

CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air

CO2 emissions per unit of GDP (metric tons/US$m)

CO2 emissions per person (metric tons)

Electricity consumption per unit of US$ GDP (TJ/US$m)

Electricity consumption per person (GJ)

Green spaces as % of total area (%)

Population density (persons/miles2)

Number of LEED certified buildings (silver, gold or platinum) (buildings/100,000 persons)

Share of workers traveling by public transport, bicycle, or foot (%)

Length of public transport (miles/miles2)

Annual vehicle revenue miles (miles/person)

Maximum public transport vehicles available per square mile (vehicles/miles2)

Average commute time from residence to work (minutes)

Recycled municipal waste (%)

Total water consumption per person per day (gallons)

Water leakages in water distribution system (%)

Nitrogen oxides emissions per annum (pounds/person)

Particulate matter (PM10) emissions per annum (pounds/person)

Sulfur dioxide emissions per annum (pounds/person)

Comments

Using MSA GDP

Using MSA population

Using MSA GDP

Using city population

Using area of city in 2000


Using service area square miles

Using service area population


Using USGS publicly supplied population

Using county population



Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2009

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Atlanta

390.1

21.2

0.36

152.4

4.6

4,129.2

18.3

5.3

0.2

36.8

2.2

30.1

7.1

121.9

31.4

70

32

12

Category Indicator Source

Purdue University - The Vulcan Project;US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Purdue University - The Vulcan Project;US Census Bureau

Mayor's Office of Sustainability; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Mayor's Office of Sustainability; US Census Bureau

Trust for Public Land; US Census Bureau

US Census Bureau

US Green Building Council

US Census Bureau American Community Survey

National Transit Database




Department of Public Works

USGS

Mayor's Office of Sustainability

EPA; US Census Bureau



at 12 metric tons per person compared with anIndex average of 15 metric tons, and emissionsper $1 million of GDP, at 199 metric tons, versusthe average of 296 metric tons. Boston’s carbonlevels benefit from consuming less electricitythan many other cities in the Index, as well as arelatively low level of coal consumption. In-stead, emissions from petroleum consumption –both by road transport and, unusually for US andCanadian cities, from electricity generation – arethe main drivers of Boston’s carbon output. On apolicy level, Boston’s greenhouse gas reductionstrategy is considered average compared to otherNorth American cities, but its strong record ongreen energy projects (see “energy” categorybelow) is likely to contribute to lowering CO2

emissions.

Green initiatives: In 2010 Boston’s Com-munity Advisory Committee launched the


36 37

Bostonfacilitates the city’s environmental efforts. Boston ranks sixth overall in the Index. It scoresbest in the energy and water categories, placingsecond in each. These scores are driven by highmarks in electricity consumption per unit of GDP,strong green energy policies and low water con -sump tion. Additionally, among the cities withsmall administrative areas, Boston places secondin land use, demonstrating that the city’s policiesto efficiently use the little land available havebeen effective. Perhaps the biggest factor con-tributing to Boston’s high overall ranking is thatthe city ranks below 15th in only one category,transport, in which it falls to 17th. While excellingin a few categories, Boston’s overall strength liesin its well-rounded environmental policies.

CO2: 11th, 79 pointsBoston has slightly better than average marks inCO2 emissions. This is both on a per capita basis,

Boston is the capital of the US state of Massa-chusetts and the largest city in the New Eng-

land region. With a population of just 650,000people, Boston is smaller than the average NorthAmerican city in the US and Canada Green CityIndex, although its metropolitan area extendsinto neighboring Rhode Island and New Hamp-shire, and has a population of 4.6 million. In theIndex, a mix of city and metropolitan data is used.Historically a center of shipping and manu -facturing, Boston’s economy has largely shiftedto services. Today finance, insurance and researchcentered on the area’s acclaimed universitiesdrive the economy. Boston has also recentlybecome one of the leading centers for high-techfirms in the US. The success of these industrieshelps give Boston the fourth highest income inthe Index – with a GDP per person of $57,100.Boston is also one of the oldest cities in the Index,contributing to a more compact downtown that

campaign, Sparking Boston’s Climate Revolut -ion, to identify ways for the city to reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The plan’smain recommendations are for Boston to lowerits GHG emissions by 25% by 2020 from 1990levels; immediately start incorporating the projected effects of climate change in all plan-ning and review processes for municipal andprivate projects; develop a comprehensive public engagement effort; use climate actionopportunities to advance Boston’s green eco no -my and job goals; and ensure that climate actionhas clear public and private leadership andresources. Though its recommendations arenon-binding, the city has already begun imple -menting the campaign into city policy.

Energy: Second, 82.4 pointsBoston receives its highest ranking in this cate-gory, along with the water category. The cityconsumes 41 gigajoules of electricity per per-son, compared with an Index average of

52 gigajoules, and just 100 gigajoules of elec -tricity per $1 million of GDP, versus the Indexaverage of 332 gigajoules. A major reason forBoston’s success in this area is its comprehensiveplans for promoting energy efficiency, whichextend much further than for many other citiesin the Index. Boston also excels in its policies forlocal and green energy projects. Led by recentsolar projects (see “green initiatives” below),Boston is one of only five cities in the Index toreceive the highest marks for both green energyprojects and local energy production.

Green initiatives: In 2008 the city launchedSolar Boston, a program to encourage the wide-spread adoption of solar energy. Details includeeasing permitting requirements, map ping feasi-ble locations, and planning for pur chasing,financing, and installing of solar technology.Through these efforts Boston increased its solar

capacity to 3.1 megawatts in 2010, up from 1.8 megawatts in 2008. Its goal is to produce 25 megawatts from solar by 2015.

Land use: Fourth, 74.9 pointsBoston’s strong performance in this category islargely driven by its high population density,assuring the efficient use of the city’s limitedland. With 13,400 people per square mile,Boston has the third highest population densityin the Index and well above the average of 8,100people per square mile. Additionally, it has anabove average percentage of green space, at16% of the city’s area, compared with the Indexaverage of 12%. Boston has made strong effortsto promote green spaces over the years, high-lighted by the so-called Emerald Necklace – agreen network that links parks throughout thecity. Boston also has been proactive about pro-tecting its greenbelts from urban sprawl, fo -cusing on “smart growth” that makes efficientuse of the area’s limited land.









0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

BostonBestAverage

Air


Land use

38 39

Green initiatives: The Urban Wilds Initiative,initially created in 1976, seeks to protect city-owned urban green space and other naturalareas from development and degradation. Theinitiative includes the Boston Youth Clean-upCorps, which provides clean-up and vegetationcontrol, and has enlisted neighborhood andnon-profit groups for similar activities. In coop -eration with the state agency, the Massa -chusetts Department of Conservation and Re -creation, the initiative has helped protect manyacres of land from development and covers 36unique regions within Boston.

Buildings: Tenth, 62.1 points Boston is near the Index average for the numberof buildings with Leadership in Energy and En-vironmental Design (LEED) certification, at 6.5 buildings per 100,000 people, compared tothe average of 6.4. However, this number is like-ly to increase due to newly implemented zoningrequirements (see “green initiatives” below).Meanwhile, although Boston offers rebates tohomes and businesses for energy efficiencyretrofits, the municipality does not require ener-gy efficiency audits.

Green initiatives: In 2007 Boston was the firstcity in the US to mandate green standards inmunicipal zoning regulations, requiring that all large-scale building projects – generally mea -ning greater than 50,000 square feet – meetLEED standards, including minimum require -ments for energy savings, water efficiency andCO2 emissions reduction. In another initiative,

Boston received $40 million in federal funds in2009 to renovate public housing developmentsusing green technology to increase energy efficiency. The first phase includes building 100 to 150 new housing units and a communitycenter, which will include improved “buildingen velopes” (building shells that dramaticallyimprove insulation to reduce heating and cool-ing costs), interiors designed to capture andstore solar heat through specially designed win-dows and skylights, shading devices, and natur-al ventilation cooling.

Transport: 17th, 50.2 pointsAlthough Boston’s small administrative areacontributes to a comparatively high rate of non-automobile commuting – 18% compared withthe Index average of 13% – the city’s publictransport options are limited. The city has 0.3 miles of public transit per square mile com-pared with an Index average of 1.1, and has only0.8 public transit vehicles available per squaremile, well below the Index average of 9 publictransport vehicles, and near the bottom of theIndex. Meanwhile, Boston performs close to theIndex averages for “annual vehicle revenuemiles” (a measure of the availability of publictransport), at 21 miles versus the average of 24 miles, and commute time, at 28 minutescompared to the average of 29 minutes.Boston’s support for green public transit is alsolimited, although all city-owned vehicles mustbe hybrid or run on alternative fuels.

Green initiatives: Formed in 2007, the BostonBikes initiative seeks to make Boston a world-class bicycling city by expanding bike lanes andoffering new biking programs such as providingfree breakfast at City Hall on Fridays to bicyclecommuters. In 2011 the city is planning toestablish a bike-sharing system that will havetwice as many bicycles as Washington DC’s pro-gram, which is currently the country’s largest.Under the plan, Central Boston will be served bya network of 2,500 bikes and 290 stations with3,750 docking spaces, with the potential toexpand to a 5,000-bike system.

Water: Second, 91.8 pointsBoston has its best showing in this category,along with the energy category, a performancelargely driven by the city’s low level of water con-sumption. At 74 gallons per person per day,Boston has the second lowest consumption rateof all the Index cities, behind New York, and less than half the Index average of 155 gallons.This low consumption rate is the product of con-certed efforts and incentives to help resi dentsreduce consumption (see “green initiatives”below). Boston’s water leakage rate, at 9%, is

also better than the Index average of 13%, sug-gesting that the city’s proactive policies in thisarea have paid off as well.

Green initiatives: The statewide Massachu-setts Water Authority provides state residentsfree water-efficiency kits, which include low-flow shower heads, low-flow faucet aeratorsand leak detection dye tablets. In 2008 theauthority expanded its low-flow toilet retrofitrebate and pilot water audit projects, whichoffer $100 for rebates for residents to acquiremore water-efficient home appliances. The cityaims through these initiatives to help Bostonmeet its goal of keeping total water consump -tion below 300 million gallons per day. Since2008 Boston has given grants to replace approx-imately 350 toilets per year, in addition to sever-al water auditing pilot projects.

Waste: 15th, 54.7 pointsBoston’s recycling rate, at 20%, is below theIndex average of 26%, and in addition, the cityhas only limited recycling options for industrialand hazardous waste. The city’s performance inthis category is improved though by a strongcommitment to reducing waste. Efforts in thisarea have included changing the name andfocus of the Department of Sanitation to theDepartment of Waste Reduction, and reducingthe number of trash bins available per house -hold.

Green initiatives: Boston’s climate action planrecommends that the city switch to single-stream recycling (placing all recyclable materialsin one bin to make recycling easier), establishmandatory recycling policies, charge a fee fortrash pickup, and develop a year-round com-posting program. These recommendations arecurrently at the planning stages and have notbeen implemented.

Air: 14th, 74.3 pointsBoston ranks better than average for the three

major air pollutants evaluated in the Index –nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulfurdioxide. Boston’s above average performance inair quality is largely the result of its dense popu -lation and service-oriented economy. Com paredto cities with similar population densities, thecity is third weakest. While Boston funds air qual-ity improvement projects (see “green initiatives”below), it does not have any air quality targets.

Green initiatives: Since 2007 Boston has givenout Community Climate Action and Air QualityGrants, which provide funding to neighbor -

hoods, businesses, academics, and other groupsfor projects related to reducing air pollutionemissions. The program is focused on smallcom munity projects designed to reduce green -house gas emissions and air pollution. Pastawards have gone to youth workshops, door-to-door outreach programs, and alternative vehi -cles for community organizations. In anotherinitiative, in 2010 Boston awarded nearly$100,000 to retrofit diesel vehicles to run onultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Businesses mustcommit to using only this cleaner fuel in vehiclesthat are awarded grants.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air







Number of LEED certified buildings (silver, gold or platinum)(buildings/100,000 persons)












Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP












Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2009

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Boston

198.6

12.2

0.10

40.6

16.3

13,441.0

6.5

18.3

0.3

20.8

0.8

28.4

20.0

73.5

9.0

50

16

14


Purdue University – The Vulcan Project; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Purdue University – The Vulcan Project; US Census Bureau

City of Boston; US Census Bureau

City of Boston; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau

US Green Building Council; US Census Bureau






City of Boston Department of Public Works

USGS





Environmental governance: 15th, 84.4 pointsBoston’s middling ranking in this category canbe explained largely because the city’s centralenvironmental strategy was designed as a seriesof advisory policies rather than a full-scaleaction plan, and has only been accepted thus faras a recommendation. While the plan has thefull support of the mayor and several recom-mendations have served as the basis for key poli-cies and targets, the city council has notapproved all of the strategy’s ambitious mea-sures. The strategy, however, was developed incoordination with local community leaders, giving the city high marks in the Index for transparency and public outreach. As a result ofthese efforts, the recommendations representthe collective wishes of a diverse group of stake-holders and emphasize city-communitycooperation.

Green initiatives: Boston GreenFest is anannual festival, held since 2009, in which resi-dents come together from across Greater Bostonto display ideas and tips to make the city a moresustainable place to live. The festival worksspecifically with schools and is officially support-ed by the mayor.

CO2 per person compared with the Index av -erage of 14.5, and an estimated 253 metrictons of CO2 per $1 million GDP, compared withthe average of 296. Considering the dominantrole of the oil and gas industry as well as a largereliance on coal in the electricity mix, Calgarydoes well to finish near the middle of the Indexfor both figures. This is the result of concertedefforts to reduce CO2 emissions, which includea target of 20% reductions by 2020 based on2005 levels.

Green initiatives: In October 2009 Calgary –along with 14 other global energy-producingcities such as Houston, Texas and Stavanger,Norway – signed the Calgary Climate ChangeAccord, pledging to reduce greenhouse gasemissions from city operations by 20% by 2020and 80% by 2050 from 1990 levels. The planfocuses on increasing the use of renewableenergy, capturing methane from landfills forenergy production, greening the vehicle fleet,conserving energy and water in city buildings,and piloting innovative environmental tech-nologies and practices. As of January 2009 Cal-gary had reduced greenhouse gas emissionsfrom municipal operations by more than 34% over 1990 levels. The city expects toachieve a 63% reduction of total municipalgreenhouse gas emissions by 2012 and to re -duce emissions from electricity to zero.

Energy: 18th, 62.5 pointsCalgary’s result in this category reflects highelectricity demand deriving from the city’s goods-driven economy and cold temperatures. Withusage at 620 gigajoules of electricity per $1 mil-lion GDP, Calgary consumes nearly double theIndex average of 332. In per capita terms thecity fares better, consuming 34 giga joules perperson compared with the average of 52.Meanwhile, Calgary is ramping up efforts toconsume more green energy – including a man-date for city government electricity purchasesto come from renewable sources – and expectsto be the largest consumer of green electricityby percentage in North America by 2012.

Green initiatives: The Energy ManagementOffice (EMO) is a joint initiative between Calgaryand ENMAX, a local utility, to manage the city’senergy use and stimulate the creation of newenergy-related initiatives. Current EMO projectsinclude the Calgary Downtown District Energyproject that will provide co-generative heatingfor downtown municipal buildings, pilot projectsfor solar water heating and electricity for munici-pal buildings. Also, in 2005 Calgary was the firstcity in North America to install flat-lens energyefficient street lights, conserving enough elec-

40 41

Calgary

fourth among Canadian cities. The city’s strongestcategory by far is water, where it places first. It isamong the top four cities in the Index for havinglow water consumption and leakages, in addi -tion to having highly regarded water policies.Calgary ranks 11th or below in other categories,largely due to obstacles such as a low populationdensity and cold winters that require high ener-gy consumption – Calgary has the coldest aver-age temperature in the Index. Com pared to itspeers though, Calgary fares well; among lowdensity cities it places third over all, with highmarks for CO2 emissions and land use, and itplaces first in the buildings category when com-pared to other cold weather cities.

CO2: 15th, 75.4 pointsCalgary places slightly better than average forcarbon emissions, both in terms of per capitaand per unit of GDP. It emits 12.7 metric tons of

C algary is the largest city in the Canadianprovince of Alberta, and with 990,000 resi -

dents, it is also the largest city in western Cana-da. The metropolitan area is home to about 1.1 million people, and a combination of city andmetropolitan area data are used for Calgary inthe US and Canada Green City Index. Locatedabout 400 miles (644 kilometers) south of the oilsands, one of the largest sources of petroleum inthe world, the greater Calgary area is a majorenergy producer, and the oil and gas sector is thelargest contributor to the city’s GDP. Led by thisindustry, the city’s per capita GDP of $50,200ranks eighth overall in the Index. Calgary has thehighest goods-oriented economy in the Index,also largely a result of the energy industry. Inaddition, the city is a major transportation cen -ter, home to the Canadian Pacific Railway and ahub for several airlines.Calgary ranks 14th overall in the Index and

tricity to power 3,000 homes and saving $1.7 million annually. Additionally, Calgary hasretrofitted 170 inter sections with LED lights,which use 80% less energy.

Land use: 11th, 57.8 pointsCalgary’s score in the land use category is hurtby its low population density, at 3,500 peopleper square mile (1,400 people per square kilo-meter), compared with the average of 8,100(3,100). Calgary has made important strides to increase green space though; it has plans toadd 11 new parks over the next three years andalready has 15% green space compared with theaverage of 12%. Additionally, Calgary has madestrong efforts to contain sprawl with an inte -grated land use and transportation plan (see“green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: In 2009, as part of the over -all Plan It Calgary development plan, which waslaunched in 2007, the city approved specificinitiatives that aim to add dense residential and commercial centers along public transit cor-ridors to encourage mass transit use. In 2001Calgary initiated the BirthPlace Forest, an initiative to plant one tree for every baby born inthe city. This was part of the larger ForeverGreen program, one of the largest greening initiatives in Calgary’s history. The goal is toinvolve citizens in reducing Calgary’s tree short -age by connecting population growth to treegrowth, and offering subsidies to residents whoplant trees. Since 2001 over 54,000 “birthplacetrees” have been planted.

Buildings: 11th, 56 pointsCalgary officials have placed recent emphasis ongreening the city’s buildings. To this end the cityhas reduced permit fees for buildings incorpora -ting green design, and has required that allmunicipal buildings meet Leadership in Energyand Environmental Design (LEED) standards,the first Canadian city to do so. Nonetheless,Calgary’s overall building score remains in themiddle of the pack due to a current lack of LEED-certified buildings, at 3.2 LEED buildings per100,000 people, compared with the Index av -erage of 6.4.

Green initiatives: Energy performance con-tracting is an innovative partnership betweenthe city and private enterprise to improve ener-gy efficiency in buildings. Initiated in 2004, Cal-gary’s program saves about 30,000 tons ofgreenhouse gas emissions annually throughimprovements to lighting systems, heating,ventilation and air conditioning equipment;building controls; and energy supply systems.The upgrades are provided at no net cost to the

city, because the money from energy savings isused to repay the company that provides theimprovements over a 10-year contract term.

Transport: 16th, 50.8 pointsCalgary has just 0.2 miles of public transportper square mile of city territory (0.13 kilometersper square kilometer), well below the Index average of 1.1 miles (0.7 kilometers). Its scorein transport is further hindered because its“annual vehicle revenue miles” (a measure ofpublic transport supply) is the lowest in the

Index, at an estimated 9 miles (14 kilometers)per person, well below the average of 24 miles(39 kilometers). However, Calgary was one ofthe first cities in North America to introduce alight rail system in 1981, and has made strongefforts to improve the system in recent years.



Administrative area (miles2) 1) 280.5





Geographical basis: 1) City, 2) CMA


0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

CalgaryBestAverage

Air


42 43

This includes introducing a wind-powered lightrail (see “green initiatives” below) and doublingthe length of the network since 2001. The cityhas also introduced carpooling initiatives andmultiple bus-light-rail connections. As a resultof these efforts, 22% of Calgary’s workers com -mute by public transit, bicycle or foot, com -pared with an Index average of 13%.

Green initiatives: In 2001 Calgary initiatedRide the Wind, a program which powered itslight rail transit entirely with wind-generatedenergy. This initiative gave Calgary the firstwind-powered public transit system in NorthAmerica and reduced greenhouse gas emissionsby 26,000 tons annually. Furthermore, in 2005Calgary started one of the first large pilots inwestern Canada to support city-owned biodieselvehicles. The program has grown from support-ing a single vehicle to a sustainable year-roundprogram including 250 vehicles.

Water: First, 94.1 pointsThis is by far Calgary’s strongest category in the Index. The city consumes 113 gallons (428 li ters) of water per person per day com-pared with the Index average of 155 gallons(587 liters). Impressively, the city’s water distri -bu tion leakage rate is just 4%, the third lowestrate in the Index and well below the average of13%, which reflects the city’s vigilance in contin-ually monitoring the system. Additionally, with ahigh percentage of metered customers andstrong wastewater management, the city ispoised to remain at the top in the water category.

Green initiatives: In 2009 Calgary passed a lawrequiring water meters for all city residents by theend of 2014. Approximately 10,000 meters willbe installed on a neighborhood-by-neighbor hoodbasis between 2010 and 2014 to meet the target;by the start of 2011 over 80% of Calgary’s homesalready had water meters installed. Be yond2014, Calgary aims to install peak and off-peakmeters that allow for different water rates. Cal-gary’s goal is to accommodate the water needs ofan increasing population, while holding theamount of water it takes from local rivers at 2003levels. The city is also active in supporting resi-dents’ efforts to reduce water consumption.Through its toilet rebate program the city distrib-uted 7,188 low-flow toilets in 2010 alone.

Waste: 11th, 58.8 pointsCalgary has a recycling rate that is below theIndex average, weakening its performance inthis category. The city recycles 14% of its muni -cipal waste, compared with the average of 26%.However, officials have recognized the need toaddress this issue and the city is one of nine in

the Index that receive full marks for policiesrelated to waste reduction. Calgary is makingefforts to increase composting, and has expan -ded its recycling program to increase the rangeof goods that are either recycled or sustainablydisposed.

Green initiatives: Calgary’s Landfill Gas Recov-ery and Utilization Project collects and treatsmethane to generate electricity. Calgary’s threeactive landfills are the city’s biggest source ofgreenhouse gas emissions. Turning the emis-sions into energy is the equivalent of taking16,000 cars off the road, while generatingabout 11 million kilowatt hours of electricity,and recovering about 15 million kilowatt hoursof heat energy, which is used to power the facili-ties. Furthermore, in 2006 Calgary set a goal todivert and recycle 80% of waste from landfills by2020. As part of this initiative, the city haslaunched a pilot program that offers specialrates to commercial customers to recycle con-crete, brick, asphalt and selected metals.

Air: 23rd, 50.8 pointsThis is Calgary’s weakest category performance.Although the city has made efforts to reduce pol-lution from automobiles – including an anti-idling law, mandating particulate matter filtersfor diesel fleets, and encouraging the use of bio-fuels – its goods-driven economy contributes tohigh levels of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxidepollution. Calgary emits 110 lb (50 kg) of nitro-gen oxides per person, versus an average of 66 lb(30 kg), which is one of the highest levels in theIndex. It emits 46 lb (21 kg) of sulfur dioxide perperson, more than twice the Index average of 22 lb (10kg). The city’s particulate matter emis-sions, though, are considerably better than theIndex average, estimated at 13 lb (6 kg) per per-

son, versus 25 lb (11 kg). Calgary is working atthe provincial level to improve overall air quality,but has yet to set concrete municipal targets.

Green initiatives: The PM/O3 ManagementPlan is a collaborative effort involving the governments of Calgary and Alberta, as well as localbusinesses and NGOs. During 2010 activitiesincluded promoting air quality aware ness, en -couraging air quality research, and highlightingimproved air quality as a way of attrac ting busi-nesses. The plan’s goal is to make the Calgarymetropolitan area one of the best air qualityregions in Canada.

Environmental governance: 18th, 76.7 pointsGuided by the long-term plan imagineCALGARY(see “green initiatives” below), the city has inplace strategies for improving its environment,which include targets and reporting, and re -ceive strong political support. Calgary’s en -vironmental governance score is hindered,how ever, by the lack of central coordination ofen vironmental efforts, and the city’s transpa -rency on environ mental indicators also lagsbehind Index leaders.

Green initiatives: imagineCALGARY launchedin January 2005 with the goal of producing a long-term urban sustainability plan for Cal gary. Over 18,000 of Calgary’s residentsadded their voice to the initiative, making it the largest community visioning process of itskind any where in the world. The city providedstaff and resources to support over 150 activeand committed stakeholders who were respon -sible for developing the plan, which includesgoals to address a wide range of environmentalaspirations.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using estimated city GDP


Using CMA GDP



Equivalent in metric units: 1,360 persons/km2


Using city area; Equivalent in metric units: 0.1 km/km²

Using CMA population; Equivalent in metric units: 14.1 km/person

Using city area; Equivalent in metric units: 1.1 vehicles/km²

Using city population; Equivalent in metric units: 427.8 liters

Equivalent in metric units: 50 kg

PM10 from non-industrial, mobile, and waste sources. Data point has been scaled down from provincial level by proportion of GDP repre-sented by Calgary; Equivalent in metric units: 6 kg

Equivalent in metric units: 21 kg

Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

CMA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

CMA

City

City

City

Metro-area

Mixed

Metro-area

Year

2008

2008

2006

2006

2006

2006

2010

2006

2006

2010

2010

2006

2009

2005

2009

2007

2008

2007

Calgary

253.4

12.7

0.62

34.0

15.0

3,522.9

3.2

22.4

0.2

8.7

3.0

33.0

13.5

113.3

3.5

110

13

46


City of Calgary, Environment Canada, Statistics Canada

City of Calgary, Environment Canada, Statistics Canada

City of Calgary

City of Calgary

City of Calgary

Statistics Canada

CaGBC LEED Database

Statistics Canada

Calgary Transit

Calgary Transit

Calgary Transit

Statistics Canada

Calgary Waste and Recycling Service Annual Report

City of Calgary, Water Services

City of Calgary, Water Services

Calgary Region Airshed Zone

Environment Canada; Statistics Canada

Calgary Region Airshed Zone

well served by strengthening its CO2 reductionstrategy. The city has not set any CO2 reductiontargets separate from national guidelines, andthe city’s strategy for reducing greenhouse gasemissions falls behind the Index leaders. Howev-er Charlotte has taken measures to reduce emis-sions from municipal facilities by improvingenergy effi ciency (see “green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: Charlotte’s plans to cutgreenhouse gas emissions from city operations,largely through energy efficiency improvementsat municipal facilities, began in earnest follow-ing the award of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant in 2009. At a cost of $1.4 million, taken from the energy grant, retro-fits at the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Office(home of the water utility) and Old City Hall areslated to begin in 2011, and are expected toreduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1,500 and1,000 metric tons, respectively, each year.

Energy: 21st, 55.7 pointsIn per capita terms, Charlotte consumes an estimated 50.8 gigajoules of electricity, which is slightly better than the Index average of 52 gigajoules. However, like most goods-inten-sive cities, Charlotte has comparatively highelectri city consumption relative to GDP. The cityuses an estimated 355 gigajoules per $1 millionof GDP, higher than the Index average of 332 gi -gajoules. While the city earns points for progresson developing its own green energy projects,Charlotte’s score in this category is hindered byomissions in the area of clean and efficient poli-cies. It is one of only five cities in the Index thatdo not promote the use of green energy for busi-nesses and homes.

Green initiatives: In 2010 Charlotte launchedthe Neighborhood Energy Challenge. Sevenneighborhoods were selected under the schemeand each was awarded $80,000 to improveenergy efficiency on a community-wide basis.The city is assisting these communities in deve -loping energy action plans; initiatives includehome energy audits, installation of solar-pow-ered lighting and conservation workshops.

Land use: Ninth, 64.6 points Together with water, Charlotte registers its high-est rank in land use. Among low population den-sity cities in the Index only Ottawa has a betteroverall performance in this category than Char-lotte. The city scores particularly well on policy,which includes green space protection and thepromotion of brownfield regeneration (see“green initiatives”). The proportion of greenspace in Charlotte, at 12%, is in line with theIndex average.

44 45

Charlotte

against other cities with low population densi -ties. The city’s next best category is environ -mental governance, where it places 11th owinglargely to its green action plan, which is one ofthe strongest in the Index. Across the other cate-gories in the Index Charlotte places in the bot-tom half of cities. However, since the award ofthe federal energy grant in 2009 Charlotte hasstepped up environmental efforts, suggestingthat its overall rank may improve in comingyears. Nevertheless, there are environmentalweaknesses to address. Public transit supply inCharlotte is one of the lowest in the Index, forexample, as is the proportion of municipal wastethe city recycles.

CO2: 18th, 59.8 pointsCharlotte scores well for relatively low CO2 emis-sions in relation to its economic output. At 192 metric tons for every $1 million of GDP, thecity does much better than the Index average of296 metric tons of CO2. In per capita terms,Charlotte emits 14.5 metric tons of CO2, on parwith the 27-city average. Charlotte would be

C harlotte, located in the southern state ofNorth Carolina, is an important financial

center and home to several of the US’s largestbanks. Charlotte also has a strong manu fac -turing base and, home to one of the leadingenergy companies in the country, is transform-ing itself into a hub for energy firms. The city isthe third most prosperous in the US and CanadaGreen City Index, generating a GDP per capita of$57,700. Charlotte’s 700,000 in habi tants occu-py a space of 242 square miles, placing the city inthe low population density bracket of the Index.Index data for Charlotte are based on a mix ofstatistics for the city and its wider metropolitanarea, which has a population of 1.7 million. Thecity’s environmental efforts are today under-pinned to large degree by a $6.8 million EnergyEfficiency and Conservation Block Grant, whichthe US Department of Energy awarded the city in2009.Charlotte ranks 20th overall in the Index. Itsstrongest categories are land use and water,largely because of robust policies in both areas. Itplaces second in land use when measured

Green initiatives: Charlotte has made brown -field redevelopment a high priority. The cityruns two programs to aid brownfield revita -lization efforts: first, it offers free assessmentsof brownfield property sites up to a cost of$40,000 to developers whose clean-up propos-als have been approved; secondly, it offersmatching funds of up to $20,000 to propertyowners or developers for the design and execu-tion of clean-up activities. The city has targe ted

the Business Corridor Revitalization Area, whichis home to more than 400 brownfield sites,including 100-acre rail yards, 45 dry cleaningoperations and dozens of industrial properties.

Buildings: 25th, 26.2 pointsAlong with transport, this is Charlotte’s weakestcategory in the Index. The city scores well foroffering incentives and subsidies to improveenergy efficiency (see “green initiatives” below);it has also prioritized energy efficiency at munici-pal facilities, suggesting its performance mayimprove in coming years. However, it has one ofthe lowest numbers of Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED)-certi fied buildingsin the Index, with just 0.6 per 100,000 people,compared with the Index av erage of 6.4. Thecity’s score is further weighed down by the rela-tive weakness of its buildings policies: it is one ofjust four cities that do not require new buildingsto meet energy efficiency standards.

Green initiatives: Of the $6.8 million federalenergy efficiency grant awarded to Charlotte in2009, the biggest slice – nearly $2.5 million –has been allocated to energy efficiency im -provements at municipal buildings, including the










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

CharlotteBestAverage

Air


Land use

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Office and OldCity Hall (see “green initiatives” under “CO2”). Fol-lowing an energy audit report, the city says ener-gy usage at the Charlotte Mecklenburg UtilitiesOffice can be cut by 35% and save $31,400 peryear. A 46% energy reduction and annual savingsof $22,600 are projected for the Old City Hall.Furthermore, the city has allocated $600,000 ofgrant money to support energy efficiency andweatherization improvements for low-income

residents. Under this program the city provideseligible homeowners up to $6,000 for upgradeworks. And as part of countywide legislation,property developers in Charlotte can receive arebate of up to 25% of the building permit fee upto a maximum of $100,000 for LEED-certifica-tion projects.

46 47

Transport: 25th, 40.8 pointsCharlotte records its lowest rank, along withbuildings, in transport. The city is marked downfor having the third shortest public transportnetwork in the Index at just 0.09 miles persquare mile of area, versus an Index average of1.1 miles. As a result only about three of every100 workers use public transit, bicycles or go byfoot in Charlotte, which is, again, considerablylower than the Index average of 13%. However,officials have made efforts to expand the publictransport network: in 2007 Charlotte unveiledits first light rail line, LYNX, which stretches 9.6miles. It is the only city in the southeastern USthat boasts a light rail system and Charlotte offi-cials are drafting plans to expand the ser vice.But there is still room for improvement: the cityis one of four in the Index that lack centralpedestrian zones and it has a mixed record onpromoting public awareness of green forms oftransport.

Green initiatives: Charlotte adopted a 25-yearTransportation Action Plan (TAP) in 2006 to guide city transport projects and policy. The

plan calls for a minimum of 65% of Charlotteresidents to live within one-quarter of a mile of transit service; the implementation of a bal-anced and multi-modal transport system; andfor the city to monitor and determine the ade-quacy of services for motorists, bicyclists andpedestrians at signalized intersections, amongmany other policies. In addition, 144 of the cityfleet’s 320 buses had been fitted with dieselparticulate filters by the end of the city’s 2009-10 fiscal year. This measure, coupled with theuse of ultra-low-sulfur diesel in the entire cityfleet, has cut emissions from city-owned vehi-cles by 90%.

Water: Ninth, 84.8 pointsCharlotte registers its highest rank, along withland use, in the water category. Consuming 153 gallons per capita every day, Charlotte nar-rowly beats the Index average of 155 gallons. Ofall the other high temperature cities in the Index(with average annual temperatures above 60°F)only Atlanta consumes less water per capita perday than Charlotte. Water efficiency and treat -ment policies are also strong. The city monitors

water sources for quality and supply levels, andproactively encourages water conservation (see“green initiatives” below). The city also has a fair-ly efficient water distribution system by thestandards of the Index, losing 11% of its supplyto leaks against the Index average of 13%.

Green initiatives: The city offers homeownersfree water audits, which include instructions onhow to measure the amount of water consumed.When consumers return the audit forms theyreceive water conservation kits, including low-flow shower heads, faucet aerators and leakdetection tablets. Twice a year the local utilityhands out awards to homeowners and busi -nesses that have taken measures to conservewater.

Waste: 20th, 40.9 pointsThe city scores well for its waste reduction strat-egy and good waste management prac tices,such as composting and converting local wasteby-products to energy. However, Charlotte’srank in the waste category drops significantlydue to its low recycling rate: the city recyclesjust 12% of its municipal waste versus an Indexaverage of 26%. It is the weakest performanceamong high-income cities, al though recentrecycling programs (see “green initiatives” be -low) show intent to improve.

Green initiatives: Charlotte introduced single-stream recycling, in which all recyclable mate -rials are placed into one bin and then separatedby the waste company, in 2010. The same year,with federal funding, the city installed 15 newrecycling containers in the uptown area tomake daily recycling more convenient forpedestrians. To encourage use of the con -tainers, two large private companies have run“Get Caught Green Handed” cam paigns, wherepeople using the bins are selected at randomand given money or food vouchers of $25.

Air: 16th, 69.5 pointsCharlotte’s rank in the air category is bolsteredby better than average rates of sulfur dioxideand nitrogen oxides emissions. The city releases9 lb of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere perperson per year, considerably less than theIndex av erage of 22 lb. Likewise, with nitrogenoxides emissions of 58 lb per person per yearCharlotte beats the average of 66 lb. This rela-tively good performance has been helped byprograms to improve air quality at both a cityand county level (see “green initiatives” below).However, the city gets marked down for not set-ting any specific air quality targets and for hav-ing above-average particulate matter emis-sions.

Green initiatives: The Charlotte region CleanAir Works! program, launched in 2006, aims to improve air quality through encouragingvehi cle sharing and non-automotive com -muting. The initiative works with over 100 ofthe region’s largest companies to educate em -

ployees on transport options; programs include“vanpooling” in which 15 commuters who liveand work near each other can share one vehi -cle, and employers can also receive volume-pur-chase discounts for the public transport net-work. By 2010 the program had re portedlyavoided 4.8 million vehicle miles and prevented280,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides emissions.Initiatives to reduce nitrogen oxides emissionsare also taken at a county level by the Mecklen-burg County Air Quality department. In 2007the department partnered with six nearbycounties to launch a diesel engine replacementscheme called Grants to Replace Aging DieselEngines (GRADE); the program was extended to13 counties in 2010.

Environmental governance: 11th, 88.9 pointsCharlotte scores well for its integrated en -vironmental strategy, which contains explicittargets for each environmental issue and hasbeen endorsed by the city administration.

It also has a dedicated environmental authori-ty, and produces regular reports that monitorand evaluate policy implementation. Despitein volving citizens in environmental decisionma king, one weakness in Charlotte is that resi -dents do not enjoy the same level of access toinformation on the city's environmental perfor-mance and policies as in other Index cities.

Green initiatives: For the first time in 2010,Charlotte appointed an energy and sustaina -bility manager to oversee and implement pro-grams run under the auspices of the federalEnergy Efficiency and Conservation BlockGrant. The grant supports 17 projects city-widede signed to reduce emissions and energy con -sumption, create new green jobs and in creasethe use of renewable technologies. In additionto managing the grant, the city sustainabilitymanager is charged with advo cating for en -vironmental initiatives within the city’s En -vironment Focus Area Plan and promoting bestenvironmental practices.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


State retail electricity sales; Scaled down to city level using population data; Indicator constructed using MSA GDP

Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

Mixed

Mixed

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

County

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2008

2008

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2010

2005

2005

2005

Charlotte

191.6

14.5

0.36

50.8

11.6

2,910.8

0.6

3.1

0.1

22.9

1.2

25.0

11.6

153.3

11.0

58

32

9




Energy Information Administration; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Energy Information Administration; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau American CommunitySurvey





Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency; US Census Bureau

USGS





State retail electricity sales scaled down to city level using population data









siderable environmental chal lenges. Neverthe-less, the city’s leadership and citizenry havedemonstrated a commitment to long termimprovements that are consistent with sus -tainable growth. The data for Chicago in theIndex is based on a mix of statistics for the cityand the wider metropolitan area, which has apopulation of 9.6 million.Chicago ranks 11th overall in the Index. Its bestperformance is in the area of transport, where itranks sixth. This is due to its robust public transitsystem, and policies that aim to expand andimprove public transport options, encourage


48 49

Chicago


Total population 1) 2.9 million







With a population of 2.9 million, Chicago isthe third largest city and the fifth most

densely populated in the US and Canada GreenCity Index. Home to the headquarters of manybusinesses and a major financial center, Chicagois the economic engine of the US Midwest, witha GDP per capita of $45,400. In recent years thecity has prioritized environmental issues, spear -headed by former Mayor Richard Daley, whogave strong public backing to Chicago’s climatechange action plan in 2008. However, Chicago’sageing infrastructure and land use constraints,among other factors, present the city with con-

non-motorized forms of transit and reduce con -gestion. Chicago is in the top half of the Index inthe categories of energy, water and environ -mental governance. Its weakest performance is inthe CO2 category, where it places 19th, due main-ly to above average levels of carbon emissions.

CO2: 19th, 58.5 pointsChicago’s carbon emissions are higher than av erage, with per capita CO2 emissions of 19.4 me t ric tons per person, compared with theIndex average of 14.5. It is also well above theaverage for CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, at 406 metric tons per $1 million, compared withthe average of 296 metric tons. The city’s carbonemissions are also the highest among the mostdensely populated cities in the Index. Officialshave recognized the challenges and the city hasenacted an impressive CO2 reduction strategy,which includes adding four million square feet ofgreen roofs. Like most US cities, however, Chica-go does not oversee the privately owned utilitiesthat supply the city’s power, and there fore is like-ly to face challenges in signi fi cantly improving itsperformance in carbon emissions.

Green initiatives: The city has committed to a25% reduction of CO2 emissions below its 1990greenhouse gas level by 2020. The long-rangegoal is an 80% reduction by 2050. To achieve thistarget, the city has identified 26 “mitigation”actions within the strategic areas of buildings,energy, transportation and waste. Chicago isusing funding sources such as the state’s Ener gyEfficiency Portfolio Standard, as well as otherstate and federal grants, to finance these mea-sures.

Energy: Eighth, 75.9 pointsThe city’s ranking in this category is bolstered byits per capita electricity consumption of 31 giga -joules, better than the Index average of 52 giga -joules. Chicago likewise outperforms the Indexaverage for electricity consumption per unit ofGDP, at 202 gigajoules per $1 million, comparedwith the average of 332 gigajoules. Chicago’sperformance in the energy category wasimproved by its leadership in the developmentof major green energy projects, intended to dis-place the city’s fossil fuel dependence andincrease overall energy security. The citybelieves that its proximity to some of the coun-try’s largest “wind potential” areas, along withthe presence of at least 14 wind power com -panies located in Chicago, will lead to anincrease in the city’s share of renewable energy.Chicago has key support in this goal from the Illi-nois state government, which aims to switch torenewable sources for 25% of its statewide ener-gy supply by 2025.

Green initiatives: In 2009 Chicago partneredwith a private utility and a solar-panel manu -facturer to develop the US’s largest urban solarpower plant at a former industrial site in Chica-go’s South Side. The $60 million project, com-pleted in July 2010, includes more than 32,000solar photovoltaic panels capable of generatingenough electricity to power roughly 1,200homes annually. The plant is expected to dis-place more than 14,000 tons of greenhouse gasemissions per year, the equivalent of re moving2,500 cars from city streets.

Land use: 15th, 56 pointsChicago is the fifth most densely populated cityin the Index, with 12,600 residents per squaremile, compared with the Index average of8,100. However, the city is marked down for arelative lack of green space, at 8% of the city’stotal area, compared with the Index average of12%. The relative lack of green space in Chicagomay be due in part to a historical divide betweenthe city’s more expansive industrialized areas –where there is room for park space but few peo-ple nearby to use it – and highly populated resi-dential areas, where there is less available land.However, Chicago has enjoyed a measure of suc-cess in developing the 319-acre Millen nium Parkdowntown and, as the Index shows, has a recordof formulating robust policies in the area ofbrownfield regeneration and tree-planting.

Green initiatives: Aiming to improve perfor-mance in the area of land use, Chicago has beenproactive in its efforts to promote re vitalizationof abandoned and idle land. The Chicago Brown-field Initiative was adopted in 1993 under theobjective of simultaneously achieving environ-mental restoration, and crea ting jobs and taxrevenues through redevelop ment. The pilotphase of the initiative incorpo rated $2 million ofcapital, raised through municipal bonds. To datea total of 900 acres have been returned to pro-ductive use and the private sector has becomeincreasingly engaged in this initiative.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

ChicagoBestAverage

Air


Buildings: 14th, 51.3 pointsMunicipal officials have acknowledged majoropportunities for improvement in this area, withbuildings altogether responsible for 70% ofChicago’s carbon emissions. Currently the cityhas 5.2 Leadership in Energy and Environmen -tal Design (LEED)-certified buildings per100,000 people, below the Index average of6.4. However, Chicago has the highest percen -tage of LEED buildings among the Index’s most highly populated cities, demonstrating a com-paratively strong performance. With a mandatein place that city building projects must obtain at least LEED silver certification, the num-ber of LEED buildings in Chicago will likelyincrease. The city also has stringent energy effi-ciency regulations and retrofitting incentives forresidents.

Green initiatives: The city of Chicago hasundertaken several initiatives to improve theenvironmental performance of its buildings.One example, the Chicago Energy ConservationCode, approved in November 2008, requiresnew residential buildings as well as large-scaleretrofits to meet energy efficient measures thatexceed the Illinois Building Energy Code. The

50 51

code requires improved insulation of floors,roofs and walls, as well as the installation ofenergy efficient windows and mechanical sys-tems. Another initiative, the Chicago GreenOffice Challenge, is a voluntary competition forproperty owners and business tenants who areset environmental targets over the course of ayear. In the first round of the program, almost150 participants competed and togetherreduced CO2 emissions by 54,000 metric tons,the equivalent of removing 10,000 cars fromChicago streets. The second round of the com -petition began in early 2011.

Transport: Sixth, 64.7 pointsThis is Chicago’s best category performance inthe Index. The city’s “annual vehicle revenuemiles” (a measure of public transport supply), at

36 miles per person, is well above the Index average of 24 miles. Besieged by one of the high-est levels of congestion in the US, the city isaddressing the problem through some of thebest policies on traffic management in the Index.Although Chicago has the most comprehensivepublic transit system in the Midwest, across the27 cities in the Index the length of its publictransport system, at 0.6 miles per square mile,fell below the average of 1.1 miles. However, thecity has prioritized the expansion and improve-ment of public transport options, while en -couraging non-motorized forms of transit.

Green initiatives: The most recent initiative toimprove and diversify transportation optionsavailable to city residents is Bike 2015, a plan toincrease the percentage of bicycle trips to 5% ofjourneys of less than five miles, and to reducethe number of bicycle injuries by 50% from cur-rent levels. Under Bike 2015, the municipal gov-ernment will add 120 miles of on-street bike-ways to Chicago’s existing bike infrastructure,35 miles of off-road bike paths, 11,000 bikeracks, and a bike commuter station at the city’smain downtown park equipped with 300 bikeparking spaces, shower and locker facilities, andbike repair services. The city has also initiated abike-and-ride scheme and a bus rapid transitpilot program.

Water: 12th, 82.2 pointsChicago has the lowest rate of water leakages in the Index, at 2%, well below the Index aver-age of 13%, which reflects well on the city’songoing leak detection and repair efforts. Chica-go also performs well for the strength of itswater supply monitoring policies, as well as pro-grams to promote water conservation, and an effec -tive stormwater management plan.However, Chicago continues a difficult fight toeliminate altogether the discharge of untreated

waste-water into area waterways, an inevitablebyproduct of ageing water infrastructure.

Green initiatives: Currently, one-third of thetotal energy utilized by wastewater treatmentplants operated by Chicago’s MetropolitanWater Reclamation District comes from methanegas capture from sewage sludge. The Districthas also adopted an independently verified envi-ronmental management system governing theuse of biosolids, which are the byproduct ofwastewater treatment that can be used for agri-culture and landscaping. The city has also in -stalled a greywater recycling system in a new public housing project, added water-savingplumbing fixtures in city buildings, and insti -tuted required water meters for industrial andcommercial water users, for residential buil-dings with more than three units, and for newresidential users.

Waste: 14th, 55.2 pointsDespite the middling ranking in this category,Chicago’s policies for waste reduction are amongthe best in the Index, including a comprehensivesustainable waste management and reductionprogram that includes convenient options forresidents to dispose of household, recyclable andhazardous waste. Chicago continues to face thechallenge of increasing its recycling rate, whichat 8% is well below the Index average of 26%.This is also the lowest rate among the high-popu-lation cities in the Index.

Green initiatives: Although Chicago has amixed record in successfully implementing a citywide recycling program, the city has been aleader in establishing a facility for the recy clingof household chemicals. Funded by federal,state and city sources, the $3.8 million plant wasconstructed in 2005 on a brown -field site, andeventually earned an LEED gold certification.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2005

2005

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Chicago

406.3

19.4

0.20

30.8

8.2

12,560.7

5.2

15.3

0.6

36.1

10.0

30.7

8.0

144.8

2.0

68

14

14


Purdue University – The Vulcan Project;US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Purdue University – The Vulcan Project;US Census Bureau

Mayor's Office of Sustainability; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Mayor's Office of Sustainability; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







City of Chicago Department of Public Works

USGS

City of Chicago Department of Water Management




Air: 15th, 70.3 pointsWhile annual particulate matter and sulfur diox-ide levels in Chicago are below the Index aver-ages, nitrogen oxides emissions, at 68 lb perperson year, are slightly above the average of66 lb. Two of Chicago’s major power plants arebetween 70 and 110 years old, and coal-fired,

and generate a sizeable share of the city’s pollu-tion. Chicago has enacted policies to im proveair quality, but has not implemented an air qual-ity target. However, the city is expected toaddress this in its Air Quality Action Agenda,which it plans to launch by 2012.

Green initiatives: City officials are currentlyworking with the Chicago Area Clean Citiescoalition and the Metropolitan Mayors Caucusto promote the use of alternative fuels, such ascompressed natural gas, propane and biodiesel,in city fleets. The city has also been buildingalternative fueling stations since 2003 usingfederal grants, and is developing a comprehen -sive training program to educate 2,800 fleetoperators in the procurement and use of alter-native fuels.

Environmental governance: 12th, 87.8 pointsThe city has an environmental departmentwith strong political support and conducts rig-orous environmental reporting. Indeed, manyother US cities looked to the 2008 Chicago

Climate Action Plan (see “green initiatives”below), one of the few of its kind released atthe time, as a model for initiating similar plans.Although the city is marked down in the Indexfor a relative lack of public involvement in pro-jects with environmental impacts and for a lackof specific environmental targets, the prospectsfor Chicago’s continued dedication to im pro -ving environmental performance and strength-ening environmental governance are favor-able.

Green initiatives: In accordance with its com-mitment to improve environmental governance,the city has developed the Chicago ClimateAction Plan, a comprehensive agenda that in -volves many stakeholders across the city andaddresses the major environmental issues,establishes targets and performance indicators,and pledges to issue progress reports every twoyears. In addition, the city has websites withpublic information on the potential impacts ofclimate change and has started a campaign toenlist individual residents’ support in addres -sing these issues.

are 29.1 metric tons per person, compared withthe Index average of 14.5 metric tons, while CO2

emitted per $1 million of GDP totals 721 metrictons, a dramatically higher figure than the Indexaverage of 296. The area’s three coal-firedpower plants, as well as the region’s economicorientation towards metal-related and other car-bon-heavy manufacturing, are among the pri-mary reasons behind Cleveland’s large carbonfootprint.

Green initiatives: Though it has not made aspecific commitment to CO2 reduction, the cityhas started to take action and is seeking to pro-cure energy efficient LED streetlights and trafficlights from a local supplier. The municipal gov-ernment hopes this initiative will reduce thecity’s carbon emissions by 25,000 tons eachyear. The city, along with local charitable foun-dations, runs the Cleveland Carbon Fund, whichaccepts donations from businesses and individu-als, and then distributes grants for local projectsthat improve energy efficiency, water conserva-tion and residential weatherization. One initialproject will fund the installation of 10,000 com-pact fluorescent light bulbs in two Clevelandneighborhoods.

Energy: 14th, 68 pointsCleveland consumes the lowest level of electrici-ty in the Index on a per capita basis, at an esti-mated 10 gigajoules annually, compared withthe Index average 52 gigajoules. Electricity con-sumption per unit of GDP is also better than theIndex average, at 247 gigajoules per $1 million,

compared with the Index average of 332 giga-joules. Both figures were estimated by scalingretail electricity sales down to the city level usingpopulation data, as local figures could not beobtained. Though Cleveland performs relativelywell in the area of energy, state and local man-dates requiring utilities to make energy effi-ciency improvements and increase the share


52 53

Cleveland

wider metropolitan area, which has a popula-tion of 2.1 million.Cleveland ranks 25th overall among the 27cities in the Index, and performs best in the ca -tegory of energy, where it ranks 14th. BecauseCleveland, as well as the state of Ohio, has com-mitted to renewable energy targets, prospectsfor its continued strong performance in thisarea are favorable. Cleveland has also intro-duced some innovative programs and policiesto improve transportation and more generallyaddress environmental performance. However,the city faces sizeable challenges in the areas ofCO2 emissions, land use, buildings and waste.Political will for environmental action is oneencouraging aspect of the city’s current plan-ning strategy, and only the future will tell if itwill succeed in leading to tangible improve-ments.

CO2: 27th, 1.2 pointsThis category is one of Cleveland’s weakest per-formances in the Index. Per capita CO2 emissions

L ocated on the shores of Lake Erie, Clevelandis one of the smaller cities in the US and

Canada Green City Index in terms of population,at 430,000 people, and area, at 77 squaremiles. Cleveland’s economy is more orientedtowards industry compared with other cities inthe Index, with nearly 16% of jobs generated inthe goods sector. However, more than half ofthe city’s manufacturing jobs vanished between1950 and 1990, along with nearly half of thepopulation, which left Cleveland with dauntingeconomic challenges; currently it is in the lowerhalf of the Index for income, with a per capitaGDP of $41,400. Looking ahead, Clevelandhopes to make sweeping changes in its econo-my and environmental performance throughthe many programs being initiated at themunicipal level. Although getting there will not be easy, Cleveland benefits from the support of Mayor Frank Jackson, who has made a strong public case for the relevance ofclimate action and sustainability. Most of thedata for Cleveland came from the city and the

of power generated from renewable energysources are expected to have a positive impacton the city’s energy profile.

Green initiatives: Cleveland has adopted anenergy portfolio standard requiring ClevelandPublic Power, one of the city’s utilities, to useenergy sources that are more efficient, cleaneror renewable to supply 15% of electricity by2015, 20% by 2020 and 25% by 2025. In 2010,through a partnership with the non-profit orga-nization First Suburbs Development Council, the city legally demarcated and contributed$100,000 to a new so-called special improve-ment district in the hopes of making energy effi-cient retrofits more affordable to residents. Theinitiative aims to increase resident-financedenergy efficiency projects by providing low-costfinancing to be repaid through tax assessments.This will, it is hoped, help residents cut utilitycosts while avoiding new debts. In late 2010 theGreater Cleveland Energy Alliance, a public-pri-vate partnership between the municipal govern-ment and ShoreBank Enterprise, a non-profitbusiness development organization, received$150,000 to develop an energy efficiency retro-fit program for commercial and residential cus-tomers.

Land use: 27th, 28.1 pointsGreen space comprises only 6% of the city’s area,compared with the Index average of 12%. Cleve-land’s population density, at 5,600 people persquare mile, is also below the average of 8,100.Although Cleveland faces a sprawl challengefamiliar to other cities in North America, munici-pal officials have had a measure of success inrevitalizing the downtown area. Between 1990and 2000 Cleveland’s downtown populationincreased by one-third.

Green initiatives: Using federal Environmen-tal Protection Agency funding, the city estab-lished a brownfield redevelopment program in2005. The program’s goals include identifyingsites for re-use, helping developers and busi-nesses determine costs associated with redevel-opment, maintaining green space, and con-verting vacant properties to uses that cancon tribute taxes to city revenues. Entities eligi-ble for financial incentives include public andnon-profit organizations, and businesses anddevelopers with existing projects in Cleveland.All parties that contributed to the sites’ contam-ination are ineligible to receive funds. As of2008 the city had used $39 million in incen-tives, mostly low-interest loans and grants, tobring about $440 million in investments, whilecreating nearly 4,000 jobs, according to oneregional newspaper.

Buildings: 27th, 16.7 pointsThe city is placed in this rank because it has thelowest number of Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED)-certified buildingsin the Index, and also lacks mandatory energyefficiency or auditing requirements. Cleveland’sperformance is no doubt affected by the factthat half of the city’s housing units were builtbefore World War II, a figure higher than in mostother major cities in the US. However, thoughCleveland faces real challenges in this area, thecity’s efforts to introduce green building stan-dards (see “green initiatives” below) can be seenas an important starting point. Also, the fact thatthree Cleveland neighborhoods are trying tomeet LEED neighborhood-development stan-dards is a step forward.

Green initiatives: In 2007 the city introduceda green building standard. This requires pro-jects receiving public funding or tax breaks tomeet standards consistent with leading nation-al green best practices such as the LEED silvercertification. In addition, city officials have star -ted conducting energy assessments of publicfacilities, such as water treatment plants, publicutility buildings and City Hall, to identify oppor-tunities to reduce carbon emissions and savemoney at the same time. The municipal govern-ment credits these efforts with over $110,000in annual savings in its water division alone.Finally, the city provides information on its web-site on how to reduce energy and conservewater in buildings.

Transport: 19th, 47.9 pointsCleveland has a relatively large light rail system,and a recent extension connected the down-town to University Circle, a cultural center onthe east side of the city. Overall, the city’s supplyof public transport measures 0.2 miles persquare mile, which is well below the Index









0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

ClevelandBestAverage

Air


54 55

average of 1.1. As a consequence, only 6% ofworkers currently travel by public transporta-tion, bicycle or foot, compared with the Indexaverage of 13%. According to a city report, partof the problem stems from the fact that Cleve-land’s streets and bridges are more conducive toautomobile traffic than to cyclists or pedes -trians. Despite these challenges, Cleveland hasinitiated policies and programs aimed at im -proving area transit, like park-and-ride schemesand carpooling lanes. Cleveland has also set agoal to develop a 190-mile network of trails andbike routes. However, the fact that the state ofOhio is one of the lowest investing states in theUS for public transportation means that the citywill have to work that much harder to find fund-ing sources to facilitate significant improve-ments in this area.

Green initiatives: The city has announced anoverarching strategy to provide more trans-portation options that will promote economicdevelopment and quality of life. Within thisstrategy are commitments to developing masstransit, encouraging mixed-use developmentincorporating commercial and residential activi-ties, and promoting non-motorized transport.However, city officials have not issued specifictargets or initiated any major programs toachieve these goals. Using federal and munici-pal funding, the city has committed to undertak-ing a study on bus rapid transit, but the timelineis unclear. Cleveland spent over $600,000 trans-forming part of a downtown parking garage intoa station for bicycle parking, storage and repair,which is scheduled to open in 2011.

Water: 25th, 56.1 pointsWater consumption in the city is not much higherthan the Index average, at 165 gallons per per-son daily versus 155, but the 29% leakage rate in Cleveland’s water distribution system is wellabove the Index average of 13%. Cleveland has

faced challenges in improving its water system,especially in preventing sewer overflows duringheavy storms, which is a problem for many otherNorth American cities with aging infrastructure.However, the regional sewer district plans a $3 billion upgrade that will include building largeunderground holding tanks aimed at lesseningthe incidence of sewerage overflows.

Green initiatives: The city’s water departmentannounced plans in early 2011 to connect morethan 425,000 water meters to homes and busi-nesses. The project is expected to take threeyears to complete and to significantly reduceleaks and energy consumption, which havebeen persistent problems for the city.

Waste: 26th, 22.2 pointsThe city’s recycling rate is only 9%, comparedwith the Index average of 26%. This figure wasestimated by a city of Cleveland official, based oncounty-level waste figures. Improving wastemanagement has been a challenge for the city, inpart because it is administered at the countylevel. However, Cleveland’s growing recyclingprogram is a positive step (see “green initiatives”below).

Green initiatives: In late 2010 Clevelandrolled out a $2.5 million curbside recycling pro-gram, which provided 150,000 householdswith special bins that are equipped with com-puter chips connected to the city’s computersystem. The system allows officials to monitorhousehold recycling by weighing the bin. Inaddition, the city’s water department recycles atleast 50% of the construction and demolitionwaste generated from capital improvementprojects, a practice that other departments areexpected to adopt shortly. Also, the city wantsto build a $180 million waste-to-energy plantand the plans are currently being reviewed atstate level.

Air: 20th, 60 pointsCleveland has higher than average nitrogenoxides levels, at 76 lb per person compared withthe Index average of 66 lb, but its levels for sulfurdioxide and particulate matter are better thanthe Index averages. With many environmentalchallenges, air quality is not the city’s mosturgent priority, but implementing measures such as air quality targets could help Clevelandachieve a stronger performance in the future.

Green initiatives: In 2007 the city replaced 60vehicles in the municipal fleet with diesel-elec-tricity hybrid vehicles, and the city has an anti-idling policy for city vehicles and equipment, butthe extent to which the policy is enforced isunclear.

Environmental governance: 25th, 56.7 pointsAlthough Cleveland has not set environmentaltargets or committed to regular environmentalreporting, the city has formulated a partial envi-ronmental strategy, set up a dedicated environ-mental authority, and initiated public aware-ness campaigns. In addition, Cleveland isassisted by the strong support of Mayor FrankJackson, who in 2006 signed the US Mayors Cli-mate Protection Agreement, acknowledging acommitment to try to reduce the city’s carbonfootprint.

Green initiatives: In 2005 Cleveland estab-lished an Office of Sustainability to help the citybecome more efficient, reduce consumptionand waste generation, and use sustainability asan economic development tool. The depart-ment’s website includes information about the

various municipal efforts in different areas. Inaddition, the city organized “Sustainable Cleve-land 2019” summits in 2009 and 2010, three-day, 700-participant events wherein residentsweighed in on their vision for long-term sustain-ability planning and voted on priority issues. The

third annual summit will take place in September2011. Finally, Cleveland is one of only two USmunicipal signatories to the UN Global Compact(the other is Milwaukee), which includes threeprinciples specifically related to improving theenvironment.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


State retail electricity sales scaled down to city level using popu-lation data; Indicator constructed using MSA GDP

State retail electricity salesscaled down to city level using population data






Residential waste only; Data point is for county





Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

Mixed

Mixed

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

County

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2008

2008

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2007

2005

2003

2005

2005

2005

Cleveland

721.3

29.1

0.25

10.3

6.4

5,602.2

0.0

6.3

0.2

16.7

1.6

24.4

8.5

165.3

28.7

76

14

20







US Census Bureau







Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Solid Waste Management District

USGS

EPA




The city scores well for monitoring emissionsand setting a CO2 reduction target separate fromnational guidelines (see “green initiatives” be -low). City authorities say that municipal opera-tions account for only around 4% of the Dallascarbon footprint.

Green initiatives: Dallas signed up to the USConference of Mayors Climate Protection Agree-ment in 2006, which commits the city to reduc-ing greenhouse gas emissions 7% below 1990levels by 2012. The same year, Dallas completeda baseline inventory of greenhouse gas emis-sions in 2005 comprising municipal and non-municipal sources. Dallas will complete anotherbaseline inventory in 2011, which will be basedon 2010 emissions. City authorities say they areon track to meet the 7% reduction target, pri-marily through energy conservation programsand the purchase of renewable energy.

Energy: 16th, 65.8 pointsDallas is second only to Houston as the largestmunicipal purchaser of renewable power in theUS, with 40% of the city’s electricity comingfrom clean sources, primarily wind, according tothe federal Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). The city also has better than average elec-tricity consumption figures. Dallas consumes anestimated 208 gigajoules of electricity per $1 million of GDP against an Index average of332 gigajoules. The performance looks moreimpressive when taking into account thatgoods-intensive economies are generally lessefficient than service-intensive ones. AlthoughDallas is not classed in the Index as goods-inten-sive, it falls just outside that bracket. Estimatedelectricity consumption per capita in Dallas isalso slightly better than the Index average, at 50 gigajoules per person versus 52 gigajoules.

Green initiatives: Dallas has replaced incan-descent bulbs with more energy-efficient LEDtraffic lights at intersections. The replacementprogram has resulted in annual savings of 14.5 million kilowatt hours, the equivalent of$1.45 million per year. Investment in solar ener-gy projects is also underway, the most notablebeing a solar panel installation on the DallasConvention Center.

Land use: 23rd, 43.1 pointsDallas registers its lowest rank in land use. A lowpopulation density works against the city, but itsperformance is also hindered by relatively weakpolicies. The city does not have any measures inplace to protect green space from buildingdevelopment, for example. Nor is there a treeplanting policy, although the city does at leastsupply citizens with trees to plant on public


56 57

Dallas

make the city’s fleet greener and other efforts topromote environmentally friendly transport.Dallas also scores relatively well in the CO2 cate-gory, at 13th, picking up points for its efforts tocurb carbon emissions. The city has signaled itsintent to improve its overall green performanceby putting in place a management frameworkthat is designed to exceed environmental com-pliance requirements. The weakest areas for Dallas are land use, where it places 23rd, andwaste, at 19th.

CO2: 13th, 77.5 pointsLow population density cities with hot climatestend to have higher than average CO2 emissionsper capita, but not Dallas. At 11.6 metric tons,the city’s annual per capita CO2 emissions arebetter than the Index average of 14.5 metrictons. When measured against economic output,the city registers the third-best performanceamong its mid-income peers: 191 metric tonsfor every $1 million of GDP, compared with theIndex average of 296 metric tons. Strong poli-cies have helped Dallas rein in carbon emissions.

Dallas is located in the southern state ofTexas. Sprawling across 342 square miles,

the city has one of the largest administrativeareas in the US and Canada Green City Index. Butwith only 1.3 million inhabitants in the city lim-its, it has the Index’s sixth lowest populationdensity. The city’s economy is dominated bybanking and energy, and is also boosted by alarge number of big-name telecom manufactur-ers setting up base there. It is among the mid-income cities in the Index, with a GDP per capitaof $48,900. Like other southern cities, Dallas isrelatively hot, which places demands on energyconsumption, but the city is responding by mak-ing strides in adopting renewable energy andtransferring its municipal fleet to alternativefuels. The statistics in the Index for Dallas are amix of data for the city and the wider metropoli-tan area, which has a population of 6.4 million,and which is one of the largest metropolitanareas in the US.Dallas ranks 17th overall in the Index. It achievesits highest rank, at 11th, in the transport catego-ry, largely thanks to long-standing efforts to

property. Despite some policy oversights, Dallashas a reasonable amount of green space: 13% ofits total administrative area is green against anIndex average of 12%.

Green initiatives: An Urban Forest AdvisoryCommittee, established in 2005, advises cityofficials and educates the public about the envi-ronmental importance of trees in an urban envi-ronment. In 2006 the city appointed a cityforester to develop an urban forestry program.In another initiative, a citizen forestry scheme,started in 2007, trains residents in basic treeskills and encourages tree planting.

Buildings: 15th, 49.6 pointsThe city’s middling score in the buildings catego-ry is one of the lowest among mid-income cities.Dallas’s performance is dragged down primarilyby a relative lack of strong policies: the city doesnot require energy audits and has only limitedincentives for retrofits. The number of Lead -ership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED)-certified buildings is also relatively low,at 4.3 per 100,000 people, versus the Indexaver age of 6.4. However, the city has madeprogress on municipal buildings – Dallas has cutannual energy usage in its city buildings byalmost 5% through retrofits between 2004 and2009 (see “green initiatives” below). And in2009 the city set out energy and conservationstandards for residential and commercial con-struction, which help boost its performance.

Green initiatives: As part of the city’s GreenBuilding Program, started 2003, all new munici-pal buildings over 10,000 square feet have tomeet LEED silver certification standards, and thiswas upgraded to gold in 2006. The city built 17green buildings between 2003 and 2010, andhad 26 others in the design and constructionphases. Using $9.1 million of federal stimulus

funding, the city is also retrofitting older munici-pal buildings to make them more energy effi-cient. The Dallas Convention Center has alreadybeen renovated, achieving silver LEED certifica-tion, and a new terminal at one of the city's twoairports, Dallas Love Field, will be built to LEEDsilver standards.

Transport: 11th, 54.4 pointsDallas achieves its highest rank in transport. Thecity scores well for promoting green transport,which includes efforts to make the city fleetgreener. Dallas is an Index pacesetter in convert-ing city fleets to cleaner energy, purchasing itsfirst alternative-fuelled vehicle in 1992. Tenyears later Dallas became the first city in Texas touse biodiesel. Over 40% of the city’s 2,000-vehi-cle fleet now operates on alternative fuel, eithercompressed natural gas, biodiesel, propane or hybrid gasoline-electric. Despite efforts tomake transport cleaner, the city’s score in this









0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

DallasBestAverage

Air


spans 11 city departments and 85% of the city’s13,000 employees. In 2008 the Dallas EMS wasawarded “ISO 14001:2004” certification, an in ter national environmental standard that setsout criteria for organizations wishing to exceedenvironmental compliance requirements. Adedi cated website launched in 2008 providesinformation on the city’s green initiatives andaccomplishments, and tips to help residentsreduce their environmental footprint.

58 59

category is constrained by a relatively shorttransport network. Dallas’s public transport sys tem measures 0.4 miles per square mile,compared with an Index average of 1.1 miles,although the city has plans under way to expandthe system. Furthermore, Dallas has the lowestshare in the Index of workers commuting bypublic transit, bicycle or foot in Dallas, at 3%compared with the average of 13%.

Green initiatives: Under the city’s 2030 Tran-sit System Plan, approved in 2006, transportinfrastructure is being upgraded and expanded.By 2030 the plan’s goals are: 43 miles added tothe light rail system; 77 miles of enhanced busservice corridors; 20 miles of extra rapid-bus ser-vice corridors; and 116 miles of high occupancyvehicle lanes. Additionally, a streetcar project,funded by a $23 million federal grant, is in anenvironmental assessment phase. Under theproposed scheme, streetcars in downtown Dal-las would link to light rail lines.

Water: 16th, 78.7 points Dallas has a relatively efficient water distribu-tion system, losing 9% of its supply to leaks com-pared with the Index average of 13%. Water-related policies are also robust. Main watersources are monitored for quality and supply lev-els, lower water usage is promoted and recycledwater is used. However, high water consump-tion weighs down the city’s score in this catego-ry – the second highest rate in the Index – at 219 gallons per person per day, versus the Indexaverage of 155 gallons. High temperature citieslike Dallas tend to consume more water than theIndex average. City officials have recognized the

problem and are making concerted efforts tobring consumption down (see “green initiatives”below).

Green initiatives: Through an extensive waterconservation program, which includes “xeri -scaping” (water-efficient landscaping that re -duces the need for irrigation), Dallas reducedannual water consumption 14% between 2001and 2009, equivalent to 98 billion gallons. Thecity is targeting a further reduction of 1.5% eachyear during 2010-2015. Dallas Water Utilitieshas been funneling treated wastewater to irri-gate the golf links at Cedar Crest Golf Coursesince 2005, which had previously been irrigatedusing potable water. Nearly 82 million gallons ofpotable water were saved in 2005 alone by thisinitiative.

Waste: 19th, 41.8 pointsDallas’s placement in this category is a reflectionof its comparatively low recycling rate. The cityrecycles only 13% of its municipal waste, halfthe Index average of 26%. However this rateshould improve in coming years as a result ofprograms currently underway (see “green initia-tives” below). Through education and the intro-duction of single-stream recycling (in which allrecyclables are placed in one large container),Dallas has already increased recycling from9,700 tons in 2005 to 44,700 tons in 2010. Thecity’s goal for recycling participation – 50% ofhouseholds by 2011 – was exceeded a year earlywith a participation rate of 62%.

Green initiatives: The OneDAY Dallas pro-gram reduces garbage and recycling collections

to one day per week, encouraging residents toseparate recyclables from their trash into a sin-gle container. In addition, sales of recyclablesadded $2.2 million to the city’s coffers in 2010alone. In another initiative, the Recycle Naturallyprogram offers free composting classes to resi-dents and free composting bins to class partici-pants. The Dallas Zoo, by recycling much of itswaste for compost and mulch, has saved over$40,000 in dump fees and materials over thelast ten years.

Air: 17th, 67.4 pointsDallas, like many cities in the state of Texas, suf-fers from poor air quality. In the Index only Hous-ton, also in Texas, has higher annual emissionsof particulate matter than Dallas. The city emits80 lb of particulate matter per year, considerablymore than the Index average of 25 lb. Cementproduction constitutes more than 40% of allpoint sources of air pollutant emissions in theDallas-Fort Worth region, contributing signifi-cantly to the city’s air quality problem. But likeHouston, Dallas has put in place a robust set ofpolicies to improve air quality (see “green initia-tives” below).

Green initiatives: Dallas is part of the Sustain-able Skylines initiative, a voluntary three-yearpilot program to improve air quality in partner-ship with the EPA and state government. Someof the program’s successes include facilitatingthe replacement of the city’s old taxi fleet withcleaner, low-emitting vehicles, the constructionof 30 LEED silver homes in partnership withHabitat for Humanity, a housing charity, and thedistribution of energy efficiency and water con-servation kits to Dallas residents. Due to its suc-cess, the Dallas pilot is now being used as anational model. Other measures to curb air pol-lutants include the banning of vehicles with agross weight over 14,000 lb from idling for morethan five minutes. In addition, a green cementpurchasing policy was adopted in 2007, givingpreference to dry kilns with lower nitrogenoxides emission levels.

Environmental governance: 16th, 82.2 pointsDallas scores well for having a dedicated envi-ronmental authority and producing regularreports on the city's environmental performanceand policies. Environmental commitments havealso been made at an international level. Thecarbon emission reduction targets of the USConference of Mayors Climate Protection Agree-ment, which Dallas signed in 2006, are in line

with the Kyoto protocol. The city’s biggest short-coming in this category, however, is a lack of citizen involvement in the decision-making pro -cess surrounding large projects with an en viron-mental impact.

Green initiatives: Dallas uses an environmen-tal management system (EMS), a managementframework for setting environmental strategies,implementing plans and reviewing results. It


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP













Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

Mixed

Mixed

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2008

2008

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Dallas

190.6

11.6

0.21

50.4

13.4

3,799.8

4.3

3.0

0.4

18.6

1.7

26.1

13.0

219.3

9.1

54

80

14







US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau American CommunitySurvey; US Census Bureau





City of Dallas

USGS

City of Dallas




Green initiatives: One of the first recom -mendations of the Greenprint Denver AdvisoryCouncil in 2007 was to set more ambitiousgreenhouse gas reduction goals. Denver had aprevious target of reducing per capita green -house gas emissions 10% below 1990 levels by2012. Taking into account population growth,this per capita target would require an 18 millionmetric ton reduction of greenhouse gases (16% below 1990 levels). But the advisory coun-cil called for a more ambitious long-term goal of reducing absolute green house emissions 25% from 1990 levels by 2020. The main green-house gas reduction areas identified by the advi-sory council were energy conservation, greaterener gy efficiency in buildings, renewable ener -gy and carbon offsets.

Energy: First, 86 pointsAlong with environmental governance, this isDenver’s strongest category in the Index. Elec-tricity consumption per $1 million of GDP is 184 gigajoules, which is nearly half the Indexaverage of 332 gigajoules. Electricity con sump -


60 61

Denver

among the leaders in most policy areas across theIndex owing to the Greenprint Denver Office,established in 2007, which plans and coordinatescitywide environmental programs. Denver placesin the top ten in the buildings, water, transportand air categories, and is the top performer over -all among mid-income cities in the Index.

CO2: 14th, 76 pointsEmissions per capita, at 13.2 metric tons of CO2 per year, are below the Index average of14.5 metric tons. And for every $1 million ofGDP that Denver generates, it releases 231 met-ric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, versus anIndex average of 296 metric tons. A recentreport found that carbon emissions from powerplants across Colorado declined by 47% bet -ween 2000 and 2010. The largest utility in thestate also has plans to close or retrofit four coal-burning plants, which will have positive ramifi-cations for communities across the state, includ-ing Denver. The city also scores well for mea -suring carbon emissions and for its greenhousegas reduction strategy.

Denver is the capital of the western US state ofColorado. Located in high plains at the edge

of the Rocky Mountains, Denver earned the nick-name the “Mile-High City” because of its ele -vation exactly one mile above sea level. With610,000 residents living inside the city limits,Denver is considered a mid-population city in theUS and Canada Green City Index. The larger met-ropolitan area is home to some 2.6 million peo-ple, and a combination of city and metro-leveldata are used in the Index. Local economic activi-ty is dominated by transportation, tele com mu -nications, aerospace and manu facturing. The cityhas a per capita GDP of $49,200, placing it at thetop end of the mid-income group of cities in theIndex. Denver is ranked fifth overall in the Index. Thecity’s strongest categories are energy and envi-ronmental governance, where it places first. Itsclean and efficient energy policies are among themost robust in the Index, and its environmentalgovernance performance is supported by itsgreen action plan, green management andstrong public participation. Denver also ranks

tion per capita is 38 gigajoules, also below theIndex average of 52 gigajoules. The city hastaken a proactive approach on managing energyconsumption, and is one of only three cities inthe Index that scores full marks for clean and efficient energy policies, through its com -prehensive Greenprint Denver plan (see “greeninitiatives” below). In 2010 the Green print Den-ver Office canvassed 15 neigh borhoods aroundthe city and implemented at least one “energyaction” in 2,500 homes. Actions in cluded mea-sures to improve energy efficiency and reduceweatherrelated energy loss. Denver’s energy per-

formance also benefits from increasing theamount of locally produced energy, which only afew cities in the Index have managed to achieve.In addition, statewide legislation in Coloradorequires that 30% of all electricity produced mustcome from rene wable resources by 2020, and tohelp meet that target Denver is evaluatingaround 300 municipal buildings for solar powerinstallations.

Green initiatives: The Greenprint Denver pro-gram includes several energy saving initiatives.In 2010 alone, 2,000 LED bulbs in 200 traffic signals were installed with estimated savings ofalmost $800,000 per year. The city is also in theprocess of installing solar PV cells with a com-bined capacity of four megawatts on city build-ings and public schools, and has an nounced itwill retrofit the central library for projectedannual savings of $150,000 through reducedenergy bills. Low-income households are alsoeligible for assistance to improve energy effi-ciency and the city also provides them with atticinsulation assessments.

Land use: 18th, 53.3 points This is Denver’s weakest category. The city ismarked down for having the smallest amountof green space in the Index as a proportion of itsadministrative area – just 3% versus the Indexaverage of 12%. A relatively low populationdensity of 4,000 people per square mile, com-pared with the average of 8,100 also worksagainst Denver in land use. But the city scoreswell for its green land use policies and its mea-sures to contain urban sprawl. These in cludesubsidies to promote brownfield regen erationand the protection of its scarce green spacefrom building development.

Green initiatives: Denver has been part of theUS Environmental Protection Agency’s Brown -fields Program since October 2010. The pro-gram targets the 2,000-acre South Platte Riverarea, which contains 33 brownfield sites, coal-fired power plants and railway corridors, and ishome to about 88,000 of the city’s low-incomeresidents. With federal assistance the city isidentifying and prioritizing brownfield cleanupprojects, evaluating potential uses for proper-ties, and, with site owners, conducting en viron -mental assessments. Additionally, in 2006 Den-ver launched the “Mile High Million” with the goalof planting one million trees by 2025. The cityreached a fifth of that target by March 2011.

Buildings: Sixth, 68.8 pointsDenver’s strong rank in this category is a re flection of policies aimed at improving theenergy efficiency of buildings. The city offersincentives for building retrofits, and distributesinformation to offices and homes about ways toreduce energy consumption. Strict energy re -gulation for new buildings has also led to a risein the number of Leadership in Energy and Envi-ronmental Design (LEED)-certified buil dings.For every 100,000 people in Denver there are10.2 LEED-certified buildings, many more than









0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

DenverBestAverage

Air


62 63

the 6.4 Index average. The one blemish on Denver’s buildings score is its failure to requireenergy audits, which would help to identify inef-ficiencies.

Green initiatives: As part of the Greenprintprogram Denver unveiled its first municipalgreen building policy: all current and future citybuildings have to be LEED certified. To en -courage solar power usage in municipal buil -dings, the city offers minimum 15-year leases toprivate companies to install, operate and main-tain solar energy systems. In return for the lease,energy rates must be lower than those chargedby utility companies. Solar systems have beeninstalled in numerous city-owned buil dings, thebiggest of which is the two-megawatt array atDenver International Airport. A “green roof”installation program for municipal buil dings, tocut down energy consumption, is also part of theGreenprint initiative.

Transport: Eighth, 60.7 pointsThe city’s strong placement in transport is sup-ported by its efforts to make the public transportfleet greener and encourage citizens to walk,cycle or take public transport. Congestion re -duction policies are also strong. The city boasts

pedestrian-only zones and a well-developedtraffic management system to ease traffic flow.The most significant weakness in this category isthe lack of public transit supply, even after thecity invested $1 billion on improving publictransport infrastructure through the Inter-modalTransportation Expansion (T-REX) project, whichwas completed in 2006. The length of the Den-ver metropolitan area public transport networkremains one of the shortest in the Index at just0.1 miles per square mile, versus an Index aver-age of 1.1 miles. And, likely a result of the publictransport shortfall, Denver’s share of workersusing public transit, a bike or walking is also cur-

rently relatively low, at 7.4% versus an Indexaverage of 13%.

Green initiatives: In 1993 Denver became thefirst US city to launch a Green Fleet program toprioritize fuel efficiency in its public transportfleet. The program, which city officials revised in2000, calls for a reduction in carbon emissionsand fuel expenditures through the adoption ofstrategies including the purchase of smallervehicles, encouraging alternative modes oftransport, minimizing total vehicle miles, andinvesting in vehicles that run on alternativefuels. In 2004 Denver launched a pilot programto test clean-burning B20 biodiesel in 60 of thecity’s vehicles. Today over 1,000 of the city’s3,500 vehicles run on biodiesel.

Water: Seventh, 85.6 pointsDenver has one of the most efficient water distri-bution systems in the Index, losing a modest 5% of its supply to leaks against the Index aver-age of 13%. Water efficiency and treatment poli -cies are also strong. Main water sources are moni - tored for quality and supply levels, and measuresare in place to lower water usage. Denver’s oneweakness in the water category is its relativelyhigh consumption. Denver con su mes 181 gal-lons of water per capita per day, which is one ofthe highest among mid-income cities and wellabove the Index average of 155 gallons.

Green initiatives: Denver’s new water recy-cling plant on the South Platte River is the largestin Colorado and work is underway to expandtreatment capacity to 45 million gallons a day.The facility supplies recycled water for non-potable uses, such as irrigation for lakes, parks,golf courses and wildlife preserves. And throughnew irrigations systems already in place, cityauthorities say they use 28% less water in parksthan in 2001.

Waste: 17th, 51.9 pointsThis is one of Denver’s weakest categories,despite the fact that it treats different types ofwaste, including recyclable, hazardous andindustrial. The city also scores well for its wastereduction strategy and for reducing reliance onlandfills in favor of more sustainable local wastemanagement practices. Regardless of its effortsto improve recycling (see “green initiatives”below), Denver has one of the lowest recyclingrates in the Index, at just 3%, versus the 27-cityaverage of 26%, which restrains its score.

Green initiatives: In 2005 the city of Denverbegan a transition to a single-stream recyclingsystem, which allows residents to place all recy-clable materials into a single container. Sorting

of materials is then conducted at treatment facil-ities. The city saw a 61% increase in recyclingrates in the first two years of the single-streamrecycling program.

Air: Tenth, 79 pointsDenver’s performance in the air category is bol -stered by having some of the strongest clean air policies in the Index. Air quality targets have been set and measures are in place toimprove air quality, and they have had a positiveeffect. Denver’s annual sulfur dioxide emis-sions, at 14 lb per person, fall well below theIndex average of 22 lb. But there is still room for improvement. Both particulate matter andnitrogen oxides emissions are above the aver-ages.

Green initiatives: Denver has an anti-idlingordinance limiting idling to five minutes andpolice have authority to ticket idling vehiclesleft unattended for any period. In addition,since 2003 the state of Colorado has operated avoluntary mobile vehicle emissions testing pro-gram, making it more convenient for motoriststo get tested. Vans deployed with special laser-based technology examine vehicles as theydrive by and alert drivers to whether they havepassed or failed. Drivers who fail the test havethe opportunity to retest at a traditional emis-sions testing facility.

Environmental governance: First, 100 pointsDenver ties with New York and Washington DC inthis category, earning full points. The perfor-mance is underpinned by the Greenprint DenverOffice, Denver’s coordinating body for environ-mental programs across different city agencies.Working alongside the Greenprint Denver Imple-mentation Committee, which helps ensure greenmeasures are integrated throug hout city opera-tions, Greenprint Den ver is a best-practice modelof environmental governance in the Index.

A baseline review has been carried out, targetshave been set, and evalua tion reports are regular-ly published. There is also easy access to informa-tion on the city's en viron mental per formance andpolicies, coup led with a central contact point forcitizen complaints.

Green initiatives: Greenprint Denver enablespublic participation in environmental programs

through a variety of initiatives, including GreenTeams. Green Teams are community-basedgroups of friends, families and neighbors in -terested in learning about energy efficiency andcarbon emissions reduction, and improvingtheir local environment. The Greenprint Denveroffice considers these teams catalysts forgreater com munity involvement and providesthem with free income-qualified weatheri za -


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air







Number of LEED certified buildings (silver, gold or platinum)(buildings/100,000 persons)












Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2009

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Denver

231.3

13.2

0.18

37.9

3.2

3,989.2

10.2

7.4

0.1

21.3

0.6

26.8

3.0

181.2

5.0

68

26

14




Sustainability Department; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Sustainability Department; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau



National Transit Database; US Census Bureau




City of Denver Sustainability Department

USGS

City of Denver Water Department




tion, subsi dized home-energy audits, junk mailre duction, free CFL porch bulbs and trees forplanting in neighborhoods. Greenprint’s resi -dential program managers work closely withGreen Teams to set tangible goals and decideon the best outreach methods for expandingparticipation throughout the com munity, in -cluding door-to-door canvassing or neighbor-hood picnics.

Buildings: 26th, 18.1 pointsDetroit has only 0.8 buildings per 100,000 peo-ple certified by Leadership in Energy and Envi-ronmental Design (LEED), compared with theIndex average of 6.4. Several state-level initia-tives (see “green initiatives” below) offer cityofficials opportunities to consider similar pro-grams and additional funding at the city level.

Green initiatives: The state government hasintroduced a state and federally funded programproviding low-income Michigan residents withfree weatherization services aimed at savingfamilies up to 25% in heating costs. The pro-gram also offers low-income homeowners a10% energy efficiency home improvement taxcredit on upgrades that meet federal Energy Star efficiency requirements. In addition, in2009 a Detroit-based utility introduced propos-als to increase its renewable energy and energyefficiency portfolio. No specific targets wereannounced.

CO2: 22nd, 43.8 pointsCO2 emissions per $1 million of GDP total 427 metric tons, well above the Index average of 296 metric tons. Per capita emissions are 17 metric tons per person, compared with theIndex average of 14.5. Detroit’s large carbonfootprint is a factor of its heavy industrial activi-ty, as well as the fact that the second largestcoal-fired plant in the nation is located less than50 miles away. Statewide standards for adoptingrenewable energy (see “green initiatives” in theenergy category) will, hopefully, help reduceDetroit’s CO2 emissions.

Green initiatives: Although the Detroit munic-ipal government has not committed to a reduc-tion in CO2 emissions, it is nevertheless affectedby state-level policy initiatives. The state govern-ment conducted a greenhouse gas inventory in1990, and again in 2002. In 2009 the MichiganClimate Action Council completed a climateaction plan, which identifies 54 policy recom-mendations for reducing almost 1 billion metrictons of CO2 equivalent, based on 1990 levels,between 2009 and 2025. The Council alsoestablished an annual reporting mechanism,


64 65

Detroit









ways and railways that connect Detroit with theregion and Canada, Detroit may still find oppor-tunities for revitali zation, hope fully integratedwith environmental excellence. Most of the datafor Detroit came from the city and the widermetropolitan area, which has a population of4.4 million.Detroit ranks at the bottom of the Index, at 27thoverall. The nine categories in the Index all high-light the challenges the city faces. Nevertheless,Detroit has taken some steps to transform itselffrom a “rust belt” into a “green belt”, helped in nosmall part by the proactive stance of the formerMichigan Governor, a staunch advo cate foralternative energy and green economic develop-ment. The existence of state-level goals forrenewable energy and energy efficiency mayhelp shape, in some capacity, future policies andprogramming at the city level. Already, Detroithas taken action to improve the city’s non-motorized transport infrastructure as well as thevariety and quality of public spaces. These initia-tives, which aim to improve quality of life as wellas the city’s environmental performance, areencoura ging win-win strategies that will hope-fully be replicated.

With a population of 910,000, Detroit is oneof the mid-sized cities in the US and Cana-

da Green City Index. The population figureincluded in the Index is from 2009, but the 2010US Census – which was not yet published uponfinalization of the Index – showed a steep 25%decline, accelerating a decades-long trend. Tra-ditionally a center of automobile manufac turingand home to the big-three automobile compa-nies, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, Detroitpeaked in terms of population and economicstrength in the 1950s. Since then, the city hasseen its population shrink as residents moved tothe suburbs or other cities and, in tandem withvarious shocks to the automobile industry, hashad to restructure the local economy away from a reliance on auto manu facturing. Today,Detroit’s per capita GDP stands at $40,300,below the Index average of $46,000. In 2007roughly one-third of Detroit residents livedbelow the federal poverty level, the highest per-centage among large US cities. In April 2008 thecity announced a $300 million stimulus plan tocreate jobs and revitalize the diverse, and par-tially historic, downtown neigh borhoods. As animportant transportation hub with ports, high-

beginning in 2012, to track performance andprogress toward achieving the CO2 emissionstarget.

Energy: 27th, 27.3 pointsElectricity consumption per unit of GDP is an esti-mated 1,029 gigajoules per $1 million, com-pared with the Index average of 332 gigajoules,making Detroit’s energy intensity the highest inthe Index. Detroit’s per capita electri city con-sumption is estimated at 87 gigajoules per per-son, compared with the Index average of 52.Both figures are estimated based on state retailelectricity sales, scaled down to the city levelusing population data. Policies aimed at promot-ing energy efficiency and renewable energy,which Detroit has partially initiated, are a positivestep towards improvement in this area.

Green initiatives: Although there are few city-level initiatives related to energy, the Michiganstate government is promoting renewable ener-gy and energy efficiency. In 2008 the stateenacted a law requiring 10% of its energy tocome from renewable sources by 2015. In 2010one of Michigan’s largest power suppliers,which serves southern Michigan and some ofDetroit, announced that its supply of renewablepower would reach 6% following power pur -chases from four new independent projects.Three of the four projects are in Michigan andIowa and generate wind power; the other is inTexas and is a gas-to-electricity landfill.

Land use: 26th, 35.8 pointsIn terms of population density, Detroit has6,600 people per square mile compared withthe Index average of 8,100. Only 7% of Detroit’sarea comprises green space, compared with theIndex average of 12%. In recent years the cityhas taken steps to revitalize certain areas, pre-vent further sprawl and increase the quality oflife downtown, but Detroit currently lacks poli-cies to sustain and improve the quality andquantity of green space. A private group of thestate’s largest employers has called on themunicipal government to make changes (see“green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: The main organization pro-moting revitalization initiatives is BusinessLeaders for Michigan. Comprising executivesfrom the state’s largest job providers and uni-versities, in 2010 the entity issued a compre-hensive “Turnaround Plan” for Detroit aimed pri-marily at economic development, but inclu dingurban revitalization as one of its goals. So far,the group has secured the city govern ment’ssupport for some of the plan’s initia tives, butnot those centered on combating urban sprawl.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

DetroitBestAverage

Air


Transport: 27th, 37.5 pointsDetroit performs well in the Index for thelength of its public transport network, which is2.5 miles per square mile of metropolitan area,the fourth highest in the Index, and well abovethe Index average of 1.1 mile per square mile.This figure was estimated based on numbersfrom the national transit database. Detroit per-forms less favorably in other transit-relatedareas. For instance, whereas the Index averagefor the percentage of workers traveling by pub-lic transit, bicycle or foot is 13%, in Detroit it isonly 4%. It is encouraging that the wider regionis committing to a long-term plan that includesseveral hundred miles of walking and bikingfacilities.

Green initiatives: Detroit adopted a non-motorized transportation master plan in 2008,aimed at developing a more extensive networkof urban bikeways and walkways, including

400 miles of new bike lanes. To date, the cityhas identified $86 million in private and gov -ern ment funding for projects, and has alreadyadded some lanes. Officials have not released a timeline for the project.

Water: 27th, 38.8 pointsPer capita water consumption in Detroit is 172 gal lons per person daily, compared with theIndex average of 155. The Index average forwater leakages as a percentage of the water dis-tribution system is 13%, and in Detroit it is 16%.Detroit is one of only two cities in the Index thatdoes not treat all of its wastewater, but it hasbegun to address some of the issues facing thecity’s water system by committing to a long-term plan to limit sewage overflows (see below“green initiatives”). Although Detroit is relativelyweak on many of the policies evaluated in theIndex, the city makes use of recycled water, apositive achievement to date.

Green initiatives: In response to a federalmandate, the Detroit Water and Sewerage De -partment is in the process of replacing an exist-ing pump station with a retention basin thatwould eliminate untreated sewer overflow intothe nearby Rouge River. The $154 million projectbegan in the fall of 2007 and is slated for com-pletion in 2011. To the extent they are “feasible,cost effective and beneficial”, the city haspledged to incorporate “green infrastruc ture”upgrades, such as bioswales (special landscap-ing that filters silt and pollutants from stormwa-ter), rain barrels, porous pavers that reduce run-off by allowing water to permeate into thesubsoil, and green roofs.

Waste: 27th, 0 pointsIn the category of waste, Detroit ranks last inthe Index. The city recycles almost none of itswaste, a number estimated from state data,whereas the Index average for recycled waste is26%. This estimate is based on data from 2006

however, and the city has made some progressrolling out residential recycling in recent years(see “green initiatives” below), suggesting thatits performance has actually improved. Thoughthe city has used an incinerator for most of itswaste management in recent years, it recentlyshut down the facility following long-standingpublic opposition.

Green initiatives: In 2009 the city started apilot program to introduce curbside recycling for30,000 homes, or roughly 12% of the city’shouseholds, with plans to serve the entire citywithin five years. The program, expected to cost$3.8 million, will end Detroit’s status as one ofthe country’s largest cities without a recyclingprogram. In 2009 a local utility offered Detroitresidents $50 for their old freezers and refri -gerators, and hauled them away for free.

Air: 26th, 37.4 pointsDetroit performs better than the Index averagein particulate emissions, which total 17 lb perperson annually compared with the Index av -erage of 25 lb per person. However, Detroit’ssulfur dioxide emissions of 59 lb per person peryear are notably higher than the Index averageof 22 lb, and the city emits 93 lb of nitrogenoxides per person annually compared with theIndex average of 66 lb. Over half of nitrogenoxides emissions are attributed to on-road vehi-cles, while over 70% of sulphur dioxide comesfrom electricity generation. Industrial processesalso make up a significant share of Detroit’s pol-lutants, making the city’s transition from a “rustbelt” to a “green belt” all the more urgent interms of air quality.

Green initiatives: In the summer of 2007 theSoutheast Michigan Council of Governmentsconducted a pilot program aimed at reducingemissions from high-polluting vehicles throughincreased public awareness and the use ofremote sensing technology. The latter is an aeri-

al traffic monitoring system that measures thenumber of cars and their position by means ofthe radiation they emit, and generates data thatcan be used in a number of ways. The results ofthis program and continued activities are un -clear. The Council of Governments has informa-tion on its website on ways for the public toimprove air quality through consumer habitsand everyday behavior.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP

Using population served by Detroit Edison










Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City plus aportion of the

metro-area

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

State data

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2006

2005

2000

2005

2005

2005

Detroit

426.8

17.0

1.03

86.9

6.7

6,600.9

0.8

3.6

2.5

17.5

3.5

26.0

0.1

172.3

15.9

93

17

59




Detroit Edison; US Bureauof Economic Analysis

Detroit Edison


US Census Bureau







BioCycle and Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University

USGS

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department




Environmental governance: 26th, 16.7 pointsThough the city has a dedicated environmentalauthority, Detroit does not have an identifiableenvironmental strategy or environmental tar -gets, and has not committed to regular repor -ting on its environmental performance. In orderto reach the level of openness and publicengagement that the Index’s top performers

66 67

have attained, Detroit might follow throughwith the commitment that its Office of Energyand Sustainability made in 2008, which was toformulate a baseline review based on inputfrom a diverse cross-section of stakeholders(see “green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: In late 2008 the city’s mayorat the time, Ken Cockrel Jr, announced the cre-ation of the Office of Energy and Sustain ability,whose mission he identified as the collabora-tion of “city departments, business groups, non -profit organizations and other agen cies to protect, enhance and promote sustainability,livability and energy efficiency in Detroit”. Theoffice is an extension of an earlier mayoralGreen Task Force, created in 2007 to advise the city council and Detroit residents on greenprinciples and practices. There are no websiteswith information about the status of presentinitiatives, but the Green Task Force issued aprogress report in 2008. The document laid outgeneral progress to date and goals, but did notinclude specific targets among its near-termobjectives.

Green initiatives: Houston unveiled a Multi�Pollutant Emissions Reduction Plan in 2008,which includes a series of ongoing energy effi-ciency and renewable energy measures. Specificprojects include municipal building retrofits,and the installation of a combined heat andpower system at Houston’s wastewater treat-ment facilities, which are responsible for over30% of the city’s energy usage. Completed workincludes the retrofitting of the heating, venti -lating and air conditioning systems at city air-ports.

Energy: 11th, 71 pointsHouston’s electricity consumption per capita isgenerally in line with the Index average, at anestimated 50 gigajoules per person versus theaverage of 52. Consumption per $1 million ofGDP is higher than the average, at 404 giga-joules, compared with the average of 332.When income is taken into account, of the eightmid-income cities in the Index, only Torontoconsumes more electricity per unit GDP thanHouston, and only Atlanta consumes more elec-tricity per capita. Conscious of the need toimprove, Houston scores well for its clean and

efficient energy policies. Through a mixture oftax incentives and subsidies, the city promotesgreen energy for both businesses and homes.Houston is also marked up for developing greenenergy projects, which include investment insolar power (see “green initiatives” below).According to the US Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), Houston overtook Dallas in 2009as the largest municipal purchaser of renewableenergy in the US.

Green initiatives: Houston is one of 12 UScities carrying “Solar America City” status; itreceived a $200,000 federal grant in 2008 thatwas matched by a private energy company.Houston has used the funds to develop solar


68 69

Houston

nance – coordinating green initiatives acrossmultiple departments and informing citizensand businesses about ways to be more environ-mentally friendly – the city has the potential toboost its overall environmental performance inthe future. Officials have also been successful inenlisting outside help. Federal and state fundinghas been drafted in for brownfield regenerationand for converting the city fleet to cleaner fuel,while the Clinton Climate Initiative, an interna-tional non-profit organization, has played a bigpart in Houston’s drive to make municipal build-ings more energy efficient.

CO2: 25th, 32.1 pointsCO2 emissions in Houston are much higher thanthe Index averages, at 25.8 metric tons per per-son versus the average of 14.5, and 433 metrictons per $1 million of GDP, compared with theaverage of 296. Emissions tend to be higher inthe Index in other hot, goods-intensive, and low-density cities, and Houston falls into all threecategories. Although Houston’s policymakershave some catching up to do with their Indexpeers in reducing CO2 emissions, the city’s pro-file does little to help them.

Houston has the second largest administra-tive area in the US and Canada Green City

Index, and with a population of 2.3 million, it isone of the least densely populated cities in theIndex. Located in the southern region of Texas,Houston’s hot climate opens up opportunities to harness solar power. But just as the climate canhelp Houston’s environmental efforts, it can alsohinder them through destructive tornados andhurricanes. The city’s economy, which is goodsintensive, generates a GDP per person of $48,000and puts Houston into the mid-income bracket.The Index data for Houston is based on a mixtureof statistics from the city and wider metropolitanarea, which has a population of 5.9 million.Houston ranks 16th overall in the Index. Thecity’s highest category placing is in environmen-tal governance, where it ranks joint fifth withLos Angeles and Philadelphia. In other cate-gories, such as energy, land use, buildings,waste and transport, Houston ranks near themiddle – yet still in the top half – of the Index.The city ranks near the bottom of the Index intwo categories, CO2 and air, mainly for high lev-els of emissions. Despite Houston’s mid-tableoverall ranking, by doing relatively well at gover-

infrastructure and has completed small-scaledemonstration projects at several city facilities,including a 100-kilowatt solar system installedon the roof of the George R. Brown ConventionCenter. In 2010 Houston received a $1.3 milliongrant from the Texas state government to devel-op off-grid solar-powered generators for emer-gency use. In parallel with its solar-powered ini-tiatives, Houston has almost completed thereplacement of incandescent bulbs with moreenergy efficient and longer lasting LEDs at itstraffic lights and pedestrian signals. As of March2011 calculations from the city based on 300signals showed that Houston will save 2.7 mil-lion kilowatt hours of energy and over $3.6 mil-lion a year. Savings from the entire project willbe much higher once work on all the city’s 2,450signalized intersections is completed.

Land use: 13th, 56.8 pointsHouston performs well for its measures toimprove the quantity and quality of green space.An active tree planting policy is in place and,with the help of the EPA funding, brownfieldregeneration is underway. The biggest policyoversight is the absence of any green space pro-tection from building development, althoughHouston’s proportion of green space, at 14%, isslightly higher than the Index average of 12%.

Green initiatives: Houston’s Brownfields Rede - velopment Program provides free environmen-tal site assessments, funded by the EPA, topotential redevelopers. Twenty-four sites havebeen added to the program since 2005, themajority of which are to become park space. A 2007 regulation requires residential devel -opers to create 1.8 acres of park space per 100 dwellings, or pay a fee of $700 per dwelling.Another initiative, the “Million Trees + Houston”,a public-private initiative started in 2008, aimsto plant one million trees in the Houston areaover a five-year period.

Buildings: Ninth, 66.4 pointsNew buildings in Houston have to comply withenergy efficiency standards and incentives areavailable to make existing buildings greenerthrough retrofits. Houston also offers informa-tion to homes and businesses about ways toreduce energy consumption. The city’s mainweakness is the relatively low number of Leader-ship in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED)-certified buildings in relation to popula-tion, at 4.3 per 100,000 people against an Indexaverage of 6.4. LEED certification continues inthe city, however. As of January 2010 the cityreported that 28 buildings representing morethan one million square feet of LEED projectswere underway.

Green initiatives: In recent years Houston hasinvested heavily in improving energy efficiencyof its buildings. In collaboration with the Clin-ton Climate Initiative, the city has a program to retrofit 7.1 million square feet of muni cipalbuilding space in 262 buildings. Houston ex -pects an average 30% reduction in energyusage from the retrofitted buildings, throughmeasures such as lighting upgrades, HVAC effi-ciency improvements and the installation ofenergy management systems. Energy savingsare guaranteed by the private sector partnersthat implement the retrofits. The funds savedfrom reduced energy use are used to financeenergy upgrades and improvements. In Sep-tember 2010 the City of Houston partneredwith the ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustain-ability to launch the first annual Green OfficeChallenge. Through the challenge, the city willbring local, state and national sustainabilityexperts together to provide training andresources to assist owners of office buildings,property managers and tenants to reduce wateruse, waste generation and energy consump-tion. Participants’ successes and milestones willbe measured throughout the challenge year,culminating in awards for progress. Reachingout to the same target group, the city launchedan energy efficiency incentive program for com-mercial buildings in early 2011.

Transport: 12th, 53.6 pointsThe city performs well on green transport pro-motion, which has included heavy investmentin the municipal fleet to make it more environ-mentally friendly (see “green initiatives”). Butpublic transit is limited by Index standards, withtwo public transit vehicles available per squaremile, compared with the Index average of nineper square mile, and a network that extends 0.2 miles per square mile, compared with theIndex average of 1.1 miles. Houston’s large









0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

HoustonBestAverage

Air


70 71

administrative area is certainly a limiting factor,as is the region’s reliance on cars, which is simi-lar to other highly populated, sprawling UScities.

Green initiatives: Houston is investing morethan $4.1 billion to extend the current 7.5-mileurban light�rail system to 39 miles by 2014. Thecity has also replaced 50% of its passenger vehi-cles with gasoline-electric hybrids. And with thehelp of an EPA grant, 34 of the city’s heavy-dutyvehicles have been replaced with hybrid andclean-diesel vehicles. In addition, Houston hasbeen working with private and non-profit part-ners to introduce electric vehicles and chargersin the city. One of the city’s partners, for exam-ple, recently launched the first private invest-ment in electric vehicle infrastructure, deploy-ing over 150 charging stations throughoutHouston.

Water: 15th, 80.5 pointsAlthough Houston’s water consumption, at 158gallons per person per day, is near the Indexaverage of 155 gallons, it fares better whencompared with other high temperature cities inthe Index. Out of this nine-city group, only two cities consume less water than Houston.Policy areas are also reasonably strong. Mainwater sources are monitored for quality andsupply levels, and the city promotes lowerwater usage. The percentage of water lost toleakages in Houston’s water distribution system,at 12%, is just under the Index average of 13%.

Green initiatives: The Houston Area WaterCorporation and the US Geological Services

partnered in 2006 to install 20 energy efficientsolar-powered aeration mixers, known as “SolarBees”, at Lake Houston near the intake for thewater treatment plant. The lake experiencesseasonal algal blooms, which give an unpleas-ant taste and odor to the water. Instead of usingchemicals as a costly short-term fix, the cityinstalled the mixers to keep the waters oxy-genated and support the lake’s natural ecosys-tem. The low-cost solution produced 28% inenergy cost avoidance through the use of solarpower, and 78% in chemical cost savings.Through the installation of low-flow waterfaucets and toilets in municipal buildings, alongwith significant enhancements and controls forirrigation systems in the city’s parks, Houston issaving over 13 million gallons of water annually.

Waste: Tenth, 59.5 pointsHouston recycles only 15% of its municipalwaste versus an Index average of 26%, alt -hough several initiatives are underway to boostthe city’s recycling performance (see “green ini-

tiatives” below). The city has facilities to treatdifferent types of waste: recyclable, hazardousand industrial. It also performs well for reducingreliance on landfills and moving towards moresustainable local waste management practices.A measure of Houston’s growing competence inwaste management came in the wake of Hurri-cane Ike in 2008. Working alongside the ClintonClimate Initiative and Living Earth, a charity, thecity managed to divert all of the 5.7 millioncubic yards of debris tree material from landfillsand burning.

Green initiatives: To encourage Houston’s residents to set aside more recyclable waste,since 2008 the city has reduced heavy trashpickup from one-month to two-month intervals.In the intervening months it picks up only organ-ic material, such as tree debris. The city also pro-motes “single-stream” recycling by giving resi-dents 96-gallon recycling bins for all recyclables.The scheme covered 104,000 households as of January 2011. In addition the city, in coopera-tion with a local non-governmental organiza-tion, has created Houston Mulch – a brand of compost created from green debris in the city. Available citywide since 2009, its environ-mental benefit is the equivalent of keeping over10,000 cars off the road.

Air: 24th, 49.3 pointsHouston’s emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitro-gen oxides are much higher than Index aver-ages. Its levels of particulate matter, at 93 lb perperson, are the highest in the Index. But it is thewider region, not just Houston, which suffersfrom high amounts of air pollutants. The EPAhas designated the surrounding area as a“severe ozone non-attainment region”. Theregion has until 2019 to achieve compliancewith the authority’s national ambient air qualitystandards for ozone. Houston is respondingwell. The city has one of the most robust sets ofclean air policies in the Index, setting air qualitytargets and putting policies in place to improveair quality. And the city, along with local private

companies, is lobbying the Texas state govern-ment for more funds to help improve air quality.The city says the replacement of older fleet vehi-cles with ones running on cleaner diesel fuel, at a cost of $2 million, could reduce nitrogenoxides emissions by 200 lb per year.

Green initiatives: With EPA funding, Houstonhas set up a Mobile Ambient Air Monitoring Lab-

oratory. The mobile lab, which city authoritiesclaim is the first of its kind in the country, can bedeployed throughout the Houston area to identi-fy source emissions with near real-time reportingcapabilities.

Environmental governance: Fifth, 94.4 pointsA strong green action plan is in place, with envi-

ronmental targets set after conducting a base-line review, and this helps give Houston itshighest category ranking. The city publishesregular environmental reports and performswell for having a dedicated environmentalauthority. Houston is also a member of the C40Cities Climate Leadership Group. One relativeweakness is a lack of citizen involvement in thedecision-making process of large projects thathave an impact on the environment.

Green initiatives: An Environmental Coordi-nating Council was established in 2009 with thepurpose of coordinating environmental workamong all city departments. Specially trainedstaff, spread across different departments, coor-dinates all environment matters through thecouncil. The council is also charged with com-municating environmental issues to the public.The Environmental Standard, an e-newsletterlaunched in 2009, informs citizens about cityenvironmental programs and gives advice aboutways to improve the environment.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP









Residential waste only





Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

Mixed

Mixed

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2008

2008

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Houston

432.6

25.8

0.40

50.4

14.2

3,899.7

4.3

4.0

0.2

23.6

2.4

27.6

14.7

158.4

11.8

78

93

44







US Census Bureau







City of Houston General Services Department

USGS

General Services Department, City of Houston




age of 296 metric tons. For reasons of data avail-ability and comparability, the CO2 figures weretaken from 2002 for all of the US cities in theIndex, and in the meantime Los Angeles hasmade progress reducing its emissions anddeserves credit for the green measures it hastaken. Through a combination of energy ef -ficiency initiatives and less reliance on electricitygeneration from fossil fuels (see “green initia-tives” below) LADWP has cut CO2 emissions by 2 million metric tons since 2005. The city alsoscores well on policy. Los Angeles monitorsemissions and has a target to reduce CO2 emis-sions 35% below 1990 levels by 2030.

Green initiatives: In 2007 the city unveiled theLos Angeles Climate Action Plan, which sets oneof the most aggressive greenhouse gas re -duction targets in the Index: 35% below 1990levels by 2030. To achieve this goal, in 2008 thecity established an implementation programcalled ClimateLA. Initiatives running under theauspices of ClimateLA include increasing re -newable energy purchases, making the city fleetgreener, retrofitting buildings, and offeringrebates on energy efficient appliances. Ad -ditionally, Los Angeles has already met the Kyoto Protocol target by taking more than 6,000 city-owned diesel trucks off the road, pur-chasing a fifth of the city’s energy from renew-able sources, converting all city buses to alterna-

72 73

Los Angeles

performs particularly well, the city-owned utilityhas played a lead role in reducing energy con-sumption and cutting carbon emissions. Othercategories where Los Angeles scores above aver-age are waste and air. The city has one of thestrongest records on municipal waste recyclingin the Index and, despite its proximity to theLong Beach and Los Angeles ports, air quality isrelatively high. Los Angeles is in the lower half ofthe Index in the land use and transport cate-gories, but is showing intent to improve in bothareas. It has put forward an innovative schemeto finance transport investment by using futuretax revenue as collateral for federal borrowing.This may well become a model for other cities to copy if the scheme gains US governmentapproval.

CO2: Fourth, 86.5 pointsCO2 emissions per capita, at 8 metric tons, arebelow the Index average of 14.5. And for every$1 million of GDP the city generates, 162 metrictons of CO2 are released, versus an Index aver-

With 3.8 million residents, Los Angeles is thesecond most populous city in the US and

Canada Green City Index. Its administrative area,totaling 468 square miles, is the fourth largest inthe Index. The much larger metropolitan area,which spans across five counties, boasts a popu-lation of 12.9 million, making it the secondbiggest city in the US behind New York. Locatedon a hilly plain along the Pacific Ocean, Los An-geles has one of the world’s busiest ports – theLong Beach and Los Angeles ports combined –which is a strong source of carbon emissions, asis the city’s large manufacturing base. How everthe local economy is dominated by less-carbon-intensive industries, such as media productionand financial services. With a GDP per capita of$47,200, the city falls in the mid-income bracketin the Index.Los Angeles ranks seventh overall in the Index.Spearheading many of the city’s green initiativesis the Los Angeles Department of Water andPower (LADWP), the local water and electricityutility. In CO2 and energy, where Los Angeles

tive fuel and creating 35 new parks. Kyoto calledfor reducing greenhouse gas emissions 7% be -low 1990 levels by 2012; Los Angeles achievedthat feat in 2008.

Energy: Fifth, 77.8 pointsLos Angeles ties Toronto in the energy category.Electricity consumption in Los Angeles, both ona per capita basis and in relation to economicoutput, is about half the Index average. The cityuses an estimated 169 gigajoules of electricityper $1 million of GDP, versus an Index average of332 gigajoules. On a per capita basis Los Ange-les consumes 27 gigajoules, considerably lessthan the Index average of 52 gigajoules per per-son. Energy saving programs undertaken byLADWP have helped (see “green initiatives” be -low) and the city scores well for green energypromotion. However, Los Angeles is markeddown for not yet doing more to develop greenenergy projects and for its relatively slowprogress in consuming more locally producedenergy. Ambitious plans by LADWP to sourcemore renewable energy look set to address this.

Green initiatives: LADWP generated 40% of itspower from coal in 2009 but aims to be coal-freeby 2020 with the help of renewable electricitygeneration. LADWP completed a 120-megawattwind farm in 2009, at a cost of $500 million,which serves 56,000 house holds in Los Angeles.Energy efficiency initia tives undertaken by theutility company in the 12 months to March2010, at a cost of $70 million, have resulted inenergy savings of 300 gigawatt hours (nearly1.1 million giga joules). Measures include thedistribution of compact fluorescent bulbs tohouseholds, in stallation of efficient lighting insmall busines ses, and a variety of householdrebate programs to replace ineffi cient windowsand appliances. The city also installed solar pan-els on the LA Convention Center, while nearly26,000 square feet of solar panels are to beinstalled at the city’s main wastewater treat-ment plant.

Land use: 21st, 45.3 pointsThis is one of Los Angeles’s weakest categoriesin the Index. Only 8% of the city’s administrativearea is green space, versus an Index average of12%. Other high temperature cities in the Indexalso tend to have less green space, but more rig-orous policies would help improve the city’s per-formance. Incentives for brownfield regene -ration are not yet as strong in Los Angeles as inother Index cities, although a future initiative isin the planning stages (see “green initiatives”below). The city’s measures to contain urbansprawl are also relatively weak, but it does havean active tree planting policy.

Green initiatives: The city is planning a Clean-Tech Corridor to run alongside the Los AngelesRiver by regenerating brownfield sites. Througha variety of incentives, such as favorable groundleases and low interest loans, the aim is to fill the corridor with companies specializing ingreen technology development. A timetable forcorridor completion is not yet available. LosAngeles’s Million Trees initiative, begun in 2005,is a public-private partnership working to plantone million trees throughout the city. Nearly300,000 trees have been planted so far andthere is no timeline for when the city hopes toreach this target.

Buildings: 12th, 53.5 pointsFor every 100,000 people in Los Angeles thereare only 1.9 Leadership in Energy and En -vironmental Design (LEED)-certified buildings,considerably fewer than the Index average of6.4, even though LEED standards for municipalbuildings are mandatory (see “green initiatives”below) and other incentives are in place. How-ever, Los Angeles scores better in policy areas.New buildings have to comply with energy stan-dards, and incentives are available for energy-saving retrofits. There are still some policy gaps:information on how to decrease energy con-sumption in offices and homes is not as readilyavailable in Los Angeles as in other Index cities,for example.

Green initiatives: LEED certification for newmunicipal buildings has been mandatory in LosAngeles since 2002. Seven years later the GreenBuilding Retrofit Ordinance was passed, whichcalls for municipal buildings built before 1978(or occupying more than 7,500 square feet) to meet the silver LEED certification standard.The city plans 100 retrofits per year. Tax credit










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

Los AngelesBestAverage

Air


74 75

incentives and fast-tracked building permitshave been available to private property develop-ers seeking silver LEED certification since 2008.

Transport: 24th, 42.9 pointsLos Angeles, notorious for its complex web ofhighways and traffic-choked rush hours, regis -ters its lowest rank in transport. Congestionreduction policies are comparatively weak andthe city’s overall public transit supply is one ofthe most limited in the Index. Of the five large-area cities covered in this Index, Los Angeles’spublic transport network, measuring 0.18 milesper square mile, is the shortest. City authoritiesare, however, keen to improve supply. Throughan innovative funding arrange ment with the USgovernment they are aiming to fast-track anambitious $40 billion transport investment pro-gram (see “green initiatives” below). In policyareas the city scores well for its efforts to makethe city fleet greener.

Green initiatives: Los Angeles’s voters ap -proved a general half-cent local sales tax in 2008to raise $40 billion over a 30-year period to fundpublic transport improvements. Under the city’ssubsequent 30/10 plan, awaiting approval fromthe US House of Representatives, the 30-yeartimetable is trimmed to ten years. The 30/10plan is based on borrowing federal funds up -front, using future sales tax revenue as collater-al. The city estimates the 12 transport projectsincluded in the plan will increase transit board-ings by 77 million and reduce vehicle miles trav-eled by 191 million. Furthermore, in 2011 themayor’s office, in conjunction with LADWP,unveiled the Electric Vehicle Pilot Program. To

encourage the purchase and use of electric carsthe city is offering rebates of up to $2,000 forthe first 1,000 applicants to defray the costs ofelectric vehicle home chargers and installation.City officials say they hope to expand the rebateprogram to provide between 3,000 and 5,000home chargers.

Water: 13th, 81.7 pointsLos Angeles has one of the most efficient waterdistribution systems in the Index, losing just 5%of water supply to leaks, compared with a muchhigher 13% Index average. Among mid-incomecities only Chicago and Denver boast more ef -ficient water systems than Los Angeles. Policyareas are also strong. Main water sources aremonitored for quality and supply levels, andwater conservation is vigorously promoted (see“green initiatives” below). LADWP reports thatits single-family residential customers used 24%less water in February 2011, on average, com - pared with the same month in 2007. None the -less, water consumption per capita, at 187 gal-lons per day, is considerably higher than theIndex average of 155 gallons, but high waterconsumption is a common feature of high-tem-perature cities.

Green initiatives: A water fixtures ordinanceintroduced in 2009 mandates the installation ofhigh-efficiency toilets and faucets in all newbuildings. The city estimates this measure willsave 20 billion gallons of water over a ten-yearperiod. The LADWP also restructured its waterrate system in 2009 to increase rates for heavyusers. An update to the city’s water conservationordinance in 2010 restricted lawn watering

when water levels are low. Cleaning sidewalksand washing cars during droughts is also prohib-ited unless an automatic shut-off nozzle is used.

Waste: Third, 81.9 pointsLos Angeles records its highest rank in waste. Thecity already recycles 62% of its municipal waste,the second highest rate in the Index, and has seta target to increase that rate to 70% by 2015. LosAngeles also scores well on policy. It is marked upfor its facilities to treat different types of waste(recyclable, hazardous and industrial) and forreducing reliance on landfills. Further measuresto reduce waste creation could improve the city’sranking in this category even more.

Green initiatives: The Renew LA program,started in 2006, aims to divert more than 90% ofthe city’s waste from landfills by 2025 and sets along-term goal of zero waste. Aside from re -cycling, the city is developing waste-to-energyprojects to achieve the 90% target and varioustechnologies are under consideration. RenewLA calls for a waste-to-energy processing capaci-ty of 14,500 tons per day by 2025.

Air: Fifth, 88.7 pointsLos Angeles’s strong rank in the air category is allthe more impressive when measured againstother large-area cities, which tend to place in thebottom half of the Index in this category. Annualper capita emissions of all the pollutants mea-sured in the Index are well below average in LosAngeles. The city does particularly well in sulfurdioxide and particulate matter – the city ranks inthe top five for both indicators. While it dropsdown to tenth for nitrogen oxides, Los Angeles’semissions of 55 pounds per person are still con-siderably lower than the Index average of 66pounds. The city’s impressive performance inthis category can be attributed to a robust set ofpolicies aimed at improving air quality over thepast decade. Programs include the transition tovehicles running on alternative fuels and theimplementation of an Automated Traffic Surveil-lance and Control System to reduce idling time,among others.

Green initiatives: The ports of Los Angelesand Long Beach account for 20% of toxic airemissions in the south coast air basin. Largelyby replacing dirty-fuel trucks that service theports with cleaner-fuel vehicles, the city aimsto reduce emissions of particulate matter 45% below 2006 levels by the end of 2011.Nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions inthe port areas are targeted to fall 47% and 52%,re spectively, over the same period. Los Angelesalso provides electric power to berthed ships in harbor, eliminating the need for engineidling.

Environmental governance: Fifth, 94.4 pointsLos Angeles ties Houston and Philadelphia inenvironmental governance. The city’s score isbolstered by the presence of a dedicated en -vironmental authority and the setting of en -vironmental targets, after conducting a base linereview. Los Angeles also publishes regular envi-ronmental reports and involves citizens in thedecision-making surrounding large projects thathave an environmental impact. The city couldimprove its rank by providing citizens with a cen-tral contact point for environmental complaints

and enquiries rather than directing all enquiriesto the general city hotline.

Green initiatives: To ensure private sector par-ticipation in the city’s environmental goals, in2009 Los Angeles approved a Green BusinessCertification Program. The program, which isstill in the planning phase but is expected to berolled out by summer 2011, will provide busi -nesses with information on how to adopt sus -tainability practices and award “certified greenbusiness” seals in order to help meet the city’senviron mental goals.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Scaled county level data to city level using population data;Indicator constructed usingMSA GDP

Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

Mixed

Mixed

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2009

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2006

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Los Angeles

162.0

8.0

0.17

26.7

7.9

8,207.6

1.9

9.7

0.2

14.1

2.5

27.9

62.0

187.0

5.3

55

14

5




California Energy Commission; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

California Energy Commission; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







Department of Public Works

USGS

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power




Scaled county level data to city level using population data



Using city area


Using city area





outperform the Index average, at 9.3 metric tons per person compared with 14.5. These fig-ures not only reflect the lack of industry inMiami, but also result from a utility sector thatoperates cleaner, newer power plants that havecontributed to a reduction in greenhouse gasemissions from electricity in recent years.

Green initiatives: The city conducted a green-house gas emissions inventory in 2008 and set atarget to reduce emissions by 25% from 2006levels by 2020, and reduce govern ment-relatedemissions 25% by 2015. The municipal govern-ment has announced plans to offer free com-pact fluorescent bulbs to city residents, retrofitoutdoor city-owned lighting and perform ener-gy audits on all large city government buildings,but has not yet rolled out these initiatives.

Energy: 19th, 61.5 pointsAlthough ranked in the lower half of the Index inthe energy category, Miami has the second bestelectricity consumption, on a per unit of GDPbasis, among Index cities. It consumes only 75 gigajoules per $1 million of economic output,compared with the Index average of 332. This

76 77

Miami

where it ranks second, likely owing to the lack ofin dustry in the area. Given the size of Miami andlocal leaders’ sensitivity to using the city’s landeffectively, it is perhaps not surprising thatMiami also performs well in the area of land use,where it places tenth. The city places in the bot-tom half of the Index in other categories. Wasteremains a challenge – the city is one of three inthe Index that have not implemented more sus-tainable local waste management practices,including composting and converting waste by-products to energy. Buildings also presentopportunities for improvement. Despite themunicipal government’s limited role in someareas of decision-making, regarding for exampletransport, water treatment and air quality,Miami has demonstrated an awareness of en vironmental issues and intention to make im prove ments in the areas where it has capa city to act.

CO2: Second, 90.1 pointsCO2 is Miami’s best category performance. Thecity emits 166 metric tons of CO2 per $1 millionof GDP, compared with the Index average of 296.The city’s per capita CO2 emissions levels likewise

With only 35 square miles of area, Miami isthe smallest city in the US and Canada

Green City Index. However, because Miami has a rather large population, at 433,000, it is con-sidered a high-population-density city in thisstudy. The city has the eighth lowest GDP percapita in the Index, at $39,500, based on one ofthe most services-oriented economies amongthe 27 cities. Miami has developed considerablyin recent years and officials predict that the citywill add at least 50,000 residents by 2020.Despite this expansion, Miami has managed topreserve historical areas and also assist the stategovernment in protecting the nearby Evergladeswetlands. Nevertheless, because many of theservices provided to Miami residents, includingpublic transport, are administered by the Miami-Dade County government, city officials have not attained the same level of achievement ortaken as active a role as their peers in initiatingenvironmental programs and policies. The datafor Miami came from the city and the wider met-ropolitan area, which has a population of 5.5 million.Miami ranks 22nd overall in the Index. Itsstrongest performance is in the CO2 category,

reveals the extent to which Miami is unburdenedby the energy intensive impact of an industry-ori-ented economy. Per capita energy con sump tion,at 38 gigajoules per person, is also better thanthe Index average of 52. As the hottest city in theIndex, most of Miami’s energy is consumed bybuildings as electricity, perhaps explaining whysome of the city’s green incentives in this area(see “green initiatives” in the buildings category,below) pertain to improving energy efficiency inbuildings.

Green initiatives: As part of its 2008 MiPlan:City of Miami Climate Action Plan, Miami hascommitted to reducing its greenhouse gas out-put by 429,000 metric tons annually, mainly byusing more renewable energy and more localsources of power (the latter help cut energy

losses during transmission and delivery). Whilethere aren’t any major renewable projects in thecity currently, the municipal government hasinstalled four demonstration solar panels in thecity hall building. It has also retrofitted thebuilding’s lighting to make it more energy effi-cient, which has led to a 9% increase in energyefficiency. The city uses approximately $2.8 mil-lion in federal Energy Efficiency and Conserva-tion Block Grant fun ding to retrofit 16 munici-pal buildings to im prove energy efficiency.

Land use: Tenth, 59.2 pointsAlthough Miami’s parks budget is relativelymodest, the city has still managed to introduceseveral programs such as tree planting andgreen space improvement and expansion. Thesepolicies will, if effective, help Miami increase theamount of green space it has from its current 6%of total area, which is half the Index average of12%. Miami performs well in terms of density, at12,400 people per square mile compared withthe Index average of 8,100, and is the only low-population city in the Index to be classified as ahigh-density city, owing to the small administra-tive area it covers.

Green initiatives: Miami has established abrownfield and land revitalization initiative,extending several financial and legal benefits to developers who clean up contaminated sites,including low-interest loans and tax credits on building materials. The county govern-ment also offers economic incentives for brown-field clean-up and development, including taxcre dits, low-interest loans, administrative-feewaivers and insurance. One of the main green initiatives is the Eastward Ho! Corridor, a 115-mile expanse of land stretching across threecounties that contained more than 2,100 conta-minated sites when the program began in 1995.To date, the partner governments have formu-lated com munity outreach strategies, initiatedenviron mental assessments and secured over$190 million in investment to clean up morethan 260 of the sites.

Buildings: 23rd, 26.7 pointsThe city has relatively few buildings certified by Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED), at only 0.9 per 100,000 people,com pared with the Index average of 6.4. It alsoseems to lack a coherent set of policies aimed ataddressing building performance, such as in -centives to retrofit or mandatory energy audi -ting. Buildings are an area where Miami hasroom for improvement, though it will likely con-tinue to face the challenge of limited re sourcesand need to depend, at least in part, on county-level initiatives in this area. Given the largeamount of development going on in Miami,beginning by addressing energy effi ciency withdevelopers may be the city’s best bet for makingprogress in buildings.

Green initiatives: As part of the city’s 2010Miami 21 program, it started requiring all public










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

MiamiBestAverage

Air


78 79

buildings over 5,000 square feet and other build-ings over 50,000 square feet to comply withLEED silver requirements. This follows a 2008ordinance requiring all city departments to onlybuy energy-consuming products that meet Ener-gy Star energy efficiency requirements, a federalgovernment standard. In 2008 the city alsopledged to reduce emissions from buildings by975,000 metric tons, or roughly 20% from 2006levels, by 2020. There are several county andstate-level rebates and tax credits available forhomeowners and businesses for energy efficientretrofits for buildings. Also to facilitate energyefficiency improvements, Miami passed an ordi-nance allowing for expedited permitting for LEEDsilver-certified buildings. And in 2011 the citywill start construction on its Miami Green build-ing, which will serve as a green building resource

center for the community, providing educationalevents and a showcase for green technologies.

Transport: 14th, 51.2 pointsThe city offers only 0.4 miles of public transportper square mile, compared with the Index aver-age of 1.1 mile. Likewise, the number of publictransport vehicles available per square mile, atabout four, is below the Index average of ninevehicles. This reveals the extent to which Miamitransport largely depends on personal automo-biles, a fact that is reflected in high congestionlevels. However, Miami still performs slightlybetter than the Index average for commutetimes, at 27 minutes compared with 29 min-utes. Currently only 6% of Miami workers travelby public transit, bike or foot compared with theIndex average of 13%. Still, compared with

other high-temperature cities, which tend tohave poor rates of public transport usage,Miami outperforms in terms of the percentageof residents that use public transit, and per-forms well against other low-population citiesfor public transit availability.

Green initiatives: Under its climate actionplan, Miami has committed to reducing green -house gases associated with transport by565,000 metric tons, or approximately 12% from 2007 levels, by 2020. To do this, the cityaims to reduce the number of vehicle miles trav-eled, increase fuel efficiency and the use of alter-native fuels, and promote alternative transporta-tion. The city has eliminated high-occu pancyvehicle (HOV) lanes on one major expresswayand converted them into high-occupancy toll(HOT) lanes, which charge tolls for solo drivers atbusy times. The city has used revenues from theHOT lanes to roll out bus rapid transit on a limit-ed basis. After HOT lanes were initiated in 2008,bus ridership rose 30%. In October 2009 the cityadopted its first “Bicycle Master Plan” to becomemore bicycle friendly. Additionally, Miami cur-rently uses 10% biodiesel fuel for its non-emer-gency fleet and plans to increase this to 20%.

Water: 17th, 78.2 pointsMiami has only 8% of leakages in its water distri-bution system, which compares favorably withthe Index average of 13%. The region is prone tostorms that can overwhelm the wastewater sys-tem and make sewer overflows difficult to avoid.Miami’s direct authority in the area of watermanagement is limited by the fact that the cityhas awarded Miami-Dade County responsibilityin delivering water services to city residents.However, municipal officials have a record ofstrong policymaking in terms of effective wateruse, promoting water conservation and improv-ing stormwater management. Miami’s score inthis category is constrained by high water con-sumption. The city consumes 173 gallons ofwater per person per day, considerably morethan the Index average of 155 gallons.

Green initiatives: City officials approved abroad series of water-related goals in 2007,including better resource management, plan -ning, conservation and pollution prevention, butit is unclear how much progress has been made.At the county level, since 2007 Miami-DadeCounty has had water-related regulations fornew construction, including water-efficient land-scaping and other conservation measures.

Waste: 23rd, 28.4 pointsMiami’s performance in this area is weigheddown by a lower than average recycling rate

and some weaknesses in waste managementpolicies. The city recycles an estimated 18% ofmunicipal waste, compared with the Indexaverage of 26%. This estimate is based onMiami-Dade County statistics, because data forthe city of Miami alone is not reported. While ithas a curbside recycling program (see “greeninitiatives” below), Miami is one of three citiesin the Index that does not yet appear to havetaken substantial steps towards implementingmore sustainable, non-landfill waste treatmentsuch as composting or converting waste toenergy, which weighs on its score.

Green initiatives: Miami has a curbside re -cycling program available to all single familyhomes and for apartment buildings with up tothree residential units, or roughly 69,000homes citywide, or about 42% of neigh bor -hoods. The city’s Solid Waste Department pro-vides eligible homes with bins, in which resi-dents can place all recyclable materials, regard -less of type. Larger apartment blocks and allbusinesses in the city must contract privateproviders for recycling.

Air: 21st, 57.8 pointsIn terms of pollutants, the city ranks slightlybetter or on par with the Index averages, with 54 lb of nitrogen oxides per person annually versus the Index average of 66 lb, 18 lb per person versus the average of 25 lb for annualparticulate matter emissions, and 22 lb per per-son annual sulfur dioxide emissions, equal to the average. The city’s residents are highlydependent on automobiles, which affects pol-lution levels.

Green initiatives: The city does not have anyspecific programs to address air quality andcompliance with federal Environmental Protec-tion Agency regulations is administered byMiami-Dade County. The county governmenthas some measures to combat air pollution,including restricting the sale and purchase ofrefrigerant products.

Environmental governance: 21st, 62.2 pointsDue to the limited role that municipal govern -ment plays, Miami has not made as much

progress as Index leaders on formulating envi -ron mental strategies and implementing poli-cies aimed at improving environmental perfor -mance. However, the city has taken some stepsby reporting its environmental performancepub licly, establishing a dedicated en viron -mental au thority, and engaging and securingthe support of the mayor. Going forward, thetest for Miami will be how to creatively use itsresources and administrative capabilities toeffectively rally public support and achievequantifiable improvements in environ mentalgovernance.

Green initiatives: Miami’s municipal govern -ment established the Office of Sustainable Initiatives in 2007 to coordinate the city’s en -vironmental programs and improve environ -mental performance. Countywide, the En viron -mental Education Program of Miami-DadeCounty, founded in 1997, is a consortium oflocal non-profit organizations, government agencies and schools that provides training andworkshops throughout the year, and publishesenvironmental information on its website.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

County

MSA

County

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2006

2006

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2010

2005

2005

2005

Miami

165.8

9.3

0.08

37.9

6.3

12,375.3

0.9

5.9

0.4

21.8

4.5

26.7

18.0

172.6

8.3

54

18

22




City of Miami; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

City of Miami; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







Miami-Dade County Department of Solid Waste

USGS

Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department




CO2: 23rd, 40.2 pointsAt 30 metric tons per person, Minneapolis’s CO2

emissions, generated from a variety of sources,including transport and the city’s large manu-facturing base, are the highest in the Index, andwell above the Index average of 14.5 metrictons. Emissions per $1 million of GDP are simi-larly higher than average, at 543 metric tons,compared with the average of 296 metric tons.However, for reasons of data availability andcomparability, the Index figures were takenfrom 2002 for all of the US cities in the Index,and in the meantime Minneapolis has benefit-ted from strong emissions policies. It has one ofthe best carbon emissions reduction strategiesin the Index, and in 2005 the city persuaded thepublic utility to convert two large coal-firedpower plants to natural-gas-fired combustion,lowering CO2 and air pollution considerably.Figures released by the utility company showthat CO2 emissions at these plants dropped 13%between 2000 and 2006.

Green initiatives: In 2005 Minneapolis wasone of the early cities to sign the US Mayors Cli-mate Protection Agreement, which calls forcities to set a goal to reduce greenhouse gasemissions by 7% from their 1990 levels by 2012.In addition, the municipal government has com-

mitted to reducing its CO2 emissions 17% by2020, using 2006 as a baseline. To achieve thistarget, the city’s climate change incentive pro-gram, which began in 2007, awards residentsup to $10,000 for innovative and immediateenergy-saving and cost-saving actions, such asbuilding rooftop gardens or reducing energy inthe home.

Energy: Seventh, 76.5 pointsMinneapolis has the lowest electricity con -sumption per $1 million of GDP of all the Indexcities, at 54 gigajoules, compared with the Index

80 81

Minneapolis

strongest performance is in the land use catego-ry, where it places second, with almost one-fifthof its area given over to green space, and strongpolicies aimed at revitalization and public tran-sit-focused development. Minneapolis alsoranks in the top third of the Index in several othercategories, including energy, water, waste,trans port and environmental governance. Thecity has not only developed a comprehensiveenvironmental strategy, but has also takenaction to implement policies aimed at improvingareas where it has direct municipal control, suchas water, waste and transportation infrastruc-ture. Minneapolis has a seemingly inconsistentperformance in managing air pollution, but hasalready taken action to address these issues –persuading the local utility to undertake volun-tary efficiency improvements, for one, whichfew other cities have been able to do.

M inneapolis is comparatively small both interms of administrative area and popula-

tion, spanning 54 square miles and with a popu-lation of only 390,000 residents. The city has alarge manufacturing base and a number of thecountry’s largest corporations are head quarteredthere. With a per capita GDP of $50,200, it isamong the high-income cities in the US andCanada Green City Index. Minneapolis was oneof the first cities in the US to incorporate environ-mental sustainability into city planning, whichhas encouraged other similarly sized cities in andoutside of the region to follow suit. Often consid-ered “one to watch” by environmentalists, pros-pects are good for continued environmentalaction in Minneapolis. The majority of data in theIndex for Minneapolis are based on the metropol-itan area, which has a population of 3.3 million.Minneapolis ranks 10th overall in the Index. Its

average of 332 gigajoules. The city also per-forms well in terms of electricity use per person,at 23 gigajoules, the second best figure in theIndex, and well below the average of 52 giga-joules. Both figures are based on 2009 data.Minneapolis’ strong performance in this areareveals the success of robust local initiatives toreduce energy consumption and increase effi-ciency. The city benefits as well from state-gov-ernment-led initiatives, including a regu lationrequiring utilities operating in Minnesota toobtain 30% of their electricity from renewableresources by 2020. Minneapolis aims to do itspart to support the statewide goal and has com-mitted to increasing the city’s share of renew-able energy to 10% by 2014.

Green initiatives: In 2005 Minneapolis suc-cessfully lobbied the local public utility to trans-form two of its coal-fired power plants to natur-al gas. Completed in 2006, this project has beencredited with reducing sulfur dioxide and nitro-gen oxides emissions from power plants by over 90%. In another initiative, through a $2 mil -lion grant provided by the utility, the city builtthe largest urban solar array in the Midwest in November 2010. Comprising more than 2,600 solar panels atop the Minneapolis Con-vention Center, the project is expected to pro-duce enough electricity to power the equivalentof approximately 85 homes, offsetting roughly540 metric tons of CO2 emissions.

Land use: Second, 80.1 pointsWith residential use constituting over half of thecity’s area, Minneapolis has the third highestpercentage of green space in the Index, at 20%,compared with the average of 12%, and it is byfar the best performer among low-populationIndex cities. And despite its relatively small pop-ulation and small area, Minneapolis’s popula-tion density is among the mid-range for theIndex, at 7,100 people per square mile, not farbelow the Index average of 8,100. The city’s suc-cess with green space, as well as populationdensity, is the result of proactive policies. Itshowed initiative early on with regard to brown-field revitalization, creating a task force in 1987to respond to imminent neighborhood decline.More recently, in 2000 the city adopted a zoningcode that encouraged high-density develop-ments focused around public transportation.

Green initiatives: Since 1994 the city hascleaned up hundreds of brownfield sites whileleveraging over $1 billion of private investment,according to its own reports. In addition, the cityhas introduced a more broadly defined Neigh-borhood Revitalization Program, created inorder to improve residential areas, and bring res-

idents and other stakeholders into the neighbor-hood planning process. By 2005 the city claimedit had spent $280 million on improving neigh-borhoods, and in a 2010 report set a further tar-get to improve at least 100 sites by 2014, includ-ing beautification and landscaping efforts,neighborhood cleanups, and improvement ofarea pedestrian and bicycle paths.

Buildings: 18th, 37 pointsMinneapolis performs close to the Index averagewhen it comes to Leadership in Energy and Envi-ronmental Design (LEED)-certified buil dings,










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

MinneapolisBestAverage

Air Land use


82 83

with 6.5 per 100,000 persons, compared withthe average of 6.4. This figure has been helpedby 2006 legislation mandating LEED certification(see “green initiatives” below). Room for im -prove ment, however, remains. For example,Minneapolis does not require energy audits, andit only receives partial marks in the Index forenergy efficiency standards in buildings or givingincentives for retrofits. The city has led by exam-ple though with small, but high-profile projects,such as installing a green roof on the historic CityHall and Courthouse building.

Green initiatives: In 2006 the city of Min-neapolis re quired all new municipal buildings of 5,000 square feet or larger, as well as majorreno vations, to meet LEED silver-level require-ments. The city also launched a project in 2010to use more than $11.6 million in federal stimu-lus money to upgrade 725 single-family low-income housing units. The nature of the retro-fits will be basic improvements, such as in -stalling energy efficient appliances, boilers,water heaters and new thermostat-program-ming devices.

Transport: Seventh, 63.9 pointsMinneapolis has the shortest commuting timeof all the cities in the Index, at 24 minutes, com-pared with the Index average of 29 minutes.Although it is widely regarded as a bicyclefriendly city, car reliance remains an issue. Only8% of workers travel by public transit, bicycle orfoot, compared with the index average of 13%.And, with only 0.5 miles of public transport persquare mile, compared with the index averageof 1.1, Minneapolis could improve its mass tran-sit provision. Nevertheless, Minneapolis hasmade a strong commitment to alter residents’behavior by encouraging more public transituse and non-motorized transport. In recentyears, the city has set a target to build 163 milesof new bike trails and has already nearlyreached that goal; it also boasts a 12.3-milelight rail line that connects to the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport, the Mall of Ameri-ca, Target Field and the Metrodome.

Green initiatives: The municipal governmenthas initiated several programs to encourage resi-dents to take greener forms of transport, includ-ing the Pedestrian Master Plan, MinneapolisBicycle Program, Non-Motorized TransportationPilot Program, and a bike sharing program. Forthese programs it has used local, state and feder-al funding, including a $21.5 million federalgrant awarded to four communities nationwide.Some of the services these programs offer areenabling residents to purchase daily, monthly oryearly bicycle subscriptions from over 65 kiosks

in downtown Minneapolis; utilizing bicycle lock-ers available downtown; and providing business-es and private buildings with bicycle racks, withthe city paying half of the cost. Furthermore,over the past five years, the city has been con-verting all its High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. Theseremain free of charge for HOVs but, when thelanes are underused, allow cars with single dri-vers to drive in them for a fee to reduce trafficcongestion.

Water: Fourth, 88.2 pointsMinneapolis is defined by the vast network ofwaterways – rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands– that surround it, and the city has a long historyof taking initiative to improve its water manage-ment system. The city’s history of proactive man-agement and policies are demonstrated by con-sumption and leakage figures in the Index. It hasa better than average per capita water consump-tion, at 124 gallons per person per day, versus theindex average of 155. Minneapolis also performsbetter than the Index average for water leakages,at 6% compared with 13%.

Green initiatives: The city’s main wastewatertreatment facility is the largest in the state, andone of the largest in the country, treating morethan three-quarters of the city’s wastewater. Sev-eral improvements are planned through 2030, atan estimated cost of $3.8 billion, including up -grading to a $20 million processing system thatwill reduce air pollution and remove harmfulchemicals such as mercury.

Waste: Fifth, 72.6 pointsMinneapolis’s recycling rate is better than the Index average, at 35% compared with 26%.The city has enacted several measures to en -courage recycling and composting, includingdifferen tial pricing based on how much waste isdisposed. Minneapolis also claims to be the

only city in the country to accept electronicwaste from residents at no cost. To continueimproving performance in this area, the city hasformulated strong waste reduction policies,such as setting a target to increase recyclingand compost volumes from 35% to 50% by2013, with 10% coming from composting.

Green initiatives: Minneapolis has extendedits recycling program to all municipal residentsin dwellings with fewer than four units, which

represents roughly 33% of the total municipalpopulation, according to the city’s recyclingcoordinator. The cost of the city’s recycling pro-gram is covered by garbage collection fees.

Air: 22nd, 57 pointsPollutant levels in Minneapolis are much higherthan the Index averages. Nitrogen oxides, at 126 lb per person, are the highest in the Indexand almost double the Index average of 66 lb.However, as with CO2 emissions, the city hasstrong policies in place to address the issue of pol-lution. Already, Minneapolis has demonstratedintentions to improve air quality by setting airquality targets consistent with the recommenda-tions of the federal Environmental ProtectionAgency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committeeand the state health guidelines. And municipalauthorities have set a target to reduce all moni-tored air toxins to levels within the state healthguidelines by 2015. According to a Minneapolisenvironmental report issued in 2010, in the fiveyears since the US Census Bureau statistics usedin the Index were re corded, air pollutant levelshave declined, although they remain a challenge.

Green initiatives: In 2010 the city said it hadreduced fuel use in its municipal fleet by 14,000tons, increased the number of hybrid vehiclesby 9%, and added 45 hybrid-electric buses to itsfleet in 2008. This brought the total number

of hybrid-electric buses to 67, roughly 8% of the fleet.

Environmental governance: Eighth, 93.3 pointsHaving decided early to take action on environ-mental issues, Minneapolis has carved out aniche for strong leadership, not only com paredwith other cities with similar demogra phics, butalso compared with larger, wealthier cities.Although the city places eighth, its high score

illustrates that Minneapolis is a leader in environ-mental governance. The city has a well-definedenvironmental stra tegy that includes specific tar-gets; an annual reporting structure; a dedicateden vironmental authority; public aware -ness-rai -sing campaigns; and a robust degree of citizenengagement and overall transparency.

Green initiatives: Minneapolis has establisheda Citizen’s Environmental Advisory Committee toadvise the city on its environmental and sus -

tainability initiatives. The committee includestwo citizens, two representatives from environ -mental advocacy groups, two environ mentaltechnical experts, two representatives from in -dus try, and representatives from the MinneapolisSchool and Hennepin County boards. The com-mittee discusses issues of environmental concernand makes recom mendations to city officials on programs or actions that can be taken toimprove Minneapolis’s overall environmentalperformance.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP




Using city area


Using city area

Residential waste only





Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2009

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Minneapolis

542.9

30.0

0.05

23.3

19.5

7,136.6

6.5

7.9

0.5

13.4

1.5

24.3

34.9

123.6

6.0

126

36

34




City of Minneapolis; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

City of Minneapolis; US Census Bureau

City of Minneapolis

US Census Bureau







Minneapolis Solid Waste and RecyclingDepartment

USGS

City of Minneapolis




reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by2020 from 1990 levels. As a first step in thisdirection, in 2007 Montreal adopted a plan toreduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by2012. Specific measures include reducing de -pendence on cars by encouraging public tran sit and bicycling alternatives, reducinggreen house gas emissions from buildings, andpublic awareness campaigns on climate changetargeted at residents and employees.

Energy: 26th, 33.8 pointsMontreal's rank in this category is driven in partby per capita electricity consumption of 68 giga-joules per person compared with the Index aver-age of 52 gigajoules, but primarily by electricity

consumption per unit of GDP, which at 956 giga-joules per $1 million of GDP is nearly three timesthe average of 332 gigajoules. Montreal is thesecond coldest city in the Index, resulting in highenergy usage during winter months. The city’senergy policies also have room for improve-ment. It does not appear to have incentives inplace to encourage local energy production, forexample; however, with 97% of electricity forthe city and surrounding province supplied byrenewable hydropower, there is less reason forMontreal to establish its own programs. On theother hand, Montreal runs a clean energy pro-gram and pilot projects in solar and geothermalpower (see “green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: Fonds Energie is a $3 millioncity-run investment program to finance energyefficiency and clean energy projects in munici-pal districts. Eight projects, including energyefficiency retrofits and clean energy heating sys-tems, have received $2 million in backing since2008. The projects have combined to eliminatethe equivalent of nearly 800 tons of CO2, andthe program has won a national award for

84 85

Montreal

with other low-income cities in the Index, rank-ing fifth out of 11 cities in this bracket. It is in thetop half of the group of low-income cities for allbut two categories, energy and water.

CO2: Tenth, 80.1 pointsThe city has among the lowest per capita CO2

emissions in the Index, at 8.5 metric tons perperson compared with the Index average of14.5 metric tons. Although Montreal belongs tothe group of low temperature cities in this Indexand requires more power for that reason, itderives almost all of its electricity from hydro -power, which greatly reduces its carbon output.In terms of emissions per unit of GDP, though,Montreal’s low income hurts its score. The cityemits an estimated 268 metric tons of CO2 per$1 million of GDP, but this is still slightly betterthan the Index average of 296. Montreal hasmade commitments to reduce emissions fur ther(see “green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: As part of the MunicipalLeaders Summit on Climate Change held inDecember 2005 in Montreal, the city agreed to

Montreal is the largest city in the French-speaking province of Quebec, and with

1.6 million people it is the second largest city inCanada and the sixth largest city in the US andCanada Green City Index. Montreal’s metropoli-tan area expands beyond the Island of Montrealto include 3.6 million people, and a mix of cityand metropolitan area data are used for thisIndex. Although Montreal is the financial hub forQuebec, the city remains relatively industrial,boasting one of the largest inland ports in theworld. In total, goods make up 20% of employ -ment, the fourth largest percentage in theIndex. Additionally, although Montreal is theeconomic capital of Quebec, Montreal’s GDP percapita is the lowest in the Index at an estimated$31,500.Montreal ranks 19th overall in the 27-city Index.The city’s strongest category is transport, whereit places fourth, a performance due mainly tohaving the second highest percentage of non-automobile commuters in the Index. Montreal’soverall score is in part a result of its low incomeand limited funding for environ mental initia-tives. However, Montreal fares better compared

municipal climate change and poverty reductionprograms. Montreal has begun pilot projects toimplement solar and geothermal energy inmunicipal buildings. These projects aim toestablish standard specifications to allow thecity to increase the use of renewable energy onmunicipal property. Montreal promises to com-plete at least one renewable energy pro -ject annually for the next three years in citybuildings.

Land use: 12th, 57.7 pointsLike other island cities such as New York and Van-couver, Montreal has a favorable populationdensity, with 11,500 people per square mile(4,400 people per square kilometer) compared

with the average of 8,100 people per squaremile (3,100 people per square kilometer). Mon -treal also has a considerable share of greenspace, at 19% compared with the Index averageof 12%, placing it among the top five cities in this indicator. Despite these statistics, Mon treal’sland use policies are less developed than thoseof most of its peers in the Index. While it is seek-ing to increase its amount of green space (see“green initiatives” below), the city is one of onlyfive that does not have a tree-planting policy.

Green initiatives: In 2010 the city set a goal toincrease the percentage of green space fromabout 19% to 25% by 2025. As part of this goal,Montreal has created 10 “ecoterritories”, specialzones of protection for natural areas. It is alsocreating promenades through the city’s mostdensely populated sections and reassessingpotential threats to green space such as plantinfestations resulting from warming tempera -tures. Another initiative, Revi-Sols, is a brown -field rehabilitation program that helps propertyowners and developers pay to clean up sites bycontributing up to half of the costs. Since 1998

the program has subsidized clean-ups for 132 development projects in Montreal, coveringnearly 509 acres.

Buildings: 19th, 36.4 pointsMontreal has 1.7 buildings per 100,000 peoplecertified by Leadership in Energy and Environ-mental Design (LEED) compared with the Indexaverage of 6.4, although a recent law (see“green initiatives” below) is likely to lead to in -creases in LEED certification for both new andrenovated buildings. Montreal has limitedautho r i ty in mandating energy efficiency auditsor regulations, but the provincial governmentruns buildings-related programs, such as offer-ing up to $1 million in financial incentives forcom panies that improve the energy efficiency oftheir buildings.

Green initiatives: From 2010 Montreal hasrequired LEED gold certification for all new pub-lic buildings of more than 500 square metersand LEED silver certification for all major renova-tions to public buildings. To be certified, build-ings must meet minimum requirements forenergy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissionsreduc tion and improved indoor environmentalquality.

Transport: Fourth, 65.3 pointsTransport is Montreal’s strongest cate gory. Mon-treal’s public transit system in general is one ofthe best in the Index. It has the sixth longest sys-tem, at 2.1 miles per square mile (1.3 kilometersper square kilometer), com pared with the Indexaverage of 1.1 miles (0.7 kilometers), and thecity has 18 public vehicles available per squaremile (7 vehicles per square kilometer), doublethe average of nine vehicles per square mile










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

MontrealBestAverage

Air


(3.5 vehicles per square kilometer). While thecity’s average commute time is longer than normal due to long commutes from elsewherein the metropolitan area onto the island, thecity’s high population density ensures efficienttransport once in the city of Montreal. The city’shigh score is also driven by having the secondhighest share of non-automobile commuters –29% of workers commute by public transit, bicy-cle, or on foot, more than double the Index aver-age of 13%.

Green initiatives: Montreal introduced Cana-da’s first self-service bicycle rental network, BIXI,in 2009. With 5,000 bicycles and 400 dockingstations, it is currently the largest bicycle shareprogram in North America. Also, Montreal creat-ed a transportation master plan in 2008 as partof a wider strategy to address sustainability. Theplan aims to implement 21 initiatives by 2018,including a downtown tramway system, up -grades and extensions to the subway, a rail lineto the airport, a bus rapid transit system and pri-ority bus lanes, doubling the length of the city’sbicycle paths, and improving walkability in thedowntown. Finally, Montreal is buying high-fuel-efficiency diesel buses as well as hybridbuses, and plans to have an en tirely electric busfleet by 2025.

Water: 26th, 47.2 pointsMontreal has both the highest water distribu-tion leakage rate, at 35% compared with theIndex average of 13%, and the highest per capi-ta water consumption, at 293 gallons (1,110liters), compared with the average of 155 gal-lons (587 liters). The two statistics are linked.One major cause of Montreal’s high water con-sumption figure is leakage and that means near-ly half of the water is not actually “consumed.”The city promotes water conservation, but untilthe city’s aging pipes are replaced, it will contin-ue to produce high rates of leaks and, corre-spondingly, consumption.

Green initiatives: In 2002 Montreal beganinstalling water meters at all businesses andpublic institutions such as schools and hospitals,and aims to have installed 30,000 meters by2013. Though meters are not required for resi-dences, the city is raising public aware ness of water conservation in homes, including send-ing teams of students to deliver door-to-doorwater conservation messages. In 2008 Montrealpassed a bylaw requiring a permit for industrialfacilities to dispose of wastewater into the city’streatment system. In 2008 more than 760,000cubic meters of wastewater was pro perly treat-ed and discharged into the sewer system – 40%more than in 2007.

Waste: Ninth, 63.7 pointsThe city is above average in recycling, with a34% recycling rate compared with the Indexaverage of 26%, driven by extensive recyclingfacilities available to the public, including sepa-rate facilities for hazardous materials such asbatteries or paint. Montreal also has a compre-hensive waste reduction plan (see “green initia-tives” below) and is making efforts to convertwaste to energy, although these programs arestill in the pilot stage.

Green initiatives: Montreal has a comprehen -sive plan to increase the amount of total wasterecovered through recycling and compostingfrom 31% in 2008 to 80% by 2019. The city’scommitments include banning single-use waterbottles in municipal buildings, replacing plasticsused in city food banks, offering organic wastecollection to all residents, and building newcom posting centers. In another initiative, in2008 Montreal put together a database of wastematerials that can be converted into works of artand began connecting donors with artists. Tohighlight these efforts, the city has hosted eco-designer bazaars in which eco-designers can selland demonstrate works of art made from thesematerials.

Air: Eighth, 79.5 pointsThe city ranks slightly better than the averagesfor the three pollutants evaluated in the Index.It emits an estimated 57 lb (26 kg) of nitrogenoxides per person, compared with the Indexaverage of 66 lb (30 kg); 18 lb (8 kg) of particu-late matter per person, compared with the aver-age of 25 lb (11 kg); and 10 lb (5kg) of sulfurdioxide per person, compared with the Indexaverage of 22 lb (10 kg). While these figures are estimates, one of Montreal’s chief efforts

recently has been to improve measurement ofair pollutants, ensu ring greater accuracy in thecoming years and helping improve both residen-tial and com mercial pollution.

Green initiatives: In 2008 Montreal authori -ties adopted an action plan aiming to counterpollution caused by wood heating, a majorsource of residential air pollution in the city. Theplan contained new regulations on burning anda public awareness campaign.

Environmental governance: 20th, 74.4 pointsAlthough the city has a strong environmentalstrategy complete with ambitious targets andfully backed by the mayor, it is less open aboutre porting its environmental statistics. However,the city has run programs in the past to raisegeneral aware ness of environmental issuesamong city residents.

Green initiatives: Montreal’s Community Sus-tainable Development Plan 2010-2015 was de -vel oped in collaboration with over 180 partnerorganizations, including civil society. The plancalls for the reduction of greenhouse gas emis-sions, the responsible management of naturalresources, the adoption of sustainable develop-ment practices in industry, business and institu-tions, and the protection of biodiversity andgreen spaces. Additionally, Montreal offerstraining to help citizens better manage theirhousehold waste, and informational sessions onclimate change for organizations involved inenvironmental protection. City officials havealso taught college-level courses on environ-mental issues, and city employees have trainedalmost 1,000 students and food handlers onsustainable practices.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments



Using CMA GDP



Equivalent in metric units: 4,439 persons/km²



Using CMA population; Equivalentin metric units: 39.1 km/person


Using city population; Equivalent in metric units: 1,109.5 liters

NOx from non-industrial, mobile, and waste sources. Data point has been scaled-down from provincial level by proportionof GDP represented by Montreal;Equivalent in metric units: 26 kg

PM10 from non-industrial, mobile, and waste sources. Data point has been scaled-down from provincial level by proportionof GDP represented by Montreal;Equivalent in metric units: 8 kg

SOx from non-industrial, mobile, and waste sources. Data point has been scaled-down from provincial level by proportionof GDP represented by Montreal;Equivalent in metric units: 5 kg

Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

CMA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

CMA

City

City

City

City

City

City

Year

2006

2003

2009

2009

2006

2006

2010

2006

2009

2010

2010

2005

2009

2010

2009

2009

2008

2008

Montreal

268.5

8.5

0.96

67.6

18.5

11,496.1

1.7

28.8

2.1

24.3

18.0

38.0

34.0

293.1

35.0

57

18

10


City of Montreal

City of Montreal

City of Montreal

City of Montreal

City of Montreal

Statistics Canada

CaGBC LEED Database

Statistics Canada

Société de Transport de Montréal



Statistics Canada

City of Montreal

City of Montreal

City of Montreal, Division of Public Affairs

Environment Canada, Statistics Canada



86 87

sions per capita and CO2 emissions per unit ofGDP. With emissions of 145 metric tons of CO2

per $1 million of GDP, the city has the secondlowest levels in the Index and is well below theIndex average of 296 metric tons. Likewise, NewYork’s per capita emissions are 8.6 metric tonsversus the Index average of 14.5. The city’sstrong CO2 performance is a reflection of its effi-cient transportation network and a compara-tively low use of coal in its energy mix. NewYork’s CO2 score is expected to improve furtherin the coming years as the city has set ambitioustargets for emissions reductions (see “green ini-tiatives” below) and the city’s greenhouse gasreduction plan is rated as one of the best in theIndex.

Green initiatives: Launched in 2007, NewYork’s Long-Term Plan to Reduce Energy Con -


88 89

New York City

top ranking city in land use, transport and envi-ronmental governance, and finishes third in theCO2 and air categories. In particular, New Yorkhas by far the highest population density and per-centage of workers commuting by public trans-port, bicycle, or by foot, while also producing topperformances in several air and water indicators.While the city’s high rankings stem in part from itsenormous population, which produce favorableper capita scores, New York also fares well incomparison to other large cities in the Index.Measured against large cities, New York ranksfirst in every category except for waste and ener-gy. Additionally, New York has one of the highestpercentages of green space, belying its popula-tion density.

CO2: Third, 89.4 pointsNew York ranks well both in terms of CO2 emis-

New York City is the largest city in the US, andwith 8.4 million residents in the city proper

it is by far the largest in the US and CanadaGreen City Index. Indeed, with some 19 millionpeople in the metropolitan area, New York is oneof the most populous cities in the world,although this analysis is largely based on cityindicators. The city is the economic powerhouseof North America and boasts a GDP per person of$56,900. A global financial and business capital,New York’s economy is 91% service based. Inaddition to the dominant role that finance andinsurance play in the local economy, the city is also a major hub for media and the arts. New York’s population and wealth make itunique within this Index, as does its populationdensity – four of the city’s five boroughs are onislands, constraining its lateral growth.New York ranks third overall in the Index. It is the

sumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions man-dates a 30% greenhouse gas reduction formunicipal facilities and operations by 2017 from 2006 levels. Around 50% of the reduc-tions will come from efficiencies in buildings, 32% from improved power generation and18% from transportation. The city has allocated $280 million for the plan, and has begun morethan 200 projects, 80 of which have been com-pleted. A further 118 projects currently in thepipeline will save the city an additional $29 mil-lion a year and reduce annual greenhouse gasemissions by an estimated 117,000 mega tonsof CO2 equivalent.

Energy: 22nd, 53.8 pointsThis is New York’s weakest category in the Index.The city consumes 500 gigajoules of electricityper $1 million of GDP, compared with an Indexaverage of 332. On a per capita basis the cityuses 65 gigajoules per person, once again morethan the overall average of 52 gigajoules. NewYork’s higher than average levels of consumptioncome despite high population density and anabundance of tall buildings, which tend to bemore efficient (indeed, New York ranks seventhin the buildings category). Nonetheless, NewYork’s thriving economy requires considerableenergy, especially its vast financial services sec-tor, which is one of the most energy intensiveservice industries. And although the city plans tooffer tax incentives for solar power, and is pilot-ing wave power and waste-to-energy projects,large-scale green and local energy projects so farremain limited.

Green initiatives: New York is conducting fea-sibility studies and streamlining permitting pro-cedures for cogeneration – the use of a heatengine or a power station to simultaneouslygenerate both electricity and useful heat – andhas planned a 15-megawatt cogeneration plant.Additionally, New York is creating an online“solar map” that will enable residents to evaluatethe potential for solar power production on thebuildings in which they live and work.

Land use: First, 93 points Along with transport, this is New York’sstrongest category. New York is the most dense-ly populated city in the Index, with 27,700 peo-ple per square mile, more than three times theav erage of 8,100 people. Yet, despite such ahigh population density, the city has also man-aged to maintain and develop green space –most notably Central Park, but also several otherparks and coastlines throughout the five bor-oughs. With 20% of the city’s area consideredgreen space, New York ranks second overall,well above the Index average of 12%. As the city

has shifted away from industrial production ithas been active in promoting brownfield devel -op ment, and New York’s land use policies areamong the best in the Index.

Green initiatives: The Million Trees Programcreated in 2007 aims to plant 1 million trees by2017. New York is currently ahead of its goal,having planted an average of 19,000 street treeseach of the past three years and planting in totalover 430,000 trees in parks, open spaces andprivate backyards. Additionally, in 2010 NewYork created the Green Property CertificationProgram to do for brownfields what Leadershipin Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) hasdone for green buildings. Certification under theprogram provides tangible evidence of thebrownfield clean-up and can help developersmarket the environmental quality of their prop-erties, much in the way that LEED has become akey selling point for buildings.

Buildings: Seventh, 68.7 pointsNew York’s comparatively strong showing in thebuildings category is a reflection of ambitiouspolicies. New York, for example, is one of justthree cities in the Index that requires energy









0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

New York CityBestAverage

Air


Land use

90 91

efficiency audits. It also mandates that newbuildings meet energy efficiency standards, andoffers incentives for energy efficiency retrofits,including targeted incentives for businesses.New York’s buildings score is weighed down,however, by a low percentage of LEED-certifiedbuildings. In an instance where the city’s largepopulation hurts its per capita indicators, NewYork has just 1.1 LEED certified buildings per100,000 people, well below the average of 6.4.

Green initiatives: In December 2009 NewYork approved the Greener, Greater Buildingslaws, the most comprehensive set of efficiencyregulations in the US, which aim to reduce ener-

gy costs by $700 million annually by 2030.Together these measures ensure that the city’senergy code applies to all public and private con-struction projects, require annual energy effi-ciency benchmarking, and mandate a set ofcost-effective energy efficiency upgrades andevaluations of the city’s largest buildings.

Transport: First, 76.6 pointsNew York’s domination of this category is aresult of the extensive subway and bus networks that span the city’s five boroughs. The networkmeasures 1.8 miles per square mile of city terri-tory, well above the Index mean of 1.1 miles.High population density encourages walkingand biking as well. Indeed, New York ranks firstoverall in the number of workers walking, bikingor taking public transport to work – 37% of NewYorkers commute by means other than privatecar, a full eight percentage points above the sec-ond highest city, Montreal, and well above theIndex average of 13%. New York also has thehighest number of “annual vehicle revenuemiles” (a measure of public transport supply),with 68 miles per person compared with anIndex average of just 24. The city has the secondhighest number of public transport vehicles persquare mile, at 45 vehicles, compared with theIndex average of nine. Furthermore, New York’sgreen transit efforts include the largest hybrid-electric bus fleet in the world, with 855 hybridbuses as of 2009.

Green initiatives: Green Light for Midtown, a pilot project launched in May 2009 that hasnow been made permanent, created expandedpedes trian plazas in Herald Square and TimesSquare. Overall, the program produced a 63% re duction in injuries to motorists, a 35% re -duction in pedestrian injuries and a 7% im -prove ment in taxi speeds. New York has alsodoubled the number of bicycle lanes in the cityin the last three years and met its goal of build-ing 200 miles of bicycle lanes ahead of schedulein 2009. In the last year, the city has seen bicy-cle commuting increase 26%.

Water: Third, 88.8 pointsNew York’s strong placement in this category isdriven by the city’s low level of water con -sumption, at just 69 gallons of water per personper day, less than half the Index average of 155 gallons. The city’s water policies have effec-tively curbed consumption levels, and theseinclude incentives for installing low-flow ap pli -ances and discount water rates for buildings thatuse recycled water. New York’s water leakagerate is 14%, just above the Index average of 13%,mainly due to an aging network, with somewater mains more than 100 years old.

Green initiatives: As of 2010 the Departmentof Environmental Protection, which provideswater services in New York, had installed over278,000 automated meters and expects toinstall a total of 834,000 by January 2012. As aresult of metering and water conservation pro-motion, New York’s water con sumption rate isnow at its lowest in 50 years.

Waste: 16th, 53.1 pointsThis is one of New York’s weaker categories. Thecity’s score is bolstered by a better than av -erage recycling rate, at 30%, compared to theIndex average of 26%. Where the city lags, how-ever, is in policies related to sustainable wastemanage ment. New York relies primarily onaware ness campaigns rather than direct incen -t ives for waste reduction.

Green initiatives: The Apartment BuildingRecycling Initiative allows tenants to volunteerto increase recycling in their building. Residentswho volunteer for the program receive a sitevisit from staff who offer personalized recyclingtips, as well as free materials to encourage allresidents to recycle more.

Air: Third, 89.2 pointsNew York’s placement in the air category is areflection of low per capita emissions in all pollu-tants measured in the Index. New York emits 29 lb of nitrogen oxides per person each year,considerably less than the average of 66 lb, plac-ing it at the top of the Index. Likewise, New Yorkranks first, along with Vancouver, with particu-late matter emissions of 6 lb per person, wellbelow the Index average of 25 lb. Sulfur dioxideemissions of 10 lb per person each year alsocome in below the 22 lb Index mean. While thecity’s service-based economy and low automo-bile usage are major contributors to the compar-atively low levels of air pollution, policy effortshave also contributed to improved air quality.Indeed, New York aims to have the best air quali-ty of any big city in the US.

Green initiatives: New York has sought tomandate the use of cleaner taxis and offer tax breaks to fuel-efficient taxis. While courtshave blocked the city from introducing thesemeasures thus far, in anticipation of futurerequirements almost 25% of the city’s 13,200 yellow cabs have converted to hybrid orclean diesel vehicles, giving New York thelargest fleet of clean vehicle taxis in the coun-try. Ad di tionally, in 2010 New York unveiled acomprehensive agreement that will cut harmfulpollution from the Port of New York and NewJersey by launching a $28 million truck re place -ment program.

Environmental governance: First, 100 pointsNew York tops the Index in environmentalgover nance, along with Washington and Den -ver. There is strong support from the top themayor, Michael Bloomberg, is a driving forcebehind the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.New York’s environmental strategy, internation-al commitments and customized environ mentalawareness campaigns are all considered amongthe best in the Index. Furthermore, the city has


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2009

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2006

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

New York

145.0

8.6

0.50

64.7

19.7

27,666.8

1.1

37.2

1.8

68.5

44.9

34.6

30.4

69.3

14.2

29

6

10




City of New York; US Bureau of EconomicAnalysis

City of New York; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







City of New York

USGS

City of New York




four separate environmental departments thatare responsible for driving policy on a vast rangeof environmental issues.

Green initiatives: In addition to generallystrong environmental oversight at city level, NewYork is developing customized environ mentalawareness campaigns tailored to specific sectorsof the public, including the press, schoolchildrenand those in the building trades. The city is alsofocusing on schools. New York established its first

“green” public school in 2008 and has plans tobuild more. The school is equipped with a com-puterized heating and cooling system, and natur-al lighting, to conserve electricity. Mean while,students are educated on the merits of conserv-ing energy and participate in conservation pro-jects. Finally, the New York state Green SchoolsChallenge provides extra funding to schools,including those in New York City, that are devel-oping programs to improve waste reduction,reuse, recycling and composting.

strengths. Orlando has one of the strongest setsof policies for clean and efficient energy in theIndex, and boasts a relatively high number ofLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED)-certified buildings in relation to its popu-lation. It is also one of the most adept citiesamong other low-income peers at recyclingmunicipal waste. The city’s transport score isbolstered by the lead it is taking on the installa-tion of battery-charging stations for electricvehicles. But Orlando still has room for improve-ment. The city would benefit from expanding itspublic transport network and strengtheningpolicies to curb carbon emissions.

CO2: 21st, 52.2 pointsThe city emits 254 metric tons of CO2 per $1 mil-lion of GDP, which is more than 40 metric tonsbelow the Index average of 296. Orlando’s CO2

emissions per capita, at 13.5 metric tons, arealso narrowly better than the Index average of14.5 metric tons. Despite better-than-averageCO2 emissions, policy omissions weigh on Orlan-do’s score. The city is one of just five in the Indexthat have failed to set any of their own targets toreduce city-wide CO2 emissions, and its strategyfor reducing greenhouse gas emissions fallsbehind the more ambitious ones in Index: Orlan-do’s commitments on greenhouse emissions arein line with long-term national targets only (see“green initiatives” below), whereas many citieshave set separate targets.

Green initiatives: Orlando, in line with nation-al targets, has committed to making all city oper-ations greenhouse gas-neutral by 2030 and toreducing total greenhouse gas emissions (muni -cipal and non-municipal) 80% from 1990 levelsby 2050. To achieve these goals the city begantransitioning its automotive fleet to bio-diesel,flex-fuel and hybrids. By 2009 one-third of thefleet was running on cleaner fuels. By the sameyear every stoplight and pedestrian signal in thecity was converted from incandescent bulbs tomore energy efficient LEDs.

Energy: 17th, 64.2 pointsOrlando consumes 118 gigajoules of electricityper capita, more than double the overall averageand one of the highest rates in the Index. This isdue in part to the demand for residential heatingand cooling, which is a challenge for the wholestate. A recent US Energy Information Agencyreport found that residential electricity demandin Florida is among the highest in the countrybecause of widespread use of air conditioning inthe summer and home heating during the win-ter. The city does better on electricity consump-tion per $1 million GDP, which, at 319 gigajoules,is slightly better than the Index average of 332.

92 93

Orlando

ulation terms, with just 240,000 residents. Dataincluded in the Index, however, are based on amix of statistics for the city and wider metropoli-tan area, which has a far greater population of 2.1 million. Orlando boasts the third highestaverage temperature in the Index, placingstrains on energy demand, because of air condi-tioning in the summer months.Orlando ranks 18th overall in the Index. Thecity’s highest ranking is in the waste category,where it places 12th thanks to a better thanaverage recycling rate. Although Orlando’s per-formance is near the middle of the table in allmain categories aside from CO2, where it is 21st,the city can claim a number of environmental

Orlando is located in the southern US state ofFlorida. Home to several of the country’s

largest theme parks and resorts, Orlando’s thriv-ing tourism sector dominates local economicactivity. Additionally, it is home to one of thecountry’s biggest convention centers, attractinglarge numbers of business visitors each year.High tech, aviation and aerospace, and film andtelevision production also contribute signifi-cantly to the city’s economy, and many engi-neering and manufacturing firms have set upbase there. Orlando has a GDP per capita of$41,800, which places it at the upper end of thelow-income group of cities in the US and CanadaGreen City Index. The city is the smallest in pop-

Orlando also scores the highest marks, alongwith Denver and Toronto, for clean and efficientenergy policies. The city promotes green energy,has embarked on green energy projects (see“green initiatives” below), and has in creased theamount of locally-produced energy as a propor-tion of its overall energy consumption.

Green initiatives: Orlando is one of 25 UScities carrying “Solar America City” status, enti-tling it to federal funding of $200,000 to devel-op solar power infrastructure. Orlando intendsto install 11 megawatts of solar energy by 2011,increasing to 15 megawatts by 2015. The instal-lation of LEDs at road signals (see “green initia-tives” under “CO2” above) is saving the city morethan $25,000 a month through lower energyconsumption.

Land use: 16th, 54.5 pointsOrlando’s proportion of green space, at just un -der 5% of its administrative area, is one of thesmallest in the Index. Decades of rapid popula-tion growth resulted in urban sprawl in thealready small confines of the city limits. Orlandoofficials appear to have recognized the problemand are now making some concerted policyefforts. The city is actively improving the quanti-ty, proximity and usability of green space, andmeasures are in place to protect existing greenspace from building development. With statehelp, Orlando also promotes brownfield regen-eration (see “green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: With assistance from theFlorida Department of Environmental Protec-tion, Orlando has designated several brownfieldsites for regeneration. A number of areas havealready been revitalized, including a new eventscenter in downtown Orlando and a performingarts complex located on a 34-acre brownfieldarea. Additionally, the city has an active tree-

planting policy and has replaced the estimated10,000 trees lost to hurricane damage in 2004.Orlando set a goal in 2010 to increase treecanopy coverage to 40% by spring 2011, upfrom the 25-35% estimated canopy coverage inthe city when the goal was set.

Buildings: 16th, 42.3 pointsLow-income cities generally score lower in thebuildings category, particularly in policy areas,and Orlando is no exception. Energy efficiencyregulation for new buildings is not as strict as inmany other Index cities, and Orlando could domore to inform residents and businesses aboutways to decrease energy consumption. The cityhas, however, increased efforts to retrofit low-income and high-energy households throughsubsidies (see “green initiatives” below). Thenumber of LEED-certified buildings in Orlando is9.3 per 100,000 people, which is one of thehighest ratios among low-income cities and well










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

OrlandoBestAverage

Air


94 95

above the Index average of 6.4. The strong per-formance on this indicator is a reflection of thepriority the city has given to making its buildingsmore sustainable: since 2007 the city has con-structed all new municipal buildings to meetLEED standards and says it is drafting a newbuildings code that will establish standards forgreen homes.

Green initiatives: In 2010 Orange Countylaunched its Homeowner Energy Efficiency

Program (OCHEEP!). Backed by nearly $700,000in federal funds, OCHEEP! provides homeown-ers subsidies of up to $1,000 for energy efficien-cy upgrades. To be eligible, applicants must firstgather ten or more people together for freeworkshops. The workshops are intended tochange energy usage habits and cover a rangeof topics from common reasons for energywaste in homes to new technologies. Uponcompletion of the workshop homeowners arerequired to hire a certified energy rater, whotests the energy efficiency of a property and cre-ates a customized plan to improve performancein each home. After implementing the rater’ssuggestions, OCHEEP! participants receive re -bates of $300 for the energy audits and up to$700 for up -grade work.

Transport: 18th, 49.4 pointsOrlando’s rank in this category is a reflection ofthe city’s underdeveloped public transport net-work. On a per square mile basis, the Orlandometropolitan area has both the shortest publictransport network, at just 0.001 miles persquare mile, and lowest vehicle availability, at0.2 vehicles per square mile, in the Index. How-ever, the city has ambitious plans to expand itsbus rapid transit network and commuter raillinks (see “green initiatives” below). Additional-ly, Orlando and Florida state authorities arebuilding a 61-mile rail transit line to improvecommuter links across four counties. Service isexpected to begin in 2013. But the city will needto boost worker enthusiasm for greener forms oftransport. Only around 3% of workers use publictransit, bicycles or go by foot in Orlando, whichis well below the Index average of 13%. WhereOrlando scores well is for policies to reduce con-gestion and its efforts to make the city fleetgreener.

Green initiatives: Orlando is part of Charge-Point America, a US government-backed pro-gram to roll out electric vehicle infrastructurenationwide. Under the scheme, which the cityjoined in June 2010, up to 500 charging stationswill be installed around Orange County by theend of 2011. The city also aims to increase usageof its bus rapid transit system from just over4,000 daily passengers today to 20,000 by2030. Although plans haven’t been finalized, it’s expected the city will extend the free servicefrom its current 1.5-mile stretch in downtownOrlando to 3.6 miles. The city has said it will like-ly have to introduce a passenger fee between$0.25 and $1.50 per ride.

Water: 14th, 81 pointsThis is one of Orlando’s strongest placements inthe Index. The city gains points for its relatively

efficient water distribution system. It loses 10%of supply to leaks against an Index average of13%. Water efficiency and treatment policies arealso strong. Main water sources are monitoredfor quality and supply levels, and measures arein place to lower water usage. One weakness isrelatively high water consumption. Orlandoconsumes 193 gallons of water per capita perday. This is well in excess of the Index average of155 gallons, but high temperature cities, likeOrlando, do tend to consume more water thanaverage.

Green initiatives: To encourage water conser-vation, the city offers rebates as credit on waterbills to residents who install cisterns to collectand reuse rainwater. The rebate is $0.10 per gal-lon up to $1,000 and cistern storage capacityranges from 200 gallons to 10,000 gallons.Additionally, during summer months wateringdays are limited to two per week per household.Household numbers, odd or even, determinewhich days they can water.

Waste: 12th, 58 pointsOrlando records its highest placement in thewaste category. The city recycles 38% of itsmunicipal waste versus a much lower 26% Indexaverage. The performance looks even moreimpressive when taking into account that lowincome and low population density cities gener-ally score below average on this indicator, andunlike many cities, Orlando has not yet fullyrolled out a single-stream recycling program.Nonetheless, relatively strong policies havehelped. Orlando picks up points for installingfacilities to treat different types of waste (recy-clable, hazardous and industrial) and for adopt-ing good waste management practices, such ascomposting and converting waste by-productsto energy. One policy oversight is the absence ofany measures to reduce waste creation.

Green initiatives: Orlando’s Solid Waste Man-agement Division provides single-stream recy-cling service to businesses in certain areas of thecity. To encourage company participation, col-lection fees for recycling bins are approximately43% cheaper than for standard waste bins.

Air: 18th, 66.4 pointsOrlando’s annual emissions of particulate mat-ter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are eachin line with Index averages. Like other services-intensive cities with low population densities,Orlando records higher emissions of both partic-ulate matter and nitrogen oxides than the Indexfrontrunners. The city does comparatively betteron sulfur dioxide emissions, but Orlando is oneof three cities in this Index that has not adopted

Environmental governance: 16th, 82.2 pointsOrlando ties with Dallas in the environmentalgovernance category. The city scores well foractively involving residents in environmentalprograms and seeking public input on projectsthat have an environmental impact. Orlandoholds regular public hearings to give residentsthe opportunity to participate in policy imple-mentation. Furthermore, Orlando and Orange

County produce regular reports on environmen-tal progress. Areas for improvement include theneed for a more comprehensive baseline reviewand setting more explicit targets for each envi-ronmental issue.

Green initiatives: In 2007 the city convenedan internal “green team” comprising staff repre-sentatives from across municipal departments.The team’s mandate was to draft a comprehen-sive plan to transform Orlando into an environ-mentally-friendly city. As a result, in mid-2007Orlando unveiled its environmental actionagenda: Green Works Orlando. The plan in -cludes actions to conserve local natural re -sources; invest in green building and vehicles;foster alternative transport options; increasethe amount of trees and green spaces in thecity; provide residents the tools and informa-tion they need to become more environmental-ly responsible; and encourage community par-ticipation in environmental projects. GreenWorks Orlando remains the pillar of local envi-ronmental action today.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2010

2010

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Orlando

254.4

13.5

0.32

117.7

4.9

2,536.1

9.3

3.2

0.001

12.6

0.2

27.0

38.0

193.4

10.0

62

26

20




Orlando Utilities Commission; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Orlando Utilities Commission; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







City of Orlando

USGS

Orlando Utilities Commission




proactive policies to improve air quality, whichweighs on its score.

Green initiatives: With federal funding,Orange County’s Air Quality Management divi-sion oversaw the retrofitting of nearly 400school buses in 2007 and 2008. Buses were fit-ted with diesel oxidation catalysts to reduce theamount of carbon monoxide and particulatematter being emitted into the atmosphere.

measured against other cities with low popula-tion densities, Ottawa places first for carbonemissions overall. The city has taken proactivesteps to improve its already strong performancein this category. Officials set a goal to reduceCO2 emissions by 20% by 2012, compared to1990 levels, and this is one of the earliest andmore ambitious CO2 reduction targets in theIndex.

Green initiatives: In 2005 Ottawa’s Air Qualityand Climate Change Management Plan estab-lished targets for greenhouse gas reduction and


96 97

Ottawa

places third. The city limits encompass numer-ous semi-rural areas, which combine to give itthe highest percentage of green space in theIndex. Ottawa also fares well in the CO2 andtransport categories, placing fifth in both. Itsper capita CO2 emissions are among the lowestin the Index while the city also boasts one of thehighest percentages of workers commuting bypublic transport, on foot or bicycle. As noted,many of the environmental challenges Ottawafaces are the result of its low population densi-ty. However, compared to other cities with lowpopulation densities, Ottawa fares well; itplaces second in this group, while scoring firstin CO2, land use and transport.

CO2: Fifth, 86 pointsOttawa’s per capita CO2 emissions of just 6.9 met ric tons per person are the second lowestin the Index and well below the average of 14.5 metric tons. The city also performs relative-ly well in the area of CO2 emissions per $1 mil-lion of GDP, at 197 metric tons, compared withthe Index average of 296 metric tons. When

The capital of Canada, Ottawa is by far thelargest city in terms of area in the US and

Canada Green City Index. Sprawling over 1,100square miles (2,800 square kilometers), it isnearly double the size of the second largest city,Houston, and more than five times the Indexaverage of 211 square miles (546 square kilo-meters). This vast area is home to just a mid-range population of 810,000, giving Ottawathe lowest population density among the 27 cities in the Index. Ottawa’s metropolitanarea, with a population of 1.1 million, spills intoneigh boring province Quebec, and a mix of cityand metropolitan data are used in the Index.The city’s low population density and extremeclimate are principal strains on its environment.Ottawa’s economy, dominated by services, isbased primarily on housing the federal govern-ment. And although it is one of Canada’s high-tech hubs, its per capita GDP of $38,500 is oneof the lowest in the Index. Ottawa ranks 12th overall in the Index and thirdamong the five Canadian cities. Ottawa’s bestperformance is in the area of land use, where it

outlined the types of measures that would, iffully implemented, achieve the plan’s targets.The government pledged to reduce emissionsfrom its own activities by 20% from 1990 levelsby 2007, a goal the city met. As noted above, thecity is now embarking on an effort to reduceemissions 20% by 2012. However, the chal-lenges of continued population growth, lack ofdirect municipal control over such variables asbuilding code standards, fossil fuel generation,and vehicle fuel efficiency, have put this targetinto question.

Energy: 20th, 56.9 pointsOttawa’s performance in this category is bol-stered by relatively low per capita electricityconsumption of 34 gigajoules per person, com-pared with the Index average of 52 gigajoules.However, due to having a low per-capita GDP,Ottawa’s electricity consumption per unit ofGDP is comparatively high, weighing heavily onits ranking. The city consumes 626 gigajoules ofelectricity per $1 million, nearly twice the Indexaverage of 332. Ottawa also lags in local energyproduction, although its plans to increase solarpower in the coming years (see “green ini -tiatives” below) will boost its performance inthis area.

Green initiatives: In May 2010 Ottawa ap -proved two solar parks on land near a municipallandfill. The two ground-mounted solar photo-voltaic fields could harness enough solar energyto power 1,500 homes annually. The project is apartnership with a private green energy compa-ny that allows the firm to lease lands for thesolar parks for 20 years. The private companywill design, construct, operate and maintainboth sites. Under the agreement, which isexpected to begin in 2012, the city wouldreceive a fixed payment of approximately$125,000 from the utility annually while the pri-vate company would enter into a feed-in tariffcontract with the Ontario Power Authority andretain revenues for its power generation.

Land use: Third, 75 pointsThis is Ottawa’s best category performance inthe Index. As noted above, the city limits encom-pass an area that is five times larger than theaverage city in Index, creating both opportuni-ties and challenges for land use policies. On onehand, Ottawa has by far the lowest populationdensity in the Index, at 800 people per squaremile (300 people per square kilometer), justone-tenth the Index average of 8,100 people persquare mile (3,100 people per square kilome-ter). While this low population density leads tosome urban sprawl, the city limits also encom-pass vast amounts of green space. One-fifth of

the land within Ottawa’s large city boundaries isgreen space, the highest percentage in theIndex and well above the average of 12%. Thecity has protected this greenbelt for decades andhas recently made an effort to transform thesegreen spaces into woodlands, further improvingits landscape.

Green initiatives: Ottawa’s Green Acres Pro-gram provides landowners with advice and assistance in setting up a tree planting plan fortheir properties. Among the program’s goals is to achieve 30% forest cover (up from 27%, currently) and to plant 100,000 trees between2006 and 2011. In 2006 Green Acres planted91,920 trees to create 45 hectares of new forest.

Buildings: 22nd, 28.2 pointsOttawa’s score in the buildings category isweighed down by a shortage of Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certi-fied buildings. The city claims 1.7 LEED build-ings per 100,000 people, well below the Indexaverage of 6.4, but this could improve as regula-tions implemented in 2005 take full effect inthe future (see “green initiatives” be low). None -theless, the city does not appear to requireenergy efficiency audits, which further weighson its overall buildings score. Ottawa is also oneof just four cities in the Index that do not offerhomeowners incentives to make retrofits toimprove energy efficiency. However, it is cur-rently exploring ways to offer tax breaks forhomeowners to implement retrofits.

Green initiatives: As of 2005 all newly con-structed buildings in Ottawa greater than 500 square meters must be designed, deliveredand certified by the Canada Green BuildingCouncil as being LEED-Canada “Certified” atminimum. All newly constructed buildings



Administrative area (miles2) 1) 1,100






0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2


Energy

OttawaBestAverage

Air Land use

98 99

must also incorporate energy efficient featuresinto the building design to meet the standardsrequired by another program, the CommercialBuilding Incentive Program of 2006.

Transport: Fifth, 65.1 pointsOttawa’s strong performance in transportreflects an extensive and widely embraced pub-lic transport system that links the metropolitanarea. Ottawa boasts the third highest share ofworkers commuting by public transit, bicycle,or foot, at 28%, more than double the Indexaverage of 13%. Compared with other lowincome cities in the Index, Ottawa has the sec-ond highest share of workers traveling bymeans other than private automobiles. TheOttawa metropolitan area also has the thirdlongest public transit network in the Index, at3.9 miles per square mile (2.4 kilometers persquare kilometer), compared with an averageof 1.1 miles per square mile (0.7 kilometers persquare kilometer). This is a feat made moreimpressive by the city’s vast total area. Ottawa’sscore is weighed down, however, by a low rateof public transit vehicles, coming in at just 0.8 vehicles per square mile (0.3 vehicles persquare kilometer), compared with the averageof nine vehicles per square mile (3.5 vehiclesper square kilometer). Meanwhile, the city hasbeen active in promoting public transit andalternative fuels (see “green initiatives” below),which ensure that Ottawa will remain one ofthe top cities for transport in North America.

Green initiatives: In 2004 Ottawa launchedan ambitious plan for introducing alternative-fuel vehicles into its city fleet. By 2009 Ottawahad converted all of its nearly 250 buses tobiodiesel fuel and over 1,000 total city-ownedvehicles to electric/hybrids or ethanol biofuels.Furthermore, the Ottawa Traffic Master Planaims to make public transit more affordablewhen compared to driving and better integratetransit with other modes of travel. The plan also

calls for the implementation of new tracks andstations that improve transit’s service whereverpossible. The city has also started designing alight rail network, which is in early planningphases now and is expected to become fullyoperational by 2019.

Water: Eighth, 84.9 pointsOttawa’s very low per capita water consump-tion, which is among the best in the Index, bol-sters its performance in the water category. Thecity consumes just 75 gallons (284 liters) ofwater per person per day, less than half theIndex average of 155 gallons (587 liters).Ottawa’s water efficiency plan (see “green ini-tiatives” below) has been effective and isexpected to keep the city among the leaders inefficient water consumption. The city’s rank inthis category, however, is hindered by aboveaverage water leakages. Ottawa loses 15% of itswater to system leakages, compared with theIndex average of 13%. Furthermore, Ottawa isalso one of only four cities that do not promotethe use of recycled water, further hurting itsperformance.

Green initiatives: WaterWise, initially laun -ched in 2005, is a comprehensive plan to im -prove water efficiency in Ottawa. The campaignfocuses on public education, rebates on waterefficient items, and assistance with the cost ofwater audits and fixture retrofits. In 2009 the

city introduced a regulation to restrict water usethrough metering, and in 2013 the city plans toexplore financial penalties for inefficient com-mercial and residential water use.

Waste: Eighth, 66.2 pointsPolitical will has put Ottawa at the forefront of waste-to-energy programs in Canada (see“green initiatives” below), which supports thecity’s score in this category. Canada’s capital alsotakes deliberate measures to reduce waste, andto this end, runs programs that advocate re -duced packaging, reusing plastic goods and con-suming fewer beverages from plastic bottles.Despite progressive policies, the city’s recyclingrate is nearly average for the Index: Ottawa recy-cles 25% of municipal waste, compared to theaverage of 26%.

Green initiatives: In 2008 Ottawa was the firstmunicipality in Canada to permit the construc-tion of a 100-ton per day commercial gasifica-tion demonstration facility. The 15-megawattfacility is set to begin construction in 2011, andwill be capable of supplying electricity toapproximately 15,000 households. Similar tosystems in Europe, waste is converted into ahigher form of gas called PlascoSyngas. ThePlascoSyngas is further refined to remove allmajor air contaminants and used to fuel a com-bustion engine that produces steam to turn aturbine that produces energy.

Air: 13th, 76.7 pointsOttawa’s air pollution levels vary greatly de -pending on the specific pollutant, leading to amiddling rank in this category. Due to a compar-atively low use of automobiles, the city hasbelow average levels of particulate matter emis-sions at 14 lb (6 kg) per person, compared withthe Index average of 25 (11 kg), and is close tothe Index average in terms of nitrogen oxidesemissions, at 66 lb (30 kg) per person per year.In large part due to cold weather, the city emits afar greater amount of sulfur dioxide than theIndex average, at 36 lb (16 kg) per person versus22 (10 kg). Ottawa recently piloted a unique airquality mapping project that has enabled the

city to identify high-polluting and sensitiveneighborhoods, and intends to use the results toimplement a number of air quality initiativesand reduce its overall air pollution.

Green initiatives: Ottawa’s Air Quality and Cli-mate Change Challenge includes several recom-mendations aimed specifically at air qualityimprovement. In addition to transit, building andland use initiatives mentioned above, the planincludes implementation of smog control mea-sures that discourage such activities as the use of

single occupancy vehicles, and high consump-tion vehicles and appliances, as well as control ofnon-source emissions such as wood combustionand road dust.

Environmental governance: 21st, 62.2 pointsAlthough Ottawa has an environmental strate-gy in place, the plan lacks baseline measure-ments for all categories. Ottawa’s performancein this category is further hindered because it isless transparent in environmental issues than


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments


Using CMA GDP



Equivalent in metric units: 292 persons/km²



Using MSA population; Equivalent in metric units: 37.9 km/person



Using city population;Equivalent in metric units: 30 kg



Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

CMA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

CMA

City

City

City

City

City

City

Year

2008

2008

2009

2009

2005

2006

2010

2006

2009

2009

2009

2005

2005

2010

2010

2004

2004

2004

Ottawa

197.0

6.9

0.63

33.5

20.0

757.1

1.7

28.4

3.9

23.5

0.8

32.5

25.0

75.0

14.5

66

14

36


City of Ottawa, Planning and Growth Management Department

City of Ottawa, Planning and Growth Management Department

Hydro Ottawa

Hydro Ottawa

City of Ottawa

Statistics Canada

CaGBC LEED Database

Statistics Canada

City of Ottawa, communication with city official

OC Transpo

OC Transpo

Statistics Canada

City of Ottawa



City of Ottawa, Planning and Environment Committee



most cities in the Index, with environmentaldata not as readily available as in other cities.However, Ottawa’s performance is boosted bystrong public involvement in environmentalmatters. The environmental committee holdspublic events, including area tours, whichdemonstrate the effects of city life on the localenvironment. Furthermore, the committeereports directly to the city council on greenissues, providing a forum for citizen action.

Green initiatives: In 2008 Ottawa, in partner-ship with the non-profit software company Zero-footprint, launched an information campaignthat helps residents calculate their carbon foot-prints and adopt methods for reducing emis-sions. The program has a component gearedspecifically towards schools, where students canmonitor their greenhouse gas emissions andteachers learn tips for ways to incorporate sus-tainability into the curriculum. Thus far, nearly40,000 residents have registered with the pro-gram, with savings calculated at more than26,000 tons of CO2 emissions.

low), it does not require energy efficiencyaudits. Furthermore, with just 2.5 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-cer-tified buildings per 100,000 people, Philadel-phia ranks well below the Index average of 6.4.

Green initiatives: Philadelphia has set a goalto complete energy efficiency retrofits on 15%of its public housing by 2015. To highlight thisgoal, in 2010 the city held a neighborhood con-test called the “RetroFIT Philly Coolest Block”, apublic-private partnership between the city anda private company, in which city blocks com -peted to see how much they could reduce ener-gy expenses. Seventy-four blocks entered thecontest to win cool roofs, air sealing and insula-tion upgrades. All told, these efforts aim to helpPhiladelphia meet its target of 100,000 housesretrofitted by 2015.

Transport: 21st, 47.2 pointsTransport is another of Philadelphia’s weaker

works and contribute to reducing the city’s CO2 emissions.

Energy: Tenth, 72.5 pointsBetter than average levels of electricity useboost Philadelphia’s score in the energy cate -gory. The city consumes 28 gigajoules of electri -city per person each year, versus the Index aver-age of 52 gigajoules. Additionally, Philadelphiaconsumes just 154 gigajoules of electricity per$1 million of GDP, less than half the average of332 gigajoules. When measured against othermid-income cities, Philadelphia has the bestrecord for electricity consumption compared toeconomic output. Philadelphia’s efforts atgreening this consumption, however, are onlyjust beginning. In 2009 the city set a goal to pur -chase and generate 20% of electricity from alter-native energy sources, and in particular the cityis planning to ramp up solar production (see“green initiatives” below). It has further plans forlocal geothermal and hydro production, but thusfar these remain undeveloped.

Green initiatives: Philadelphia has plans forthree large-scale solar installations, which to gether will provide enough electricity topower over 600 homes. By 2021 Philadelphiahopes to have solar generation capacity of over 57 mega watts, enough to power almost9,000 homes.

Land use: Seventh, 67.7 pointsThis is one of Philadelphia’s stronger categories.As one of the older cities in the Index, Phila-delphia benefits from high population densitythat makes efficient use of its land – the city has11,500 people per square mile compared with the Index average of 8,100. In terms ofgreen space, Philadelphia is just above the


100 101

Philadelphia









attracts large numbers of tourists each year. Thecity has a broad-based economy that ranges frompharmaceuticals and financial services to ship-ping and manufacturing. Services account forabout 88% of economic activity. Philadelphia’sGDP per capita, at $46,200, places it among themid-income cities in the Index. Philadelphia ranks 13th overall in the Index. Itsbest rankings are in the categories of environ -mental governance, where it places fifth, and airquality, at sixth. These results are driven by thecity’s much lauded green action plan, strong pub-lic participation in environmental manage ment,and low overall air pollution levels. Additionally,while it places seventh in land use, Philadelphia isfirst among middle-income cities in the land usecategory, a score driven by strong policies thatare likely to positively influence the city’s overallenvironmental performance in the coming years.Philadelphia’s weakest ranking is in the watercate gory, at 23rd, largely because it has one ofthe highest leakage rates in the Index.

CO2: 12th, 78.4 pointsPhiladelphia’s carbon emissions are slightly better than average both in terms of per capitaemissions and per unit of GDP. With 11.3 metrictons of CO2 emissions per person, the city emitsless than the Index average of 14.5. With respectto economic output, Philadelphia emits 233 met -ric tons of CO2 emissions per $1 million of GDP, again better than the overall average of 296 metric tons. For reasons of data availabilityand comparability, the CO2 figures were takenfrom 2002 for all of the US cities in the Index,and according to city officials Philadelphia has inthe meantime made progress reducing its emis-sions. Although a large percentage of Philadel-phia’s electricity is supplied by coal, the city’s lowoverall electricity consumption (see “energy”section below) contributes to this better thanaverage performance in carbon emissions. Still,city officials recognize room for improvementand have adopted an ambitious greenhouse gasreduction strategy (see “green initiatives” be -low) to reduce emissions by 20% by 2015, basedon 1990 levels.

Green initiatives: In May 2009 the city intro-duced the Greenworks Philadelphia plan, whichestablished its greenhouse gas emissions-reduction target. The city has been working toupdate an emissions inventory that will serve asa benchmarking tool for reduction goals. Offi-cials are gathering information from local utilitycompanies and calculating vehicle miles trav-eled to develop a citywide and regional green-house gas tracking and measurement system.The majority of Philadelphia’s environmentalprograms fall under the umbrella of Green-

Philadelphia is the largest city in the state of Pennsylvania, with a population of 1.6 mil -

lion. The metropolitan area, home to 6 millionresidents, flows into neighboring states New Jer-sey and Delaware, though city data are primarilyused in the US and Canada Green City Index.Philadelphia, one of the oldest cities in the US andthe home of the country’s constitution. It hostsseveral important national monuments and

average, with 13% of city territory classified as green space compared with the Index aver-age of 12%. Philadelphia is working to improvethis further (see “green initiatives” below), andhas adopted policies to encourage tree plantingand green-belt protection, including a series ofgreenways that connect parks and other greenspaces throughout the Philadelphia metro -po litan area.

Green initiatives: Green2015, launched by thecity in 2010, aims to create new open space dur-ing ongoing neighborhood redevelopments andto make vacant lots green. In total, it plans toacquire and redevelop an additional 500 acres of green public space and to ultimately providegreen space for the 202,000 residents who cur-rently do not live within a ten-minute walk of a park. Additionally, in April 2010 the Depart-ment of Parks and Recreation launched GreenPhilly, Grow Philly with the goal of increasing treecoverage to 30% in all neighborhoods by 2025.As an immediate step, the city has revised its zon-ing code to allow public and private tree plantingin additional areas, and performed a satelliteassessment of the current urban tree canopy,with the goal of planting 300,000 trees by 2015.

Buildings: 21st, 29.5 pointsPhiladelphia’s placement in the buildings cate-gory is largely a reflection of slow policy imple-mentation for energy efficiency standards inbuildings. The city has implemented just oneenergy efficiency regulation – that new buil -dings use highly reflective roofing materials thatmeet or exceed Energy Star cool roof standards.City officials are in the process of drafting morecomprehensive regulations, however. Althoughthe city has implemented incentives for energyefficiency retrofits (see “green initia tives” be -

0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

PhiladelphiaBestAverage

Air


Land use

102 103

categories in the Index. The score is largely areflection of a low number of public transportvehicles – the city has just three public vehiclesper square mile compared with the Index av -erage of nine. Similarly, Philadelphia has just 0.7 miles of public transit per square mile, ver-sus the Index average of 1.1. The city places nearthe middle of the Index for the percentage ofnon-automobile commuters, at 14%, just abovethe average of 13%. Furthermore, Philadelphia’smore ambitious projects to expand mass trans-port and implement car sharing and bicycle pro-grams have yet to fully materialize, and remaininstead future initiatives.

Green initiatives: In 2009 Philadelphia set agoal to reduce the number of miles residentsdrive annually by 10% by 2015 from a 2008baseline of 6.4 million. The city governmentrecently invested $191 million from the federalRecovery Act in improving subway tracks, andhas secured funding for residential and com-mercial development along transit linesthroughout the city that will encourage masstransit usage. In the next two to three years,Philadelphia plans to introduce new fare cardtechnologies to make travel quicker and toexpand its transit lines. In addition, to helpreduce city government energy consumption,in 2009 Philadelphia created the largest munici-pal car sharing program in the US.

Water: 23rd, 70.4 pointsThis is Philadelphia’s weakest placement in theIndex, relative to other cities. While per capita

water consumption in Philadelphia is better thanaverage at 134 gallons per person per day, com-pared with the Index mean of 155 gallons, thecity’s score is hindered by an aging sewer systemthat has one of the highest percentages of leaksin the Index. At 27%, Philadelphia’s leakage rateis more than double the Index average of 13%.The city has begun to implement new strategiesfor stormwater management to address not justlarge storms but the smaller, more frequentstorms common in the area (see “green initia-tives”).

Green initiatives: Under the 2010 program“Green city, clean waters” Philadelphia hasbegun to strengthen its stormwater regulationsand has approved stricter regulation for bothnew and existing drainage systems that will save over 1.3 billion gallons of water per year. Intotal, the city plans to invest $1.6 billion over the next 20 years to upgrade its stormwaterinfrastructure.

Waste: 13th, 57.6 pointsPhiladelphia’s middling rank in this categorycomes despite recent efforts (see “green initia-tives” below) to reduce waste and increase recy-cling. The city’s recycling rate, as a result ofthese programs, is now 37%, well above theIndex average of 26%. Meanwhile, Philadelphiahas regulations in place regarding specific typesof waste, such as hazardous or industrial, but admits that few residents or sanitationemployees regularly follow the regulations.The city is weaker too, relative to other cities’efforts, in terms of taking steps to finding alter-natives to landfills.

Green initiatives: In February 2010 the citygovernment launched Philadelphia RecyclingRewards, an innovative partnership with thenon-governmental organization RecycleBank.Under the program, residents receive pointsaccording to how much material they recycle,which they can redeem for discounts, gift cards,or charitable contributions at participating mer-chants and charities. Additionally, the city hasadded recycling facilities in commercial build-ings, public spaces, at municipal events and attransit stations.

Air: Sixth, 82.9 pointsOne of Philadelphia’s strongest categories, thisperformance is largely a reflection of the city’slow levels of air pollution across the board, particularly for having the third lowest levels ofparticulate matter, at just 12 lb per person, com-


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2006

2006

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Philadelphia

232.9

11.3

0.15

27.5

12.6

11,461.5

2.5

13.7

0.7

26.7

3.2

28.0

37.4

134.4

26.5

46

12

12




City of Philadelphia; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

City of Philadelphia; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







City of Philadelphia

USGS

Philadelphia Water Department




pared with an Index average of 25. Addi tionally,Philadelphia emits 46 lb of nitrogen oxides perperson, compared with an average of 66 lb, and12 lb of sulfur dioxide, compared with the aver-age of 22 lb. A combination of comprehensive airquality policies, including a wide-ranging pro-gram to retrofit diesel vehicles in Philadelphia’smunicipal fleet (see “green ini tia tives” below),and the city’s largely service-based economy con-tribute to its good air quality.

Green initiatives: In 2009 Philadelphia beganreducing the amount of high-polluting dieselused in the city. The main effort involved a retro-fit of all city-owned diesel vehicles, inclu dingreplacing existing filters and adding diesel oxi-dation catalyst equipment. As of 2010, 1,680out of 2,400 diesel vehicles had been retro -fitted. The city also replaced 70% of its police ve -hicles with more fuel-efficient vehicles, helpingre duce overall gasoline consumption. Additio -nally, in 2009 the city government deployed676 biodiesel vehicles, purchasing 906,497 gal-lons of biodiesel; Philadelphia hopes to ex pandthe use of the fuel by 5% every year.

Environmental governance: Fifth, 94.4 pointsPhiladelphia ties with Houston and Los Angeles

in the environmental governance category,with a strong score and its best placement in the Index. Led by its Greenworks initiative(see “green initiatives” below), Philadelphia hasa comprehensive environmental strategy, in-cluding targets, reporting and baseline reviews,with support from the mayor. The city also hasbeen active in involving citizens in its decisions,although its openness on environmental per-formance is more limited than leading citiessuch as New York and Washington DC.

Green initiatives: Greenworks, Philadelphia’ssweeping environmental plan, encompassesthe majority of the city’s green programs – fromenergy reduction to park space to water man-agement – and diverse stakeholders fromthroughout the city were involved in the plan’sdevelopment. The Office of Sustainability spenta year researching municipal sustainability andpublicly consulting with residents while it draft-ed the plan. The city also conducted surveys ofenergy and transportation use in the city, andheld a number of community meetings andpublic hearings about proposed changes inadvance of launching the plan. Finally, the citycontinues to review its progress on an annualbasis and solicits public input on proposedchanges.

then governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano,established a statewide goal to reduce Arizona’sgreenhouse gas emissions to year 2000 levels by2020, and to 50% below 2000 levels by 2040.

Green initiatives: In 2005 Phoenix conductedits first inventory of CO2 emissions from cityoperations, and at the same time set a target toreduce the city government’s share of green-house gas emissions by 5% from 2005 levels by2015. In addition, since 2000 the city’s trans-portation department has been converting in -candescent traffic signal bulbs to more efficientLED lights, capable of reducing energy use by upto 90%. By 2007 the city claimed that more than9,000 LED lights had been installed in roughly80% of traffic signals.

Energy: Ninth, 72.9 pointsEnergy is Phoenix’s best category performancein the Index. The city’s per capita electricity con-sumption is better than the average, at an esti-mated 42 gigajoules compared with an Indexaverage of 52 gigajoules. However the city uses

an estimated 407 gigajoules per $1 million ofGDP, which is more than the Index average of332. Both of these numbers were estimated byscaling down state retail electricity figures from2008 to the city level. The city has strong energypolicies in place, receiving full marks, for exam-ple, for developing green energy projects. Also,in 2008 the City Council mandated that by 2025,15% of energy used by the city should comefrom renewable sources, which is consistentwith a target established by the Arizona stategovernment.

Green initiatives: The city launched EnergizePhoenix to transform a ten-mile stretch of thecity’s new light rail line (see “green initiatives”under “transport”) into a Green Rail Corridor.With $25 million in federal funding, Phoe nix isinstalling energy efficient air conditioners,


104 105

Phoenix

ranks ninth. Phoenix has committed to adhe ringto the state mandate requiring that 15% of itsenergy come from renewable sources by 2025.Phoenix is middling in the categories of CO2 andwater, though still in the bottom tier of theIndex. Transport and buildings remain challeng-ing areas mainly owing to issues associated withits large area, heavy reliance on cars and a cur-rent lack of Leadership in Energy and Environ-mental Design (LEED)-certified buildings.

CO2: 17th, 66.3 pointsThe amount of CO2 emissions Phoenix producesper $1 million of GDP, at 190 metric tons, ismuch less than the Index average of 296, andindeed is the lowest rate among cities with asimilarly low population density in the Index(below 5,000 inhabitants per square mile). Thismay be due, in part, to the fact that the city’seconomy is primarily services-oriented. Phoenixalso performs favorably in per capita CO2 emis-sions, which are, at 9.5 metric tons per person,well below the Index average of 14.5. In 2006

Aptly nicknamed the “Valley of the Sun”,Phoenix is a vast low-density city surroun -

ded by mountains. The city has a population of1.6 million, making it the seventh most popu-lous in the US and Canada Green City Index.With a services-oriented economy, including alarge contribution from tourism, Phoenix hasbeen one of the US’s fastest growing cities in thelast ten years. Despite this growth, the city has aper capita GDP of $37,300, well below the Indexaverage of $46,000 and the third lowest in theIndex. Given its location in the Sonoran desert,which receives only three to 15 inches of rainper year, Phoenix is required to make efficientuse of its surface water. Likewise, the high tem-peratures that discourage tall buil dings havecontributed, in part, to Phoenix’s expandingmunicipal footprint. Most of the data forPhoenix came from a mix of figures covering thecity and the wider metropolitan area, which hasa population of 4.4 million.Phoenix ranks 24th overall in the Index. Its bestperformance is in the energy category, where it

water heaters and windows, as well as smartmetering devices in homes and busines sesalong the corridor to help costumers reduceener gy usage. Furthermore, officials have ap proved several small solar panel installationsat fire stations, park restrooms, libraries, a solidwaste transfer station and the Phoenix Conven-tion Center. Also, the city’s public works depart-ment plans to build a utility-scale solar plant inthe city’s only active landfill, anticipated to bethe nation’s first concentrated solar thermal sys-tem at a landfill. It will be capable of generatingpower to an estimated 50,000 homes, and isscheduled to be completed by the end of 2012.

Land use: 20th, 49.6 pointsPhoenix has extensive nature preserves, and14% of the city’s area is dedicated to greenspace, compared with the Index average of 12%.However, the city is extremely spread out andnot densely inhabited. Though Phoenix is theseventh most populous city in the Index, its mas-sive area of 474 square miles makes it one of theleast densely populated, at 3,400 people persquare mile, compared with the Index averageof 8,100. Despite the challenges Phoenix facesto discourage sprawl, the municipal govern-ment has enacted strong policies aimed at thisgoal. In the last few years more businesses andresidents have begun returning downtown, andthe state’s largest university, Arizona State, hasbroken ground on a major new campus in Cen-tral Phoenix.

Green initiatives: Since 1998 Phoenix hasoperated a brownfield lands recycling programthat provides assistance to city departments andthe private sector to redevelop contamina tedplots. Officials have used grants from a numberof sources to stimulate more than $293 millionin private investment. This money has beenused to restore 21 sites totaling approximately275 acres, according to city reports. In addition,in 1995 the city started offering financial incen-tives such as the waiving of sewer and waterfees to occupants of housing units constructedin central areas, in order to discourage urbansprawl and congestion. This has resulted in4,500 new, more central housing units.

Buildings: 23rd, 26.7 pointsIn recent years Phoenix has enacted energy efficiency building standards to improve newbuil ding performance. However, the city lacksthe mu nicipal-level incentives for retrofittingoffer ed by many other cities in the Index. Inaddition, the city ranks far below the Indexaverage for buildings certified by LEED, withfewer than one building per 100,000 persons,compared with the Index average of 6.4. How-

ever, having re cently hosted the annual greenexpo of the US Green Building Council (theorganization res ponsible for administeringLEED standards and certification), Phoenix hasdemonstrated an in tention to continue makingprogress in this area.

Green initiatives: Phoenix’s building code,revised in 2006, has stringent energy-relatedmeasures for all new buildings, many of whichsurpass the widely accepted LEED standards.The city’s code requires landscapes that reducethe use of heat-absorbing pavement, recycling50% of construction waste from landfills, and aLEED professional to advise on all projects,









0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

PhoenixBestAverage

Air


106 107

among many other mandates. Officials believethis code will lead to substantial water conserva-tion (up to 50% through landscaping and 20%through improvements inside the buildings), aswell as a 30% overall reduction in energy con-sumption. To help residents meet these stan-dards, the city has established the GreeningHomes and Businesses program, which adviseson how to conduct energy and water audits, andoffers subsidies for energy retrofits.

Transport: 26th, 38 points Phoenix’s rank in this category is not surprisinggiven the challenges that such a large adminis-trative area presents in terms of mass transit.Phoenix offers just 0.2 miles of public transportper square mile, compared with the Index aver-age of 1.1 miles per square mile. As a conse-quence, only 5% of the city’s workers commuteby public transportation, bicycle or foot, com-pared with the Index average of 13%. Whereasother large, relatively car-dependent cities havehad some success expanding public bus or busrapid transit service, Phoenix’s hot climatemakes this option less viable. Most residents arenot willing to endure waiting in the heat for pub-lic transit if they do not have to. In addition,Phoenix voters passed legislation in 2006 aimedat restricting municipal government spendingon development of the city’s mass transit sys-tem. Despite these challenges, Phoenix is deter-mined to embark on a new course in upcomingyears. City leaders hope that a major light railproject (see “green initiatives” below), which thecity has spent several years and considerablecapital getting approved and partially construc -ted, will get them there faster.

Green initiatives: In 2008 the city opened its first light rail network, initially covering 20 miles, with plans to extend it to 37 miles by2025. A ten-mile stretch of the light rail line hasbeen named the Green Rail Corridor (see “greeninitiatives” under “energy” above), along whichPhoenix is carrying out a range of energy effi-ciency projects. In 2007 Phoenix announced$70 million in improvements, including roughly16% more miles of service, more than 500 new

sheltered bus stops and more than 120 newbuses. A bus rapid transit service started in 2003using existing freeway carpool lanes. Regardingcycling initiatives, as early as 1987 the cityadopted a bikeway program that, in tandemwith other city efforts, has resulted in addingover 520 miles of bike lanes, bike routes andmulti-use trails, as well as special bicycle cros -sings in some city street intersections.

Water: 18th, 77.4 pointsPhoenix performs favorably against the Indexaverage in terms of the percentage of waterleakages, at 7% compared with the average of13%. However, its per capita water consumptionof 217 gallons per person per day is much higherthan the Index average of 155 gallons. The cityhas invested heavily throughout the years inwater distribution and treatment facilities, andhas been relatively successful in utili zing its limited water supply. According to a city waterreport, 90% of treated wastewater is recycled aspotable drinking water, or used for agriculture orlandscaping.

Green initiatives: Phoenix found a cost-effec-tive and eco-friendly way to revitalize a 25-acresection of riverbank using wastewater. The cityused local, state and federal funding to obtain apump that diverts wastewater to the area, calledTres Rios. The first phase was finished in 2007,and Tres Rios is now home to diverse animal andplant life reintroduced in the area. Additionalphases of the project, which comprises a total of380 acres, are already under way supported by$36 million in federal funding.

Waste: 21st, 40.5 pointsThe percentage of recycled waste in Phoenix, at11%, is well below the Index average of 26%.Though the city has tried to introduce a recyclingprogram to most residents and has selective dis-posal mechanisms for different types of waste,sustainable waste management remains an areafor improvement.

Green initiatives: In 1998 Phoenix was one ofthe first cities in the US to establish a single-

stream recycling initiative (in which all recy-clables are accepted in one container) and cur-rently curbside recycling is offered at residentialproperties ranging from single family homes tobuildings with up to 30 units. In another initia-tive, the city has conducted studies into the via-bility of deploying gas-to-electricity technolo-gies in at least three area landfills. The municipalgovernment plans to establish a methane-fu -eled power plant at one site with the eventualcapacity to power an estimated 2,000 homes.Though construction was supposed to be com-pleted by 2009, the project has been delayedrepeatedly.

Air: 19th, 65.2 pointsDespite its middling ranking in this category,Phoenix has the lowest levels of sulfur dioxideemissions in the Index, at 3 lb per person com-pared with the Index average of 22 lb. Thesecomparatively low levels of sulfur dioxide emis-sions are likely owed, in part, to the state utili-ty’s voluntary efforts to reduce emissions at itspower plants in recent years, as well as to Ari-zona’s use of nuclear power. Phoe nix has roomfor improvement in other pollutant categories,with particulate matter emissions at 37 lb perperson, higher than the Index average of 25 lb.This is largely a result of the high volume of drydesert dust from construction sites and un -paved roads, which constituted over half ofPhoenix’s particulate emissions in 2005.

Green initiatives: The city has focused on dustreduction to improve air quality. Between 1999and 2006, municipal officials spent more than$19 million to pave or treat over 330 miles ofroads, procure street sweepers that kick up lessdust, provide dust-reduction training to roadmaintenance staff and building contractors, andenforce standards prohibiting unpaved lots andoff-roading. In 1994 the city began introducingalternative fuel vehicles into its fleet, and cur-rently more than 3,000 vehicles operate oncompressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas,biodiesel, and hybrid technology. Roughly 70%of the city’s 480 public buses now run on lique-fied natural gas.

Environmental governance: 21st, 62.2 pointsThough municipal authorities have enacted sev-eral programs aimed at improving the city’s envi-ronmental performance and have launchedpublic awareness campaigns, the lack of envi-ronmental targets and vagueness of overallstrategy remain areas for improvement. The cityhas taken steps to improve, however, introduc-ing a municipal purchasing program that favorsproducts and services that minimize environ-mental impact.

Green initiatives: The municipal governmenthas an Office of Environmental Programs dedi-cated to coordinating city environmental pro-grams, developing policies and regulations, andproviding technical and regulatory assistance tocity departments. In addition, the city is in theprocess of creating a comprehensive environ-mental plan called Plan Phoenix, and has madepublic participation an element of the process.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP



Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

Mixed

Mixed

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2008

2008

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2008–2009

2005

2010

2005

2005

2005

Phoenix

190.1

9.5

0.41

41.6

13.8

3,362.1

0.9

5.0

0.2

15.9

1.3

25.6

11.0

217.3

6.6

50

37

3







US Census Bureau







City of Phoenix Department of Public Works

USGS

Water Services, City of Phoenix














economy has continued its shift from manu -facturing to services in recent years, so this fig-ure is likely to have decreased. On a per capitabasis, Pittsburgh emits 24.6 metric tons of CO2

against an Index average of 14.5 metric tons.Where Pittsburgh scores relatively well is on policy. The city has set a CO2 reduction targetseparate from national guidelines, monitorsemissions, and, by the standards of the Index,has a fairly ambitious greenhouse gas reductionstrategy.

Green initiatives: The Pittsburgh ClimateAction Plan, unveiled in 2008, set a target ofreducing citywide greenhouse emissions 20%below 2003 levels by 2023. The Pittsburgh Cli-mate Initiative, comprising a range of privateorganizations working alongside city staff, is incharge of implementing the plan. The initiativesubsequently set a specific target for reducingmunicipal emissions 20% below 2003 levels by2023. To meet these targets, the city outlined a series of emissions reduction initiatives, inclu -ding replacing city information servers withnewer more efficient models, and several pro-grams aimed specifically at reducing energycon sumption (see “green initiatives” under“Ener gy”).

Energy: 15th, 67.6 pointsA shift towards services has helped Pittsburghlower its electricity consumption in relation toeconomic output. At 163 gigajoules per $1 mil-lion of GDP, Pittsburgh’s electricity usage is lessthan half the Index average of 332. Of all theother low-income cities in the Index, only Miamifares better. On a per capita basis, Pittsburghconsumes 49 gigajoules, which is slightly lowerthan the Index average of 52 gigajoules. Despitebelow average electricity consumption, thecity’s score is weighed down by several policyomissions. Pittsburgh is one of only a few citiesin the Index that do not promote green energyfor businesses and homes, either through incen-tives or subsidies. And although it did receivefederal funding in 2007 and 2008 to build solarpower infrastructure (see “green initiatives”below) the city falls behind Index leaders onadopting green energy. However, Pittsburgh ismarked up for increasing the amount of locallyproduced energy.

Green initiatives: Pittsburgh plans to replaceincandescent bulbs in all of the city’s 40,000street lights with energy efficient LEDs. Notimetable for completing the project has beenset, although all of the 3,000 street lights in thecity’s business district were replaced at a cost of$2.5 million during 2010. The city also installedLEDs at 800 traffic light intersections the same

108 109

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh ranks 23rd overall in the Index.Although the city is in the lower half of the Indexrankings for most categories, it has somenotable strengths it can build on. In the build-ings category, for example, largely throughrobust policies on Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED) certification, Pitts-burgh achieves its highest category rank, fourth.Public transit supply is also relatively strong, asare the city’s efforts on recycling. In addition,Pittsburgh appointed its first sustainability coor-dinator in 2009 (see “green initiatives” in “Envi-ronmental governance”), illustrating the city’scommitment to improving its overall environ-mental performance.

CO2: 24th, 38.8 pointsPittsburgh releases 645 metric tons of CO2 forevery $1 million of GDP, more than double theIndex average of 296 metric tons. One caveat isthat this is based on 2002 data, and Pittsburgh’s

Pittsburgh, located in the northeastern USstate of Pennsylvania, was once home to a

thriving steel industry, but since its collapse inthe 1980s lower-carbon industries began todominate the local economy. Today companiesin the finance, technology, services and health-care sectors are major employers, though somelegacy manufacturing remains. Pittsburgh isalso emerging as an important hub for arts andculture. A GDP per capita of $39,400 places thecity in the lower-income bracket in the US andCanada Green City Index. At 55 square miles, italso has one of the smallest administrative areasin the Index and has a relatively low populationof 310,000. Data for Pittsburgh in the Index arebased on a mix of statistics for the city and theGreater Pittsburgh Area, which has a populationof 2.4 million. In 2010 the city hosted the UnitedNations World Environment Day, which helpedbring sustainability issues to the forefront of pub -lic discourse.

year at a cost of $3 million. Pittsburgh also car-ries “Solar America City” status, which entitlesthe city to federal grants to develop solar powerinfrastructure. With $2.6 million that Pittsburghhas received so far, the city installed its first solarhot water heater on a firehouse in 2009 andplanned to install a further five in subsequentyears.

Land use: 19th, 50.7 points About 9% of the area within the Pittsburgh citylimits is designated as green space, comparedwith an Index average of 12%, although its smallsize and low population density work against it. And with 5,700 persons per square mile, Pittsburgh falls well below the overall average8,100 persons. In addition, the city’s measuresto main tain green spaces or protect againstsprawl are not as well developed as in otherIndex cities. However, one highlight of its per-formance in land use is its proactive brownfieldregeneration policy, which includes the GreenUp Pittsburgh program (see “green initiatives”below). The city also has an active tree plantingpolicy, which should help it improve in this cate-gory in the coming years.

Green initiatives: The city launched the GreenUp Pittsburgh program in 2007 with the aim of planting vegetation on vacant city-ownedlots. The city provides local residents who wishto take part in the program with materials, suchas soil and plants, which they use to “green up”and maintain the vacant lots. The city reportsthat over 100 lots have been transformed in this way.

Buildings: Fourth, 78.5 pointsPittsburgh achieves its highest rank in buildings.The performance is all the more impressivegiven that low-income cities tend to fall towardsthe bottom of the Index in this category. ButPittsburgh bucks that trend through strict poli-cies, particularly on LEED certification (see“green initiatives” below). For every 100,000people in Pittsburgh there are 15.4 LEED-certi-fied buil dings, which is more than double theIndex average. The city also scores well for offer-ing incentives for building retrofits and givingout information to offices and homes aboutways to reduce energy consumption.

Green initiatives: Pittsburgh mandates that allpublicly financed buildings over $2 million or10,000 square feet attain LEED silver certi -fication. The city also provides a so-called “densi-ty bonus” for LEED-certified buildings, whichallows them to rise 20% higher and have 20%more floor area than non-LEED buildings. Fur-thermore, in 2010 the county unveiled its

first green roof on a municipal building. Therooftop garden offers a wide range of benefits,including an expected 10-20% reduction inheat ing and cooling costs, and improved airquality.

Transport: 14th, 51.2 pointsPittsburgh ties with Miami in the transport cate-gory. With 25 public transport vehicles persquare mile, the city is well above the overallaverage of nine ve hicles; only three cities in theIndex claim more public transport vehicles.










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

PittsburghBestAverage

Air


110 111

Nonetheless, Pittsburgh’s score is weighed downby the length of its transport network; measur-ing just 0.13 miles per square mile, it is one ofthe shortest in the Index. The city is one of onlyfour in the Index that do not have any large cen-tral pedestrian zones or areas with limited traf-fic. The city performs well on green transportpromotion, though, and has invested in makingthe municipal fleet more environmentally friend -ly. The average commute time to work in Pitts-burgh, at 25 minutes, is also one of the shortestin the Index, but the city may well have benefit-ted on this indicator by its small size.

Green initiatives: To encourage greater use ofbicycles, the city appointed its first bike-pe -destrian coordinator in 2007. Since the appoint -ment the city reports that around 13 miles ofbike lanes have been built. In 2009 Pittsburghpassed an ordinance to simplify the installationof bike racks on city sidewalks and in publicright-of-ways. Property and business ownerscan now install racks that conform with city bicy-cle parking standards for a flat fee of $25.

Water: 22nd, 71.6 pointsPittsburgh’s water score is bolstered by a fairlyrobust set of policies. The city monitors mainwater sources for level and quality, and pro-motes lower water usage. Wastewater treat -ment and storm water management are alsostrong. The scoring gains made on policy are,however, undermined by weaknesses else -where. Over a quarter of the water passingthrough Pittsburgh’s water distribution system is lost to leakages, compared with the 13% Indexaver age. Water consumption per capita is 155 gal lons per day in Pittsburgh, which is in line with the Index average.

Green initiatives: As noted above, in 2010Allegheny County unveiled its first green roof on

a municipal building as part of a pilot study inconjunction with the University of Pittsburgh. Inaddition to improving air quality and normaliz-ing temperatures inside the building, the roof -top garden absorbs storm water, decreasing theamount of pollution flowing into the area’srivers. University researchers are monitoringwater levels in the green roof, and the countyexpects to work with residents and businesses todevelop private green roofs.

Waste: 25th, 25.5 pointsAlong with air, this is Pittsburgh’s weakest place-ment in the Index. The city’s proportion of recy-cled municipal waste, at 14%, is one of thesmallest among the low-income group of citiesand well below the 26% Index average. Whilecurrent levels are low, Pittsburgh has madeefforts to increase recycling (see “green initia-tives” below). The city also picks up points forinstalling facilities to treat different types ofwaste: recyclable, hazardous and industrial.Local waste management practices, such ascomposting and the conversion of waste by-products to energy, however, are absent.

Green initiatives: Organizers of communityevents that expect 200 or more people per dayare required to recycle beverage containers andcorrugated cardboard. To boost the city’s recy-cling efforts, a Let’s Tackle Recycling promotionwas targeted at Pittsburgh Steeler football fansduring the last three games of the season, whichended in January 2011. Nearly eight tons ofrecyclables were collected as a result of this ini-tiative.

Air: 25th, 40.1 pointsAlthough air quality in Pittsburgh has un -doubtedly improved over the past decade afterthe decline of the steel industry, it remains oneof the city’s biggest challenges. The city has the

highest annual sulfur dioxide emissions in theIndex, at 84 lb per person, for example. Al -though Pittsburgh’s economy is not goods-intensive, the presence of manufacturing in theregion likely exacerbates pollution levels, asdoes traffic congestion and underdeveloped airquality policies. Pittsburgh is not as rigorous asother Index cities in setting air quality targets,and polices that are in place are developed at acounty level and not by city authorities.

Green initiatives: In 2006 two private groups,Clean Water Action, Pittsburgh, and the GroupAgainst Smog and Pollution, joined forces toform the Allegheny County Partnership toReduce Diesel Pollution. The initiative aims toreduce diesel emissions from all polluters,including school buses, transit buses, trucks,waste haulers, locomotives and marine vessels.In 2009 the group successfully lobbied the Pitts-burgh Public School Board to pass a measure

mandating that all school-bus operators equip85% of their buses with diesel particulate filtersby the end of the 2014 school year to reducetailpipe emissions of diesel particulates by 90%.

Environmental governance: 14th, 85.6 pointsPittsburgh’s environmental governance score isbolstered by its strong record in green manage-ment: the city has a dedicated environ mental

authority, gives the public access to informationon environmental performance and policies,and has made environmental commitments atan international level. While Pittsburgh monitorsits progress on environmental goals, the city hasnot yet produced a status report, which hindersits score in this category.

Green initiatives: In 2009 the city appointedits first sustainability coordinator. The coor -dinator is charged with implementing programsoutlined in the Pittsburgh Climate Action Plan,including working with the Public Works De -partment to improve street lighting effi ciency.Additionally, the coordinator is charged withdriving efforts to improve energy efficiency andadopt renewable energies, and reviewingmunicipal codes to make buildings greener.Pittsburgh also boasts several private initiativesthat are striving to improve the city’s environ-mental performance through engage ment withdecision makers and community outreach. Sus-tainable Pittsburgh, for example, works withlocal governments, citizens and businessesacross the Greater Pittsburgh Area on projectsthat integrate notions of economic prosperity,social equality and environmental sustain-ability.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2008

2008

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2008

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Pittsburgh

644.9

24.6

0.16

48.6

8.9

5,666.3

15.4

9.7

0.1

15.5

25.3

25.4

13.6

155.1

26.0

94

24

84




City of Pittsburgh; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

City of Pittsburgh; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







City of Pittsburgh

USGS

Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (as reported by WTAE.com)




112 113

Sacramento

city’s strongest categories are air, at fourth, andwaste, at sixth. It has a comparatively high mu -nicipal waste recycling rate and its air quality isamong the best in the Index. The city’s lowestcategory ranking is energy, where it places 24th,a performance constrained by its relatively highelectricity consumption. Despite that, Sacra-mento records the best overall green perfor-mance by a low-income city in the US.

CO2: 16th, 67.6 points Sacramento’s per capita CO2 emissions, at 11.7 metric tons, beat the Index average of 14.5 metric tons, a commendable performancegiven that low population density cities with hotclimates generally have above average per capita CO2 emissions. And for every $1 million of GDP that Sacramento generates it emits 269 metric tons of CO2, less than the Index aver-age of 296 metric tons. Although the city has settougher reduction targets for greenhouse gasemissions than the state of California requires

Sacramento is the capital of the state of Cali-fornia. As such, government is the biggest

employer and services drive the local economy,with several large technology firms based there.Located at the confluence of two rivers, Sacra-mento also has a large and important deep-water port that links to the San Francisco bay.The city’s GDP per capita of $36,700 is the sec-ond lowest in the US and Canada Green CityIndex. With 467,000 inhabitants occupying justunder 100 square miles, Sacramento has a rela-tively low population density, leading to a par -ticular reliance on automobiles. The wider met-ropolitan region has a population of 2.1 million,and data included in the Index for Sacramentoare based on a mix of statistics for the city andmetro area. A high-temperature city in the Indexwith an annual average of 71degrees Fahren-heit, Sacramento typically boasts 193 sunnydays per year, putting it in a strong position todevelop solar power. Sacramento ranks 15th overall in the Index. The

(see “green initiatives” below), other cities in theIndex go further.

Green initiatives: Adopted in 2007, the Sac ra -mento Sustainability Master Plan has a target to cap community-wide greenhouse gas emis-sions at 1990 levels by 2020. The first phase of Sacramento’s 2010 Climate Action Planaimed at improving energy efficiency at munici-pal facilities. The plan also established a goal toreduce carbon emissions from city operations to13% be low 2005 levels by 2020. As a result of aplanned increase of renewable energy by theSacramento local utility, the city estimates thatoverall greenhouse gas emissions will fall 22%below 2005 levels by 2020. That would exceedthe minimum recommended greenhouse gasreduction target set by the state of California:15% below 2005 levels by 2020.

Energy: 24th, 49 pointsSacramento registers its lowest ranking in ener-gy. At 99 gigajoules per person, Sacramento’selectricity consumption per capita is nearly double the Index average of 52. Electricity con -sump tion per $1 million GDP, at 592 gigajoules,is also one of the highest in the Index. Sincethese electricity consumption figures werecompiled in 2009 the city has increased effortsto reduce energy consumption at municipalfacilities. In addition, solar energy projects arealso in the planning stages (see “green initia-tives” be low), suggesting that Sacramento’sperformance in this area could improve in com-ing years.

Green initiatives: Sacramento is one of 25 UScities carrying “Solar America City” status, enti-tling it to federal funding of $200,000 to devel-op solar power. In early 2011 the city signed adeal to generate 1.9 megawatts of solar powerthrough “power purchase agreements”. Underthe program, a third party was granted a long-term lease to install, operate and maintain solarpower infrastructure on eight municipal build-ings. The solar power will be charged to the cityat rates cheaper than standard utility prices.Sacramento is negotiating with a local privatesolar energy company to lease out city-ownedland for a 20-megawatt solar farm. Constructionis expected to begin in early 2012.

Land use: 22nd, 44.4 pointsSacramento scores well for its green land usepolicies, which include measures to protectgreen space from building development. How-ever, its performance in this category is weigheddown by its low population density – at just4,800 persons per square mile compared withthe Index average of 8,100. This is coupled with

the relative lack of green space within city limits,at 9% of the city area, compared with the Indexaverage of 12%. Furthermore, although effortshave been made in recent years to attract resi-dents back to the downtown and to developabandoned lots (see “green initiatives” below),the city is one of just five cities in the Index thatlack comprehensive measures to limit the con-version of green space into built areas.

Green initiatives: Sacramento’s 2030 Gener-al Plan, approved in 2009, calls for two-thirds ofcity growth to be on vacant or under-used landin urban areas and emphasizes “infill” develop-ment. Furthermore, the US Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) awarded Sacramento a$400,000 grant in 2009 to encourage brown-field redevelopment. The funds are used mainlyto provide potential redevelopers with freeassessments of contaminated sites. Additional-ly, the Greenwise Sacramento Regional ActionPlan, published in January 2011, establishes agoal for the city to plant three million trees by 2020. The plan also recommends the designof new communities to be based on the “20-minute neighborhood” principle, where allamenities are within walking distance. And, as amember of the Sacramento Area Council of Gov -ern ments (SACOG), an association of govern-ments across the six-county metropolitan re gion, the city participates in the Rural-UrbanConnections Strategy to protect the economicand environmental suitability of its rural areas.Working groups are currently developing plansthat will drive regional cooperation and strategyin the areas of land use and conservation, agri-culture, economic opportunities, forest man -age ment and regulations.










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

SacramentoBestAverage

Air


114 115

Buildings: 17th, 41.7 pointsSacramento performs relatively well for thenumber of Leadership in Energy and Environ-mental Design (LEED)-certified buildings, at 9per 100,000 people, compared with the Indexaverage of 6.4. This is in part due to mandatorystandards that came into effect in 2004 (see“green initiatives” below). However, energy effi-ciency standards for new buildings are not asstrict in Sacramento as in many other Indexcities. Calgreen, a statewide mandatory buildingcode introduced in January 2011, will changethat. The code mandates that all new buildingsin California use 20% less water than an averagecomparable building in the state, requiresbuilders to recycle 50% of construction waste,and mandates energy audits for all non-residen-tial buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensureenergy efficiency.

Green initiatives: LEED certification for allmunicipal building projects has been mandatoryin Sacramento since 2004. For projects over5,000 square feet, the city stipulates LEED silvercertification. With the help of federal fundsawarded in 2009, Sacramento began retrofits atselected city facilities to make them more ener-gy efficient. The city expects the upgrades, com-pleted in 2011, will save $2.4 million over tenyears. A countywide task force has produced aset of sustainability recommendations for newand existing buildings. The recommendationswill feed into Sacramento’s new Green BuildingOrdinance, expected to be approved in 2011.

Transport: Tenth, 56 pointsLike most low-density cities in the Index, Sacra-mento’s public transport network, measuring0.3 miles per square mile, is considerably short-er than the Index average of 1.1 miles. As aresult, only 6% of commuters in Sacramento usepublic transport, bicycles or go by foot to work,well below the Index average of 13%. City

authorities seem aware of the need to improvein this area, however. City-hired private consul-tants, paid for by federal funds, began a study inMarch 2011 to assess the environmental impactthat streetcars might have in Sacramento. Thecity’s performance in transport is already boost-ed as a result of robust efforts aimed at greentransport promotion. Sacramento actively pro-motes public awareness around sustainabletransport and is making progress “greening” thepublic transport fleet (see “green initiatives” be -low).

Green initiatives: As part of Sacramento’ssustainable fleet program, started in 2007, thecity aims to replace all of its diesel solid-wasterefuse trucks with ones that run on liquefiednatural gas by 2014. To streamline fleet opera-tions, the city already installed telemetry andGPS equipment in some 400 vehicles during2010 and another 100 vehicles are slated for2011. The telemetry system is designed to findmore energy efficient routes for drivers andpromises fuel savings of up to 25% a year. Fur-thermore, in conjunction with the SACOG,Sacramento participated in drafting the Pre-ferred Blueprint Scenario in 2004. The blueprintcalls for the development of transport choicesacross the metropolitan region that encouragepeople to walk, bicycle, use public transport orcarpool, and identifies the close link betweentransport and land use policies. It was used asthe basis for the Metropolitan TransportationPlan for 2035, which SACOG adopted in 2008.Specific projects to receive funding are currentlyunder review.

Water: 20th, 76.3 pointsSacramento’s water performance is hindered byhigher than average water consumption, a chal-lenge also for other high-temperature cities inthe Index. At 207 gallons per capita per day,Sacramento exceeds the Index average of 155

gallons and is among the highest water con-sumers in the Index on a per capita basis. Thecity scores well, however, for its water conserva-tion efforts (see “green initiatives” below) andfor using recycled water. The city also has a fairlyefficient water distribution system by the stan-dards of the Index, losing only 10% of its supplyto leaks against the average of 13%.

Green initiatives: New and stricter restric-tions on outdoor water use came into effect in2009. They include a ban on washing sidewalksand driveways and landscape irrigation is limitedto certain times and days of the week. The cityprovides free house calls from water conserva-tion specialists to advise residents on ways toreduce water consumption and offers rebatesfor the installation of low-flow toilets and high-efficiency clothes washers. A Water Conserva-tion Ambassadors program, launched by the cityin 2010, provides volunteer ambassadors freetraining on water conservation. The lessonslearned can be passed onto friends, neighborsand family.

Waste: Sixth, 72.2 pointsSacramento achieves one of its highest rankingsin the waste category. The city has the fifth high-est recycling rate in the Index, at 47% versus theaverage of 26%, the result of comprehensivepolicies and public participation. Measures arein place to reduce waste creation, as are facilitiesto treat different types of waste (recyclable, haz-ardous and industrial). Local waste manage-ment practices, such as composting or convert-ing local waste by-products to energy, are rela -ti vely underdeveloped but the city has maderecent efforts to improve in this area (see “greeninitiatives” below).

Green initiatives: Sacramento has a citywideprogram, involving 100,000 households, to putlawn and other green waste in special contain-

ers. The containers are collected for compost-ing. To encourage backyard residential compost-ing, the city runs a series of free workshops andsells discounted compost bins. A rewards recyclepilot scheme began in May 2010. Residents earnpoints for the amount of recyclables they putaside correctly, which can be used to purchaseitems at participating local and national retailstores. The pilot area saw a 7% decrease in cont-amination of recyclables (mixing of garbage and recyclables) through the rewards pro -gram. Sacramento is considering extending thescheme citywide.

Air: Fourth, 89.1 pointsSacramento achieves its highest ranking in theair category. The city is marked up for havingone of the lowest annual emissions per capitaof sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in theIndex. Emissions of particulate matter, at 23 lbper person, are just below the Index average of25 lb. Although Sacramento already has one of the most robust sets of clean air policies in the Index, it is making further efforts toreduce harmful dust pollution (see “green ini -tiatives”).

Green initiatives: The city’s five-minute idlingtime limit on heavy duty vehicles was extendedto all the city fleet in August 2010. Anti-idlingreminder stickers are placed on municipal vehi-cles when they are serviced to reinforce themessage. To curb emissions of harmful fine par-ticles, since 2007 residents and businesses havebeen banned from burning solid fuel betweenNovember and February – the time year whenfine particle pollution is at its highest.

Environmental governance: 18th, 76.7 pointsSacramento ties with Calgary in the environ-mental governance category. The city scoreswell for producing regular reports on environ-mental progress, as well as for setting explicittargets. It has also made firm commitments atan international level, including signing the UN Urban Environmental Accords, an inter -national voluntary agreement, in 2006. Underthe ac cords, the city pledges to reduce green-house gas emissions 25% below 1990 levels by2030. Sacramento’s score in the environmentalgovernance category is hindered by the lack of ade dicated and separate city unit dealing with cit-

izens’ complaints about environmental is sues,and mixed progress on public awareness cam-paigns. Most campaigns have been launched atthe state or regional level.

Green initiatives: Sacramento’s 2007 Sustain -ability Master Plan integrates environmentallysustainable practices into city policies and isintended to drive climate change efforts acrosscity agencies. The plan promotes the responsi-ble management and effective stewardship ofSacramento’s built and natural environments,and aims to transform the city administrationinto a resource-efficient and environmentally-conscientious agency. It calls for Sacramento toreduce pollution from city vehicles, reduce thecity’s use of pesticides, encourage staff mem-bers to drive less, and increase the efficiency ofcity buildings and operations, among others.Additionally, the Sacramento Area Green Part-nership, which convenes officials from acrossthe metropolitan region, meets quar terly to harmonize climate change efforts in local gov-ernments. In 2009 it published a county-widegreen house gas emissions inventory to encour-age local collaboration on air quality.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2009

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Sacramento

268.9

11.7

0.59

98.9

9.4

4,811.1

9.0

6.1

0.3

13.0

1.6

25.6

47.0

207.2

10.0

44

23

4




Sacramento Municipal Utility District; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Sacramento Municipal Utility District; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







City of Sacramento

USGS

City of Sacramento




populated. Data included in the Index comefrom a mix of statistics for the city and metropol-itan area, which has a population of 4.3 million.San Francisco is one of the country’s majorfinancial hubs; tourism and a thriving high-techsector in the larger metropolitan area are alsoimportant drivers of the local economy. The citygenerates the second highest GDP per capita inthe Index at $60,300.


116 117

San Francisco









San Francisco is located on the northern coastof the US state of California, surrounded on

three sides by the Pacific Ocean, the GoldenGate strait and the San Francisco bay. The cityspans across the nearly 50 hills within its smalladministrative area. Covering just 49 squaremiles, San Francisco is one of the smallest citiesin the US and Canada Green City Index, but with820,000 residents, it is the second most densely

San Francisco ranks first overall in the Index. Thecity’s exceptional performance is supported byits strong record in all categories across theboard: along with Vancouver, it is the only city toplace in the top ten in all Index categories. SanFrancisco’s strongest area is waste, where itranks first. In 2009 it became the first US city torequire that all residents and businesses sepa-rate recycling and compost material from nor-mal trash. As a result San Francisco now boaststhe best municipal recycling rate in the Index.The city claims second place in buildings, trans-port and air, bolstered by one of the best energyefficient building standards, the second longestpublic transport network, and low levels of allpollutants measured in the Index. San Franciscohas been a trailblazer in partnering with the pri-vate sector on innovative green initiatives. Theseinclude energy-awareness programs paid for bybusiness, low-cost loans to property owners tofund green improvements, and placing the onuson company bosses to promote environmental-ly-friendly commuting. By developing closer tieswith the private sector, San Francisco is betterpositioned to achieve its environmental goals.

CO2: Eighth, 81.1 pointsSan Francisco’s CO2 emissions are better thanaverage both in per capita and economic outputterms. San Francisco emits 181 metric tons ofCO2 for every $1 million of GDP, versus an Indexaverage of 296. And on a per capita basis the cityemits 11.4 metric tons of CO2 compared with anoverall average of 14.5 metric tons. San Francis-co has made further greenhouse gas emissionsreductions a top priority. The city has madeimpressive headway in reducing muni cipalgreenhouse gas emissions (see “green initia-tives” below), and has outlined a range of car-bon-reduction initiatives aimed at non-munici-pal sources, particularly in the areas of build -ings, energy and transport.

Green initiatives: San Francisco’s ClimateAction Plan, unveiled in 2008, targets a 25% re -duction in citywide greenhouse gas emissionsby 2017 compared with 1990 levels. The 2025target is 40% below 1990 levels, stretching to an80% cut by 2050. City autho rities say they are ontrack to cut municipal greenhouse emissions20% below 1990 levels by 2012. A carbon offsetprogram, launched in 2007, gives San Franciscoextra financial muscle to reduce emissions.Under the scheme a 13% surcharge is placed onall city employee air travel. The money goes to acarbon fund, which finances carbon-reductionprograms in the San Francisco area. Specialkiosks in San Francisco International Airport, setup in 2009, allow domestic and internationaltravelers to contribute to the fund.

Energy: Third, 81.1 pointsElectricity consumption in San Francisco isamong the lowest in the Index. The city con -sumes 25 gigajoules of electricity per person,less than half the Index average. Likewise, SanFrancisco uses 77 gigajoules per $1 million ofGDP, nearly one-fourth the overall average of332 gigajoules. City efforts to promote energyefficiency are paying off. Between 2001 and2010 energy efficiency programs, including theinstallation of greener appliances in residencesand businesses, reduced electricity consump -tion in San Francisco by 29 megawatts – enoughto power 29,000 households. Additional energysavings of six megawatts are expected in com-ing years as the city installs more efficient light-ing, heating and cooling systems, and retrofitsmunicipal buildings. These projects are backedby $19.2 million in state funding, awarded in2010.

Green initiatives: San Francisco has been in -stalling solar power systems on municipal build-ings since 2001. The biggest installation is the60,000-square-foot solar paneling on the SanFrancisco Convention Center, completed 2004.Generating 826,000 kilowatt hours annually,the center is the biggest city-owned solar powerinstallation in the US. GoSolarSF, a solar incen-tive program started in 2008, offers rebates ofup to $6,000 to residents and up to $10,000 tobusinesses for solar installations. Applicationsfor solar installations jumped 450% in the firstyear of the program. To encourage the use ofwind power, the city fast-tracks permits for theinstallation of municipal, commer cial and resi-dential wind turbines.

Land use: Eighth, 66.6 pointsSan Francisco’s land use rank is bolstered by itshigh population density. With 16,600 residentsper square mile, the city is the second mostdensely populated in the Index, behind NewYork. And despite its small area, San Franciscoboasts a better than average proportion of landdesignated as green space – at 17% of city terri-tory, compared with the Index average of 12%.However, some policy shortcomings hinder SanFrancisco’s land use score. The city is foundwanting in the promotion of brownfield regen-eration, and efforts to contain urban sprawlcould be stepped up. San Francisco does havemeasures, however, to improve the quan tity andquality of green space.

Green initiatives: In December 2010 San Fran-cisco adopted its A Better Streets Plan, a set ofguidelines for the city’s pedestrian areas (includ-ing sidewalks). Although primarily tar geted atimproving pedestrian safety, the plan also pro-

motes the ecological potential of streets andidentifies trees as the primary organizing ele-ment of city streetscapes. The plan calls for theincrease of urban forest space through treeplanting. Additionally, in 2008 San FranciscoCity Hall hosted an exhibition Victory Garden toencourage vegetable growing within the city.The garden produced over 100 pounds of food aweek that was donated to food banks.

Buildings: Second, 85.6 pointsSan Francisco is one of only three cities in theIndex that scores full marks for energy efficientbuilding standards. Both private and city-owned buildings must adhere to strict energyregula tions (see “green initiatives” below). Thecity also scores well for boasting an above aver-age number of Leadership in Energy and Envi -ron mental Design (LEED)-certified buil dings.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

San FranciscoBestAverage

Air

Waste

Land use

Buildings


118 119

With 14.7 LEED-certified buildings per 100,000people, San Francisco has more than twice theIndex average of 6.4. One policy blemish is thatinformation on how to decrease energy con -sumption in offices and homes is not as readilyavailable in San Francisco as in other Indexcities.

Green initiatives: Owners of commercialbuildings smaller than 10,000 square feet havebeen required to track and publish energy con-sumption data every year since 2008. Commer-cial buildings greater than 10,000 square feetare required to complete energy efficiencyaudits every five years. Through com pulsory

audits the city estimates com mercial buildingscan reduce energy use by up to a half within 20 years. New private construction must alsomeet green building standards set by the city.LEED silver certification has been mandatory for all new municipal buildings and renovationprojects of spaces over 5,000 square feet since2004.

Transport: Second, 67 pointsThe San Francisco metropolitan area boasts thesecond-longest public transport network in theIndex, measuring 5.4 miles per square mile, ver-sus an overall average of 1.1 miles. Only Van -couver claims a more extensive public transportnetwork. San Francisco also has the highest pub-lic transport vehicle availability. At nearly 55vehicles per square mile, the city soundly beatssecond-placed New York (45 vehicles per squaremile) and eclipses the relatively sparse Index av -erage (nine vehicles). San Francisco’s exception-

al public transport infrastructure is complement-ed by the city’s strong support for greener formsof transport (see “green initiatives” below). How -ever, there is still room for improvement in thecity’s congestion reduction policies. San Francis-co only receives partial marks for its traffic man-agement policies and for progress on crea tingpedestrian zones in central areas.

Green initiatives: Under the Commuter Bene -fits Ordinance of 2009, businesses with 20-plusemployees must incentivize public transit or carpooling to all staff working more than tenhours per week. Employers must either offertheir staff members a pre-tax benefit to pay

mass transit expenses, pay directly for em -ployees’ mass trans portation expenses, or set upand for progress on creating pedestrian zones incentral areas.

Water: Fifth, 87.4 pointsSan Francisco’s water efficiency and treatmentpolicies are among the strongest in the Index.Main water sources are monitored for quality andsupply levels, and measures are in place to lowerwater usage. The city’s water distribution systemalso has above average efficiency – 9% is lost toleaks compared with the 13% Index average.Water consumption in San Francisco, at 142 gal-lons per person per day, is also better than the Index average of 155 gallons. Nevertheless,authorities have recently launched a program tofurther reduce water consumption (see “greeninitiatives”). The use of recycled water, to con-serve potable supplies, has also gained priorityon the city’s green agenda.

Green initiatives: Retrofitting of residentialand commercial properties with water efficientplumbing fixtures has been mandatory since2009. The city provides free low-flow shower-heads and faucet aerators, as well as rebates ontoilet and urinal replacements. These mea suresalone are expected to conserve up to four milliongallons of water daily by 2017. And to encouragerainwater harvesting, San Francisco gives dis-counts to residents on rain barrels and cisterns.The city has started construction of two recycledwater projects with another two in the planningphase; water from these plants will be used forlandscape irri ga tion at parks and golf coursesthroughout the city.

Waste: First, 100 pointsSan Francisco is the only city in the Index toscore full marks in a main category other thanenvironmental governance. The city’s waste per-formance is outstanding. San Francisco an -nounced in August 2010 that it had achieved amunicipal waste recycling rate of 77%, exceed-ing its 75% goal for that year. The city with thesecond-highest recycling rate in the Index, LosAngeles, manages to recycle a respectable 62%but other Index cities trail far behind. The 27-cityaverage is 26%. In 2008 alone San Franciscodiverted from landfills more than 1.6 milliontons of waste, which is double the weight of theGolden Gate Bridge. Legislation that mandatesrecycling and composting, along with strongenforcement, is at the heart of San Francisco’simpressive waste performance.

Green initiatives: San Francisco became thefirst city in the US to mandate composting andrecycling in 2009. Residents, food establish-ments and organized events – if they are toavoid fines – must separate waste into threeseparate bins: recyclables, compost materialand trash. In another US-city first, in 2007 SanFrancisco banned plastics bags. Stores nowhand out certified compostable bags, reusablebags, or bags that have a minimum of 40% recy-cled content.

Air: Second, 91.9 pointsAir quality in San Francisco is among the best inthe Index. The city emits just 4 lb of sulfur diox-ide per person, compared with the much higherIndex average of 22 lb. Particulate matter emis-sions of 12 lb per person are also better than the overall average of 25 lb, as are nitrogenoxides emissions of 45 lb versus the Index aver-age of 66. Despite its already strong record inthis area, San Francisco is by no means compla-cent: the city’s clean air policies are among themost robust in the Index (see “green initia-tives”).

Green initiatives: San Francisco’s efforts toimprove air quality started in earnest with theHealthy Air and Smog Prevention Ordinance of1999, which required city managers to purchasethe cleanest available vehicles for city fleets. By2005 a directive was in place requiring 70% ofnon-emergency light-duty vehicles pur chasedby the city to run on alternative fuels. Further-more, San Francisco’s Green Taxi Law of 2008requires cab companies to reduce green housegas emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2012.Nearly 60% of the city’s cab fleet was running onalternative-fuel by March 2010.

Environmental governance: Eighth, 93.3 pointsSan Francisco ties with Minneapolis in the envi-ronmental governance category. The city hasstrong green management: there is a dedicatedenvironmental authority and easy public accessto information on policy and performance. Thecity is also marked up for its international com-mitments. It is a member of C40 Cities, a groupof international cities wor king to reduce urbancarbon emissions. And as a measure of San Fran-cisco’s high standing in environmental matters,

the city played host to the signing of the UrbanEnvironmental Accords, a non-binding treaty totackle climate change, on June 5th 2005. May-ors gathered in San Francisco from all aroundthe world to sign the agreement. However, SanFrancisco’s gover nance scorecard is not withoutsome blemishes. The city has not set explicit tar-gets for each individual environmental issue,and the baseline review is not as far-reaching asin some other Index cities.

Green initiatives: To help achieve the green-house gas reduction goals laid out by San Fran-cisco’s 2008 Climate Action Plan, each citydepartment was required to develop its ownindividual action plans to reduce emissions fromits own activities as well as the private sectoractivities within its regulatory scope. The De -partment of the Environment coordinates greeninitiatives across departments and compilesannual progress reports.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2009

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2010

2005

2005

2005

2005

2005

San Francisco

180.9

11.4

0.08

24.5

17.1

16,640.0

14.7

20.1

5.4

34.4

54.8

28.6

77.0

142.0

8.8

45

12

4




California Energy Commission; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

California Energy Commission; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







City of San Francisco

USGS

City of San Francisco




Seattle’s overall green performance is secondonly to Vancouver.

CO2: Sixth, 84.7 pointsFor every $1 million of GDP that Seattle gene -rates, it releases 157 metric tons of CO2 into theatmosphere – considerably less than the Indexaverage of 296 metric tons. The city’s CO2 emis-sions per capita, at 9.6 metric tons, are wellbelow the overall average of 14.5. Seattle’sefforts to green the city fleet, along with energyconservation efforts, have played a big part in cutting CO2 emissions. Its CO2 reductionstrategy is also strong and includes setting a CO2 reduction target separate from nationalguidelines.

Green initiatives: In 2005 Seattle’s mayorlaunched the so-called Kyoto Challenge en -couraging American cities to implement the pro-tocol when the federal government failed to rat-ify it. Since then, more than 1,000 mayors havesigned the US Mayors Climate Protection Agree-ment, which includes a commitment to meet orbeat the Kyoto emission targets to reduce green-house gas emissions 7% below 1990 levels by2012. Seattle reached that goal in 2008 despitea population growth of 16% since 1990. In 2010the city council adopted carbon neutrality asone of its 16 priorities, but the city has not yetpublished a plan on how it will achieve this goal.Instead Seattle’s current plan calls for the reduc-tion of greenhouse gas emissions 30% below1990 levels by 2024, and 80% by 2050. Further-

more, in 2005 the local electricity supplier Seat-tle City Light (SCL) became the first large USpublic utility to achieve zero net green house gasemissions and it has achieved that feat everyyear since.

Energy: 12th, 69.8 pointsSeattle’s electricity consumption in relation toeconomic output, at an estimated 195 gigajoules

120 121

Seattle

environmental goals over the past decade, andreaffirmed its status as a trailblazer when, in2010, the city council adopted long-term carbonneutrality as one of its 16 priorities.Seattle ranks fourth overall in the Index. Thecity’s strongest category is buildings, where itclaims first, helped by being earlier than most inmandating Leadership in Energy and Environ -mental Design (LEED) certification for municipalbuilding projects. Seattle also performs particu-larly well in the waste category, placing second,boosted by a relatively high rate of municipalwaste recycling. As much as 40% of Seattle’sgreenhouse gas emissions come from vehicles(private and city-owned), which has spurred cityefforts to make transport greener. Those effortshave had an impact, reflected in above averageperformances in the CO2 and air categories. Of the seven goods-intensive cities in the Index,

Seattle is located on an isthmus betweenPuget Sound and Lake Washington in the

northwestern US state of Washington. The cityhas a goods-intensive economy, owing largely to manufacturing companies based there, at -tracted by Seattle’s busy seaport. The Port ofSeattle is an important hub for trade betweenthe US and Asia. High-tech and aerospace com-panies are also large local employers, and Seattleboasts one of the most prosperous economies inthe US and Canada Green City Index, generatinga GDP per capita of $54,900. In population termsthe city is mid-sized by Index standards, withsome 620,000 residents within the city limits.Index data for Seattle are based on a mix of statistics for both the city and the wider metro-politan area, which has a population of 3.4 million. Long a leader among US cities onenvironmental policy, Seattle has set many lofty

for every $1 million of GDP, is around two-thirdsof the Index average. The city has more work todo on reducing electricity consumption per capi-ta: it consumes 59 gigajoules per person, slightlymore than the Index average of 52 gi ga joules.This is the third highest rate of per capita electric-ity consumption among mid-population cities.Seattle officials are well aware of the challengesand have embarked on a series of energy-conser-vation programs (see “green initiatives” below).Moreover, the city is leading by example. Themajority of its electricity comes from renewablesources, primarily hydropower and wind, and theutility offsets emissions from other sources byinvestment in carbon reduction projects.

Green initiatives: In 2008 the local electricityutility launched a five-year Conservation ActionPlan designed to save customers more than$310 million in energy bills and avoid nearly 1 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emis-sions between 2008 and 2012. The programincludes incentives for residences and business-es to conserve energy, including assistance indesigning buildings for energy conservation,rebates for replacing older home and commer-cial equip ment with new Energy Star appli-ances, and encouraging the installation ofreal-time energy consumption monitors. Homeenergy audits for a subsidized rate of $95 are available from SCL. In 2010 it upgraded5,000 streetlights to more energy efficient LEDsand will replace an additional 40,000 lights by2014. The light-replacement program is expect-ed to reduce energy consumption by 40%.

Land use: 14th, 56.2 pointsThis is Seattle’s weakest category placement,but still it ranks in the middle of the Index.Although the city boasts an average amount ofgreen space, at 12% of city territory, all othercities that are both low-area and high-income dobetter than Seattle on this indicator. The city’spopulation density of 7,400 people per squaremile is slightly lower than the overall average,8,100. It is also marked down for some policyomissions: Seattle only gets partial marks for itsefforts to promote brownfield regeneration andcontain urban sprawl.

Green initiatives: In 2008 the city introduced a Parks and Green Spaces Levy, which aims to raise $146 million over six years through a property tax increase. The levy is to fund various projects to increase green space in Seattle’s administrative area. In 2010 the cityinau gurated its newest park, the 12-acre LakeUnion Park, located on the waterfront neardowntown. Seattle’s park levy fund providedabout $5 million of the $30 million project Fur-

thermore, Seattle set a goal in 2006 of increa -sing the city’s tree canopy to 30% by 2037; in2010 the tree canopy stood at about 20%.

Buildings: First, 98.2 pointsHigh-income cities generally do well in buil -dings, but Seattle’s performance is notable evencompared to its high-income peers. Only NewYork matches Seattle’s feat of scoring maximumpoints in the category’s two main policy areasfor energy efficient buildings: standards andincentives. And owing to a 2002 mandate thatall municipal buildings over 5,000 square feetreceive LEED silver certification, Seattle nowboast an impressive number of LEED-certifiedbuildings in relation to popu lation: 17 for every100,000 people, versus an Index average of 6.4.Only Atlanta has a higher LEED-to-populationratio.

Green initiatives: In November 2010 the citylaunched its Community Power Works program,funded with federal stimulus grants of $20 mil-lion and local funds of $120 million. The goal ofthe program, which has created 2,000 jobs, is to retrofit 15% of Seattle’s buildings (municipal and non-municipal) to achieve 15%-45% inenergy savings per building. Additionally, theGreen Building Capital Initiative, launched in2009, aims to improve energy efficiency 20% in existing residential and commercial buil-dings through incentives and loan programs for energy-saving improvements. The initiativealso requires large commercial and multi-familybuildings to monitor energy usage.

Transport: Ninth, 59.8 pointsSeattle is among the Index leaders on greentransport promotion, which helps bolster itsplacement in this category. The city activelyencourages residents to use green forms of










0

20

40

60

80

100

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

SeattleBestAverage

Air

Buildings


ducted a baseline review. Regular environ -mental reports are also published that monitorand evaluate the city’s efforts to becomegreener. Seattle also scores strongly for greenmanagement. It has a dedicated environmen-tal authority, gives the public access to infor-mation on the city's environmental perfor-mance and policies, and has made environ -mental commitments at an international level.

One relative weakness is Seattle’s baselinereview, which is not as far-reaching as in otherIndex cities.

Green initiatives: The city launched the Cli-mate COOLective program in 2010: com munitygroups receive training on developing a climatechange engagement program. Six communitygroups with diverse memberships participated

in the ten-week program, during which theyplanned achievable projects and developedstrategic campaigns. Each of the groups re -ceived seed money to implement the projectsthey devised. Projects included edu cating elder-ly residents about recycling and composting,and starting “no idling” campaigns at areaschools to en courage parents to turn off theirmotors while waiting to pick up children.

122 123

transport, including public transport, walkingor cycling, and has made progress greening itsown fleet. It also has the seventh longest publictransport system in the Index, measuring nearly1 mile per square mile of metropolitan area, just narrowly missing the Index average of 1.1 miles. The city is on par with the overall average in terms of the share of workers com-muting by public transport, bicycle or foot at13%. However, when measured against theother high-income cities in the Index, whichtend to perform better than average on thisindictor, Seattle falls behind. Among its high-income peers Seattle has the second lowestrate of commuters traveling by greener forms of transport.

Green initiatives: With a $20 million federalenergy grant awarded in 2009, the city is in -vesting in electric charging-station infrastruc -ture. The grant also enables the city to subsi dize at least 1,000 electric vehicles, en cou r -aging their sale to the general public. The cityreceived an additional $1.4 million in federalfunding for green transport projects, $500,000of which will be invested in public charging infrastructure. The remainder will be used to

purchase 15 diesel-electric hybrid trucks that will save 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel and re -duce greenhouse gas emissions by over 112 tons an nu ally. In July 2009 Sound Transit, the statetransit authority, opened the city’s first electriclight rail line, measuring 14 miles. Plans are inplace to provide additional regional express busand commuter rail service, and add 36 miles tothe light-rail system.

Water: 11th, 83.3 pointsSeattle consumes 128 gallons of water per per-son each day, the eighth best performance inthe Index and considerably less than the Indexaverage of 155 gallons. The city boasts the third

lowest water consumption rate among mid-temperature cities. Seattle’s water rank is fur-ther bolstered by its efficient water distri butionsystem: the city loses only 8% of water to systemleaks, versus a 13% overall average. But there isstill room for improvement. By Index standardsSeattle has made only modest progress promot-ing the use of recycled water.

Green initiatives: Seattle Public Utilities, thecity-owned water company, has the goal of con-serving, on average, 15 million gallons per daybetween 2007 and 2030. To achieve these sav-ings, the utility company has implemented awide range of rebate programs for residencesand businesses. The Multifamily Showerheadand Aerator Distribution program gave out nearly9,000 showerheads to apartments and condos in 2009. Furthermore, in 2000 Seattle Public Util-ities partnered with other local utility companiesto form the Saving Water Partnership (SWP) topromote efficient water use in Seattle and KingCounty. The same year, the group launched its1% Water Conservation Initiative to reduce totalcommercial and residential water use 1% everyyear between 2000 and 2010. The program’sfinal report is not yet available, but the SWP said

in 2009 it was on track. SWP also gives outrebates for efficient washing machines, dish-washers, sprinklers and toilets.

Waste: Second, 83.1 pointsSeattle records one of its highest ranks inwaste. The city recycles 51% of its municipalwaste – only three cities in the Index do betteron this indicator – and has ambitious plans toincrease that to 60% by 2012 and 70% by 2025.Seattle also scores well on policy. It is marked upfor its facilities to treat different types of waste(recyclable, hazardous and industrial), forreducing reliance on landfills, and for intro -ducing measures to reduce waste creation.

Green initiatives: The city unveiled its “zerowaste” strategy in 2007. Programs to increasemunicipal waste recycling include a voluntaryopt-out program to receive phone books (whichrepresented almost 3% by weight of curbsiderecycling collection in 2005). In 2009 all single-family residences were required to separate foodand yard waste for composting, which increasedthe number of households engaged in compost-ing by 40,000. The city is expanding mandatorycomposting to multi-family dwellings in 2011.Seattle is also investigating reducing garbagepickup in single-family zones to a biweeklyschedule now that mandatory composting hasreduced the amount of garbage to be collected.Since 2010 restaurants in Seattle have beenrequired to use take-out containers that areeither fully compostable or fully recyclable. To assist with im plementation of this program,the city has helped restaurants to find alterna-tive packaging and set up clearly-marked dis-posal bins. The program is expected to divert 6,000 tons of plastic and plastic-tainted wastefrom landfills every year.

Air: Seventh, 80.5 pointsSeattle’s performance is bolstered by havingsome of the strongest clean air policies in theIndex. Air quality targets have been set and mea-sures are in place to improve air quality. Theyhave had some positive effect. Seattle’s annualsulfur dioxide emissions, at 7 lb per person, fallwell below the 27-city average of 22 lb. But thereis still room for improvement. Particulate matteremissions of 22 lb, though below the Index av -erage of 25 lb, place it in the middle of the Index.The city performs worse on nitrogen oxides,emitting 77 lb compared with the Index averageof 66 lb.

Green initiatives: Seattle’s efforts to improveair quality have centered on making the cityfleet greener. In 2001 the city converted itsdiesel fleet to ultra low-sulfur fuel and beganretrofitting 400 municipal heavy-duty truckswith emission-control devices. This has re-duced particulates and toxics emissions 50%from these vehicles. Since 2003 more thanthree-quarters of light-duty vehicles purchasedby the city have been biodiesel or hybrid. Seattle also uses Segways, personal mobilityvehicles, for jobs such as watermeter reading.These vehicles have zero emissions and costonly $3 per year to recharge.

Environmental governance: Fourth, 96.7 pointsSeattle’s high rank in this category is supportedby a strong green action plan. The plan estab-lished environmental targets and the city con-


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP





Using city area





Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2009

2009

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2005

Average of2009,2008

2007

2005

2005

2005

Seattle

156.7

9.6

0.20

59.3

11.6

7,359.7

17.0

13.2

1.0

22.3

2.8

27.4

51.0

127.7

8.0

77

22

7




Seattle City Light; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Seattle City Light; US Census Bureau

Trust for Public Land

US Census Bureau







City of Seattle

USGS

Seattle Public Utilities




St Louis came from the statistics for the city andwider metropolitan area, which has a popula-tion of 2.8 million. St Louis ranks 26th overall among the 27 citiesin the Index. The city performs best in the area ofwater, at 19th. St Louis faces challenges in manyof the other categories, in particular for CO2

emissions, air and environmental governance. Itis encouraging, however, that the state of Mis-souri has enacted an electricity standard requir-ing, as of 2008, that 15% of the power generat-ed by the state’s utilities come from renewablesources by 2020. This legislation is likely to havea positive impact on St Louis in terms of emis-sions, and hopefully will also encourage andhelp city officials rally local political support formore aggressive initiatives. City officials have

124 125









Bounded by two rivers – the Mississippi Riveron the east and the River Des Peres on the

south – St Louis is one of the smaller cities in theUS and Canada Green City Index, with a popula-tion of 360,000 and an administrative area ofonly 61 square miles. Its per capita GDP, at$37,600, is the fifth lowest in the Index. Histori-cally, the city served as a major inland port, andit remains the second largest inland port in theUS today. The city of St Louis is within the countyof St Louis, but maintains separate administra-tive authority over most aspects of city manage-ment. However, in some areas, such as watertreatment and distribution, the city relies on aregional authority. This status has limited St Louis officials’ ability to initiate environmentalprograms and policies. Most of the data for

also demonstrated their commitment to improv-ing environmental performance. In 2009 themayor appointed St Louis’s first sustainabilitydirector to spearhead local efforts; as a result ofthis political will the city’s performance is likelyto improve in coming years.

CO2: 26th, 10.9 pointsPer capita CO2 emissions, at 27.1 metric tons perperson, compare unfavorably with the Indexaverage of 14.5 metric tons per person. Thecity’s CO2 emissions per $1 million of GDP are689 metric tons, also well above the Index aver-age of 296 metric tons. The city’s high levels ofemissions are due, in part, to the dependenceon automobiles, as well as the high concentra-tion of coal-fired power plants in the area. How-

ever, for reasons of data availability and compa-rability, the Index figures were taken from 2002for all of the US cities in the Index. But as a signa-tory of the US Mayors Climate Protection Agree-ment, St Louis is likely to have cut emissions inthe meantime.

Green initiatives: In 2010 the city partneredwith St Louis Community College to conduct itsfirst comprehensive greenhouse gas emissionsinventory. The results are expected to be pub-lished in the coming months and the review willbe updated annually. Furthermore St Louisrecently used $250,000 in federal stimulusfunding to replace energy intensive sodiumstreet lights with LED lighting as part of a plan to redesign one of its commercial districts.

Energy: 23rd, 50.2 pointsWith electricity consumption at an estimated171 gigajoules per $1 million of GDP, St Louisperforms considerably better than the Indexaverage of 332 gigajoules per $1 million. Percapita electricity use is an estimated 51 giga-joules, similar to the Index average of 52 giga-joules per person. Both electricity consumptionfigures were estimated by scaling down stateretail electricity sales data to the city level. On apolicy level, St Louis would benefit from thedevelopment of renewable energy projects orthe offering of financial incentives for homes orbusinesses to use greener forms of energy.

Green initiatives: The Missouri state govern-ment has enacted a renewable energy standardthat strongly encourages, but does not man-date, municipal utilities to generate 5% of elec-tricity from renewable sources by 2012, and15% by 2022. The standard also includes a goalfor 1% of power to come from solar energy. Inaddition, using $3.7 million in federal stimulusfunding, the municipal government has set upan energy efficiency and conservation blockgrant program to pursue eight energy efficiencyprojects. Among the activities planned are citybuilding energy audits, energy efficient streetlight upgrades and city building retrofits.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

St LouisBestAverage

Air


Land use: 24th, 38 pointsGreen space comprises 9% of St Louis’ total area,compared with the Index average of 12%, andthe city has policies in place to improve theamount and quality of green space. In terms ofdensity, the city has 5,800 people per squaremile, compared with the Index average of 8,100persons, and according to the US Census Bureaudensity in the region grew by 21% between2000 and 2005. Perhaps for this reason, the cityhas less effective policies to contain sprawl thanother cities in the Index.

Green initiatives: St Louis has launched aDowntown Next plan for revitalization by 2020.Under the plan more than 100 historic buildingshave been redeveloped in the last ten years. Inaddition, $383 million is currently invested indowntown development. Also, the city hasestablished the St Louis Brownfields CleanupFund, which extends low-interest loans, grants,and other deferred payment plans to non-profitorganizations that develop brownfield sites.Although several sites have been improvedunder the program, it is not clear how manytotal acres of brownfields have been redevel-oped in the city, or the overall environmentalimpact of the initiative.

Buildings: 20th, 33.8 pointsSt Louis performs well against the Index averagefor the number of buildings certified by Leader-ship in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED), with 9.3 buildings per 100,000 personscompared with the average of 6.4. This may bedue, in part, to the cluster of LEED buildings onthe city’s university campuses, particularly therenowned School of Architecture and UrbanDesign at Washington University. In addition,the city has an active chapter of the US GreenBusiness Council (the organization that estab-lishes standards for LEED), which has secured


St Louis

126 127

participation from local non-profit organizationsand various segments of the building industry,including insurance entities and product manu-facturers.

Green initiatives: The city government hasdemonstrated a commitment to sustainablebuilding by passing two ordinances in 2007focusing on this issue. One measure requiresmunicipal building contractors to analyze ener-gy consumption, long-term operating costs andpossible energy efficiency measures for all newconstruction and major renovations. The otherordinance adopted the LEED rating system fornew and renovated city-owned facilities, andrequired them to comply with LEED silver stan-dards, at a minimum. Since then, St Louis-basedutility AmerenUE and the US Green Build-ing Council’s regional chapter have awarded$90,000 to 18 project owners or developers,many of them in St Louis, who are trying toobtain LEED certification.

Transport: 23rd, 44.4 pointsSt Louis has fewer than one public transit vehicleper square mile, compared with the Index aver-age of 9 public transit vehicles. Likewise, St Louishas only 0.2 miles per square mile of public transit, compared with the Index average of 1.1,and only 4% of workers commute by public tran-sit, bicycle or foot versus the Index average of13%. These figures are not altogether surprising

given that 90% of city residents own at least onevehicle and 75% own two or more. In addition,between 1990 and 2000, 95% of job growth inthe region occurred outside the high-densityareas, accompanied by resident relocation tooutlying suburbs. Both factors have createdunfavorable conditions for public transit andencouraged the use of personal automobiles.

Green initiatives: The non-profit, taxpayer-funded organization Great Rivers Greenway hasbeen authorized by the city to undertake severalefforts to increase the use of non-motorized

transportation. One of the main initiatives is abicycle master plan, which calls for expandingthe number of bike lanes on city roads, and cre-ating more multi-use trails in the city and neigh-boring county. So far, research and data collec-tion have been completed and public feedback isbeing collected prior to issuing policy recom-mendations. Even before the plan was con-ceived, Great Rivers Greenway added more than50 miles of on-street bike routes in St Louis in2008. In April 2011 the City of St Louis opened apublic commuter bike station, funded under thefederal stimulus package, with storage for 100bicycles and about 70 lockers.

Water: 19th, 77 pointsSt Louis’s water distribution system loses onlyabout 3% to leakages, according to city esti-mates. This is the second best rate in the Indexand compares favorably with the overall aver-age of 13%. However, city residents consume 186 gallons of water per person per day versusthe Index average of 155. The city has a strongrecord in terms of policies, wastewater treat-ment and use of recycled water, and undertakesoptional monitoring of its water, beyond therequirements of the federal Environmental Pro-tection Agency. Nevertheless, St Louis officialsrecognize that there is room for improvement inthis area. While noting the difficulty the cityfaces in eliminating sewer overflows, St Louishas also blamed its water-related troubles on alack of accountability and transparency by theregional utility, which in 2003 was rocked by alegal scandal.

Green initiatives: The city has been workingto minimize sewer overflows in recent years.Dedicating $4 billion to system-wide capitalimprovements, the city’s sewer department isexpanding and upgrading its treatment plants,including addressing leakages. The departmentis also encouraging residents to use green roofsand permeable paving that allows water to runthrough it to limit the amount of water enteringthe wastewater system.

Waste: 24th, 26.6 pointsThe city has faced challenges establishing a suc-cessful recycling program and recycles only 3% ofwaste, compared with the Index average of 26%.Only one city in the Index, Detroit, has a lowerrecycling rate, but St Louis has increased accessrecently (see “green initiatives” below). St Louiscould stand to improve by developing a wastereduction strategy and sustainable waste man-agement plan, neither of which it has currently.

Green initiatives: Until recently, St Louis had27 sites throughout the city where residents

could drop off recyclable items. Beginning in2010, however, the municipal government sig-nificantly increased access by starting a weeklyrecycling pickup service, collecting recyclablesfrom 2,500 dumpsters distributed levelingneighborhoods around the city. St Louis plans toadd about 900 more bins in coming months.Furthermore the city offers free, year-roundclasses to residents on how to compost at home.

Air: 27th, 29.5 pointsSt Louis ranks at the bottom of the Index for airquality, with the city’s heavy vehicular traveldoubtless a major contributor to the region’sproblems. The city’s annual particulate emis-sions measure an estimated 35 lb person, com-pared with the Index average of 25 lb. St Louisannually emits an estimated 125 lb of nitrogenoxides per person, compared with the Indexaverage of 66, and 64 lb per person of sulfurdioxide, compared with the average of 22. Enact -ing stronger policies may help St Louis facesome of its air quality challenges.

Green initiatives: In 2007 the city beganinstalling intelligent telematics devices into cityvehicles to conserve fuel and reduce emissions.The system, which uses on-board technology totrack vehicle operations and find more efficientroutes, has been installed in nearly 300 munici-pal vehicles. City officials credit the system withgeneral savings in fuel, greenhouse gases andother costs, but have not released official data.In addition, the city, in partnership with the fed-eral Energy Department’s National RenewableEnergy Lab, is evaluating the performance ofbuses operating on 20% biofuel against thoserunning on ultra-low sulfur diesel. Preliminaryfindings released in 2008 revealed compara -ble performance overall, and the city has notannounced any plans as a result of the study.

Environmental governance: 27th, 5.6 pointsSt Louis lacks many of the basic environmentalcriteria that other Index cities have established,such as a reporting mechanism and environ-

mental targets, and its environmental strategylacks the coherence and specificity found in thatof other cities. In this area St Louis has an oppor-tunity to make major improvements, whichcould begin with the appointment of a dedicatedenvironmental authority; already the 2009appoint ment of the first sustainability di rec tordemonstrates the city’s commitment to im -proving its overall environmental performance.Officials say St Louis will release a comprehen-sive Sustainability Plan by the end of 2011.

Green initiatives: In 2004 the East-WestGateway Council of regional governments,which includes representatives from the St Louismu nic ipal government, issued a strategy toengage the public in the regional planningprocess. Revisions in 2007 and 2009 detailedhow the Council intends to include residents byestablishing public committees, producing newenvironmental publications in multiple lan gua -ges, and conducting technical assistance work-shops. At this stage it is unclear to what extent


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP



Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

Mixed

Mixed

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

County

County

County

Year

2002

2002

2008

2008

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2008– 2009

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

St Louis

689.0

27.1

0.17

50.8

8.7

5,845.7

9.3

4.4

0.2

23.3

1.0

24.8

2.5

185.9

3.0

125

35

64







US Census Bureau







City of St. Louis, Department of Streets,Refuse Division

USGS

City of St. Louis














the plan has been implemented. The councilalso runs a range of programs to increase com-munity participation in transport and environ-mental programs, including the St Louis Bicycleand Pedestrian Advocacy Committee. In addi-tion, the non-profit organization, Sustainable St Louis, has been active in advocating sustain-ability initiatives, educating and providing re -sources to the community, and keeping track ofexisting sustainability-focused efforts in thecity.

serving as the chair of the C40 Climate Leader-ship Group between 2008 and 2010.

Green initiatives: In 2007 Toronto launchedits Climate Change, Clean Air and SustainableEnergy Action Plan, with the goal of reducingCO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 6% by 2012,30% by 2020, and 50% by 2050. The plan allo-cated initial funding of $42 million for energyconservation measures, $20 million for renew-able energy projects, and $22 million for retro-fitting city facilities through revolving loans tonon-profit organizations, institutions, and someprivate enterprises. Specific actions relate to res-idents, businesses and the wider com munity,including community energy planning, energyefficiency, and low-emission transportation, aswell as providing a one-stop online source of

128 129

Toronto

strongest category performance is in waste,where it ranks fourth. It also places in the tophalf of the Index in CO2, energy, buildings, waterand air. Toronto fares well when compared toother large cities, placing second among thisgroup in the energy, waste and water categories.It also places first among the group of cities withlower average temperatures in the Index.

CO2: Seventh, 81.6 pointsToronto has among the lowest CO2 emissions lev-els in the Index. Its per capita emissions, at anestimated 7.6 metric tons, are well below theaverage of 14.5 metric tons, and its emissions ofan estimated 158 metric tons per $1 million ofGDP are almost half the average of 296 metrictons. The city has shown international leadershipon the issue, with its former mayor, David Miller,

W ith 2.5 million people, Toronto is thelargest city in Canada and the fourth

largest in the US and Canada Green City Index.The quickly growing metropolitan area extendsto include 5.1 million people, and a mix of cityand metropolitan data are used in this analysis.Toronto is also the capital of the province ofOntario, a center for Canada’s finance andmedia industries, and is home to one of themost di verse populations in the world. With aper capita GDP of $45,000, the city is near theIndex average for income, but second amongthe five Canadian cities, behind Calgary. It is alsoon average one of the colder cities in the Index,which places a larger burden on its energyneeds.Toronto places ninth overall in the Index and sec-ond in Canada, behind Vancouver. The city’s

information on federal, provincial, municipal,private sector, and com munity programs relatedto energy and the environment.

Energy: Fifth, 77.8 pointsEnergy is Toronto’s second strongest categoryperformance. Toronto’s electricity consumptionas a proportion of GDP is higher than the Indexaverage – it consumes 437 gigajoules of elec -tricity per $1 million of GDP, compared with theaverage of 332 gigajoules. But its per capita con-sumption is better than the average, at 40 giga-joules per person, compared with the average of 52. Meanwhile though, Toronto benefits fromstrong efforts to promote and implement greenand local energy that include a feed-in tariff-and-loan program for green buildings. Toronto is oneof only three cities to receive the highest scoresfor promoting green energy adoption, develop-ing green energy projects and local energy pro-duction.

Green initiatives: Exhibition Place – a city-owned space including parkland, historicalbuildings and a convention center – housesCanada’s largest single solar photovoltaic instal-lation. The 100-kilowatt pilot project is part of aseries of innovative energy initiatives designedto make Exhibition Place energy self-sufficient.This also includes a 750-kilowatt wind turbine,which is the first such device constructed in anurban setting in North America. Toronto’s solarcity program includes one of the largest resi-dential solar hot water system pilot programs inCanada, as well as a best practices and knowl-edge transfer program for munici palities andothers interested in solar instal lations.

Land use: 17th, 54.3 points Toronto’s population density, at 10,300 peopleper square mile (4,000 people per square kilo-meter), is above the average of 8,100 (3,100).And it has slightly more green space than aver-age, at 13% compared to 12%. The city hasestab lished policies to redevelop brownfieldsand the waterfront, and receives full marks forefforts to sustain and improve green space with-in city limits (see “green initiatives” below). Thecity’s efforts to contain urban sprawl are not asdeveloped as in other Index cities, but most ofthe growth is in the suburbs, outside the city’sjurisdiction. However, the Toronto Regional Con-servation Authority, which is supported by sixregional municipalities including Toronto, regu-lates new developments in area greenbelts.

Green initiatives: Toronto’s Natural HeritageProtection Plan, based on a conservation studyfrom 2001, contains policies to protect the city’snatural heritage system for the long term. The

program includes specific initiatives such aswaterfront and parkland naturalization to main-tain green space in the city. The goal of the planis to engage the public in projects that promotestewardship of natural waterfront and parklandecosystems. The effort is carried out in partner-ship with community groups and schools.Another initiative, Trees Across Toronto, is amunicipal effort that has planted over 300,000trees in recent years. The trees are planted alongstreets and arterial roads, in ravines and inneighborhood parks.










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Land use

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

TorontoBestAverage

Air


130 131

Buildings: 13th, 53.4 pointsWith a quickly growing population and coldweather concerns, building efficiency is a highpriority, and Toronto appears to be on track toimprove its score in this category. The city offersenergy efficiency education and incentives toretrofit, while its Green Building Standard (see“green initiatives” below) has been key to regu-lating energy efficiency. The city also has a lawrequiring green roofs for new buildings with aminimum of 2,000 square meters of floor space.Toronto’s score in this category is weighed downby having a low proportion of buildings certifiedby Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED). Only 1.8 buildings per 100,000people are LEED-certified, which is well belowthe average of 6.4.

Green initiatives: The Toronto Green Standardis a two-tier set of performance measures thatencourage developers to build environmentallyfriendly buildings, addressing air quality, green -house gas emissions, energy efficiency andwater quality. All new public and private buil -dings are required to meet the tier 1 standard,which entails a 25% reduction in energy con-sumption. Buildings that meet a requisite num-ber of additional voluntary standards (which

vary according to building type) qualify for thesecond tier and are eligible for a refund of 20% ofdevelopment fees. In another initiative, whenthe city had to move its water-intake pipe deeperinto Lake Ontario, the water was too cold to treatwithout heating. Enwave Corporation, owned inpart by the city, used the cold from the water toprovide air conditioning to downtown offices,freeing up 61 megawatts of energy annuallyand, through the process, heating up the watersufficiently to be treated.

Transport: 22nd, 47.1 pointsTransport is one of Toronto’s weakest categoryperformances, mainly due to having thelongest commute time of all the 27 cities in theIndex. Due to heavy congestion and sprawl, res-idents need on average 40 minutes to drive towork, compared with the Index average of 29minutes. The length of the city’s public trans-port network, at 1 mile per square mile, and itssupply of public transit vehicles, at 7 vehiclesper square mile, are close to the Index averages.Despite this, the city has the fourth highestshare of non-automobile commuters in theIndex, at 28%, compared with the Index aver-age of 13%. However, Toronto is one of onlyfour cities in the Index that lacks large, centrallylocated pedestrian-only zones. The city has pro-grams to encourage walking, for example, apedometer-lending program. These programsare geared predominantly towards publichealth and not for practical transportation.

Green initiatives: In 2001 Toronto establisheda bike plan that sets out integrated principles,objectives and recommendations regardingsafety, education and promotional programs. Italso calls for more cycling-related infrastructure,including a comprehensive bikeway networkwith 56 miles of bike lanes, bicycle-public transitconnections, and expanded bicycle parking. Itsgoal was to double the number of cycling tripsby 2011, while reducing accidents. The city hasachieved its goals, with ridership tripling in dis-tricts where bike lanes and parking were added.

Water: Tenth, 83.5 pointsIn terms of both water consumption and distrib-ution leakage, Toronto is better than average; itconsumes 114 gallons (431 liters) of water perperson per day – the fifth lowest figure in theIndex – compared with the Index average of 155gallons (587 liters), while its leakage rate is 10%,compared with the average of 13%. Meanwhile,through the city’s Water Efficiency Plan (see“green initiatives”), which includes a number ofincentives for residents and businesses, the cityis well positioned to reduce overall water con-sumption even further.

Green initiatives: In 2002 Toronto developed acomprehensive Water Efficiency Plan that allowsthe city to conserve enough water to accom -modate expected population growth, while onlyspending one-third of expected costs on newinfrastructure. Measures include system leakdetection, computer-controlled irrigation, toiletand washing machine replacement, indoor and outdoor water audits, and restrictions onwatering plants and grass. By 2011 the plan wasestimated to have saved the city approximately66 million gallons of water per day.

Waste: Fourth, 78.6 pointsToronto performs better in waste than in anyother category. This result is driven by a 44%recycling rate that is solidly above the averageof 26%, which is supported by the city’s well-regarded waste-reduction policies. Toronto’spolicies include composting, waste-to-energy,waste separation, volume-based trash pay -ment, and a public awareness campaign.

Green initiatives: In 2007 Toronto set a targetof diverting 70% of waste from landfills by 2010,and by 2009 – the most recent year for whichstatistics are available – the diversion rate hadimproved from 35% to 44%. The city imple -mented a comprehensive plan to achieve the tar-get, including a new funding system and the vol-ume-based rate structure (in which residents payfees for excess trash) to pay for the required addi-tional programs and services. Additionally,Toronto collects, burns and generates electricityfrom landfill gases emitted by its three largestlandfill sites, none of which are still operationalfor dumping.

Air: Ninth, 79.2 pointsToronto’s air pollutions levels are all better thanaverage, led by the city’s 35 lb (16 kg) of nitro-gen oxides emissions. This is the second bestrate in the Index and well below the average of66 lb (30 kg). Toronto also emits only 17 lb (8 kg)of particulate matter, compared with the aver-age of 25 lb (11 kg), and just 8 lb (4 kg) of sulfur

dioxide, compared with the average of 22 lb (10 kg). Although the city has not set air qualitytargets, officials have implemented numerousprograms to reduce pollution, including “airsweepers” (see “green initiatives” below). In ad -di tion, Toronto has laws against vehicle idlingand has implemented numerous public aware-ness campaigns intended to change behaviorand reduce air pollution.

Green initiatives: The 20/20 The Way to Clean

Air campaign aims to help reduce home energyuse and vehicle use by up to 20% by providing planners with tips for businesses andhomeowners on how to improve air quality,lower energy costs, and increase in-home com-fort. In 2003 the city introduced street-sweepertechnologies to improve air quality. The 25 newregenerative-air sweepers have contributed to areduction in airborne fine particulate matter, atstreet level, of 21% while also allowing for year-round cleaning. As a result, the sweepers canremove more toxic loads from the streets andimprove stormwater quality while still con-tributing less to air pollution.

Environmental governance: 24th, 60 pointsThe city of Toronto does have a number of indi-vidual environmental plans, including a cli-mate-change action plan, a climate-changeadaptation strategy, and a sustainable energystrategy, all of which were developed withextensive public participation. However thereporting and transparency of these plans fallbelow the standards of most other cities in the

Index, which weighs on Toronto’s score in theenvironmental governance category.

Green initiatives: EcoSchools is an environ -mental certification program for schools. Withthe goal of supporting students and staff in car-ing for and protecting their school environ-ment, it addresses what is taught as well ashow schools are maintained, and encouragesinitiatives that involve students in the environ-mental stewardship of their community. Sincethe program’s launch in 2007, 345 schoolshave been certified as platinum, gold, silver, orbronze EcoSchools, with rankings based onhow many programs the schools have imple-mented. Bronze and silver schools, for exam-ple, will have planted trees and improved theschool environment, but may not have a fullenvironmental curriculum; higher rankingschools will have fully sustained exemplarypractices and community programs. Anotherinitiative, Live Green Toronto, is a city programthat supports neighborhoods in energy andwater conservation, waste reduction, andgrowing local food.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments



Using CMA GDP



Equivalent in metric units: 3,972 persons/km²





Covers only residential waste





Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

CMA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

CMA

City

City

City

City

City

City

Year

2004

2004

2008

2008

2007

2006

2010

2006

2009

2009

2009

2005

2009

2010

2004

2007

2007

2007

Toronto

158.4

7.6

0.44

40.2

12.7

10,288.3

1.8

28.0

1.0

26.1

7.3

39.5

44.0

113.8

10.0

35

17

8


ICF International/Toronto AtmosphericFund/Toronto Environment Office


City of Toronto, Energy Efficiency Office

City of Toronto, Energy Efficiency Office

City of Toronto

Statistics Canada

CaGBC LEED Database

Statistics Canada

Toronto Transit Commission



Statistics Canada

City of Toronto

City of Toronto, communication with city official

Toronto Water/Veritec Consulting Inc.




dominance of hydropower in Vancouver’s ener-gy grid. Furthermore, officials are in the processof adopting a target to reduce CO2 emissions by33% by 2020, compared to 2007 levels. Vancou-ver is likely, therefore, to remain among the lowest emitters of CO2 of major cities in NorthAmerica.

Green initiatives: Vancouver’s Community Climate Change Action Plan in 2005 aimed toreduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions by6% from 1990 levels by 2012. The plan includedinitiatives for integrated land use; more sustain-able energy; green building standards; roadspace allocation and pricing programs that pro-mote walking, cycling and mass transit; andwaste reduction. A greenhouse gas inventory in2008 indicated that emissions had already beenreduced to 1990 levels and the city was expectedto reach its goal of a 6% reduction by the end of2011. These reductions are all the more impres-


132 133

Vancouver

ranks in the top three for emissions of all air pol-lutants measured in the Index. Perhaps moreimpressively though, Vancouver ranks in thetop seven for all categories, with the exceptionof environmental governance, where it rankstenth. Already one of the best cities overall,Vancouver fares even better when comparedwith its peers; compared to other low-incomecities, for example, Vancouver places first over-all, and in the top two in all categories.

CO2: First, 91.4 pointsThis is one of Vancouver’s strongest categoriesin the Index. The city emits just 4.2 metric tonsof CO2 per person, well below the Index averageof 14.5 metric tons. Measured against economicoutput, Vancouver emits just an estimated 111 metric tons of CO2 per $1 million of GDP,compared with the Index average of 296 metrictons. The city’s low emissions are a result of poli-cies geared at green energy promotion and the

A coastal city in western Canada, the Van-couver metropolitan area is home to some

2.1 million people, making it the third mostpopulous in the country. However, with just580,000 people living within the city limits,Vancouver is the smallest Canadian city in theUS and Canada Green City Index, and a combi-nation of metropolitan and city-level data areused in the Index. Vancouver houses Canada’slargest port, and its economy is dominated byshipping, forest products and mining. Despiterecent surges in the tourism, film and high-techindustries, Vancouver’s per capita GDP is esti-mated at just $37,500 per person – the fourthlowest in the Index. Like San Francisco and NewYork, Vancouver is made up of islands andpeninsulas, restricting the city’s lateral growth.Vancouver ranks second overall in the Index,and tops the rankings in the CO2 and air cate-gories. The city has the lowest CO2 emissions interms of both population and GDP, while it

sive because they have occurred while the popu-lation has grown by more than 27% and thenumber of jobs has increased by over 18%. In2010 Vancouver unveiled a new plan – theGreenest City Action Plan, currently awaitingapproval – which aims to accelerate the currentmomentum by reducing greenhouse gas emis-sions by 33% by 2020 from 2007 levels and reachits stated aim of becoming the “greenest city inthe world”. In addition, the city runs the volun-tary Corporate Climate Leader program for localbusinesses. Participating companies complete aGHG inventory, set targets for reductions, andthen commit to having the inventory updated tosee if they met the targets. The long-term goal ofVancouver’s climate change strategy is to totallyeliminate the city’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Energy: Fourth, 80.1 pointsVancouver’s per capita electricity consumptionis better than average at 33 gigajoules per per-son, versus the Index average of 52 gigajoules.Likewise, the city consumes 237 gigajoules ofelectricity per $1 million of GDP, compared withthe overall mean of 332 gigajoules. WhereVancouver shines, though, is in its sustainableenergy strategy, which seeks to provide high-density neighborhoods with financing for com -munity renewable-energy systems, helpingcover high up-front costs, while recouping thebenefits through long-term lower operatingexpenses. Vancouver is one of just six Indexcities actively increasing the amount of locallyproduced and consumed energy.

Green initiatives: Vancouver’s NeighborhoodEnergy Utility (NEU) is a local government-owned utility that provides locally generatedheat and hot water to the neighborhood sur-rounding the city’s Olympic village. NEU is thefirst utility in North America to use waste heatrecovery from untreated urban wastewater, aninnovative green technology that eliminatesover 60% of the carbon emissions associatedwith the heating of buildings. Furthermore, Van-couver is financing up to 50%, or about $3,500,of the cost of installing residential solar hotwater systems. As a pilot, the incentive is avail-able to 50 new houses on a first-come, first-served basis.

Land use: Fifth, 74.1 pointsLike other cities with geographical constraints,Vancouver has a high population density, at13,100 people per square mile (5,000 peopleper square kilometer), far above the average of8,100 people per square mile (3,130 people persquare kilometer), and the fourth highest in theIndex. Twelve percent of Vancouver’s territory isconsidered green space, which is on par with the

Index average. However, the city is likely toimprove in this area thanks to policies aimed atencouraging tree planting and park creation(see “green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: In 2010 Vancouver set a tar-get for all residents to live within a five-minutewalk of a park, greenway, or other green space– while also planting 150,000 new trees – by2020. Specific strategies include acquiring newparkland, adding trees and planted areas toexisting bikeways, and preparing a citywideurban forest management plan. Additionally, inthe run-up to the Winter Olympics in 2010, Van-couver sought to regenerate brownfields fornew Olympic sites, including the Olympic vil-lage, which now serves as apartments. The pro-jects have increased downtown Vancouver’sresidential population by nearly 13,000 peopleand provided them with extensive waterfrontparkland.

Buildings: Fifth, 77.2 pointsVancouver’s score in this category is bolsteredby the abundance of Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED)-certified buil d -ings. It has among the most in the Index with









0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

VancouverBestAverage

Air Land use


134 135

10.2 per 100,000 people, compared with theaverage of 6.4. The city also scores well in thearea of policies aimed at promoting energy effi-ciency in buildings. While Vancouver does notfully require energy efficiency audits, the city’sOne Day program offers a number of buildingefficiency incentives such as free energy assess-ments, mortgage rebates for energy efficienthome improvements, and preferential loans forefficiency upgrades.

Green initiatives: In 2008 Vancouver set agoal of making all new construction carbon neu-tral by 2030. As part of this goal, the GreenHomes program requires that all new buildingpermit applications for single-family homesmeet a specific set of requirements, which willreduce energy consumption by 33% from cur-rent levels. The program also includes require-ments that will improve the air quality in all newhouses, such as requiring a heat-recovery venti-lator, as well as the installation of a vertical ser-vice shaft to allow future roof-mounted solar PVpanels. Furthermore, in 2010 Vancouver re -quired all newly rezoned buildings to meet theLEED gold standard, the highest green buildingstandard for rezoned buildings in North America.This in cludes strict minimum requirements forenergy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissionsreduction, and improved indoor environmentalquality, and is expected to result in 20 to 30 newgreen buildings being constructed annually.

Transport: Third, 66.6 pointsVancouver boasts the longest public transit system in the Index, at 5.4 miles per square mile(3.3 kilometers per square kilometer), nearly fivetimes the overall average of 1.1 miles (0.7 kilo-meters). Its performance is further helped by ahigh percentage of workers commuting by pub-lic transit, bicycle, or foot, at 25%, comparedwith the average of 13%. With efforts to imple-ment a new streetcar underway (see “green ini-tiatives”), the city is poised to improve even fur-ther upon its already strong public transportsystem. Meanwhile, the city has been expanding

bicycle and pedestrian lanes, and is looking toimplement a bike share program.

Green initiatives: Vancouver’s DowntownStreet car is expected to be a key element of thecity’s transition to more sustainable transporta-tion. The trams link Vancouver’s metropolitancore with other mass transit, including the Cana-da and Expo Lines. In 2008 the first line of theDowntown Streetcar was added as a showcaseproject for the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, andthree future line extensions are planned, al -though there is not yet a concrete time frame.

Water: Sixth, 86.6 pointsVancouver consumes 137 gallons (519 liters) ofwater per person per day, better than the Indexaverage of 155 gallons (587 liters). Its score isfurther bolstered by its water leakage rate of11%, slightly better than the average of 13%.Vancouver officials have demonstrated eager-ness to further improve the city’s water perfor-mance. The city has set a goal to reduce percapita water consumption by 33% over 2006levels by 2020. To achieve this ambitious aimofficials plan to develop incentive programs toaccelerate the installation of water-efficientinfrastructure, and to unveil full service retrofitprograms in partnership with other utilities.

Green initiatives: Vancouver has several pro-grams to encourage efficient water use. All com-mercial properties are metered, and the city sellssubsidized indoor and outdoor water-savingkits, and rain barrels for watering plants. Van-couver also runs public awareness campaigns inelementary schools.

Waste: Seventh, 69 pointsAlthough Vancouver recycles 55% of municipalwaste – the third best rate in the Index and morethan double the average of 26% – the city’s wasteperformance is hindered by a comparative lack ofincentives in place to reduce overall waste. Thecity instead relies on advocacy measures, inclu -ding efforts to create a “zero waste” culture, by

working with schools, developing educationalcampaigns, establishing a network of zero-wastebusinesses, and challenging other cities to reuseor recycle all waste.

Green initiatives: Vancouver aims to reducetotal solid waste going to landfills or incinera-tors by 50% by 2020 from 2008 levels. To thisend the city is creating mandatory “take-back”programs – by 2015 all businesses will have topay for materials they do not recycle, and theprogram will include packaging, printed paperand hazardous waste. Construction and demoli-tion waste, carpet, furniture and textiles will follow by 2017. Together, these product cate-gories will account for more than 60% ofgarbage going to a landfill or incinerator.

Air: First, 95.1 pointsVancouver’s impressive performance in the aircategory is a result of low emission levels of allpollutants measured in this Index. The city hasone of the lowest rates of particulate matteremissions in the Index, at just 7 lb (3 kg) per per-son versus an overall average of 25 lb (11 kg).Vancouver has similarly low emission levels ofsulfur dioxide, at 5 lb (2 kg) per person, less thana quarter of the Index average of 22 lb (10 kg);and nitrogen oxides, at 37 lb (17 kg) per person,compared with the average of 66 lb (30 kg). Van-couver has a relatively higher population densitythan other Index cities – which contributes to airquality through increased use of public trans-port, for example. In addition, over the last half-decade the city has actively promoted a suite ofair quality improvement policies while ensuringthat air pollution does not disproportionatelyaffect the poor (see “green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: In 2005 officials approvedthe Air Quality Management Plan for GreaterVancouver. The plan includes 33 specific actions,including increasing emissions standards, pro-viding incentives for vehicle retrofits, strength-ening regulations on fuels that may be sold inVancouver, and increasing dialogue with busi-

nesses about appropriate mutually beneficial air quality measures. Additionally, Vancouver islooking to alter its building regulations to assistvulnerable populations through policies specifi-cally designed to enhance the air quality in low-income housing, by reducing the degree towhich high-polluting facilities can be located inlow-income neighborhoods.

Environmental governance: Tenth, 91.1 pointsVancouver is among ten cities in the Index thatscore more than 90 points. The city has a ro -

bust environmental strategy in place, demon-strated by its strong performance across theboard. And while Vancouver has also launchedmultiple environmental campaigns such as theGreenest City and One Day programs that enjoystrong political support, the city’s somewhatlower placement in this category is the result ofa comparative lack of transparency. Not all ofthe city’s targets have been reported, and whileinformation is accessible and the sustainabilitycampaign is widely known, data is not collect-ed and provided in a unified location. The cityhas partnered with a private company to moni-

tor energy-use plans to make strides to thatend.

Green initiatives: Since 2005 Vancouver hasprovided links to programs and resources forteachers who would like to bring climate protec-tion into the classroom. School projects includeworkshops, games and contests, field trips, anda school play about climate change. Additionally,Vancouver’s Green Streets program offers resi-dents an opportunity to become volunteer streetgardeners in their neighborhoods by sponsoringa traffic circle or street-corner garden.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments



Using CMA GDP



Equivalent in metric units: 5,039 persons/km2


Using city area; Equivalent in metric units: 3.3 km/km2


Using city area; Equivalent in metric units: 16.2 vehicles/km2


Using metro-area population;Equivalent in metric units: 17 kg

Using metro-area population;Equivalent in metric units: 3 kg

SOx; Using metro-area population;Equivalent in metric units: 2 kg

Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

CMA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

CMA

City

City

City

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

Year

2008

2008

2009

2009

2010

2006

2010

2006

2006

2009

2009

2005

2007

2009

2009

2007

2007

2007

Vancouver

111.0

4.2

0.24

32.5

11.7

13,051.3

10.2

24.5

5.4

40.5

42.0

33.5

55.0

137.0

11.0

37

7

5


City of Vancouver

City of Vancouver

BC Hydro

BC Hydro

City of Vancouver, communication with city official

Statistics Canada

CaGBC LEED Database

Statistics Canada

TransLink

Translink

Translink

Statistics Canada

Metro Vancouver

City of Vancouver, Water Design Branch

City of Vancouver, Water Design Branch

Metro Vancouver

Metro Vancouver

Metro Vancouver

136 137

Washington DC

owing to strong energy efficiency incentivesand the third highest number of Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certi-fied buildings in the Index. Washington scoreswell for land use, at sixth, with the fourth high-est percentage of green space, and receives topmarks for its green land use policies. The city isweakest in the water category, at 24th, largelydue to high levels of leakage in the system.Washington also fares relatively poorly in thewaste category, placing 18th, in large part dueto low recycling rates.

CO2: Ninth, 80.8 pointsWashington has slightly lower than average percapita CO2 emissions, at 13.3 tons, comparedwith the Index average of 14.5 tons. It also out-performs the average for emissions per $1 mil-lion of GDP, at 193 tons, versus 296 tons. Thecity’s above average performance on carbonemissions comes in spite of the fact that nearlyhalf of the electricity provided to the city is pro-

Located on the Potomac River, Washington DCis the capital of the US. The city’s economy is

largely dependent on the federal government,although it also houses a wide array of interna-tional institutions and research centers. As aresult, services make up a higher percentage ofeconomic activity than in any other city in the USand Canada Green City Index, at nearly 93%.Washington also has the highest GDP per capitain the Index, at $60,500. Although the metro-politan area has 5.5 million residents, data forthe Index are based primarily on the city bound-ary, which is home to 600,000 people, placing it18th in the Index in terms of population.Washington ranks eighth overall in the Index.Perhaps unsurprisingly for the nation’s capital,the city performs best in environmental gover-nance, earning a top ranking along with Denverand New York, mainly for the strength of itsgreen action plan and a high level of public par-ticipation in environmental policies. The cityalso places third in the buildings category,

duced using coal-fired power plants. Washing-ton has a highly rated greenhouse gas reductionstrategy; included in the strategy is a goal toreduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by2020, compared with 2006 levels.

Green initiatives: In September 2010 Wa sh -ing ton launched a sweeping plan to reducegreenhouse gas emissions throughout the city.As a starting point, the city has committed toreducing greenhouse gas emissions frommunicipal operations by 20% by 2012, 30% by2020 and 80% by 2050, based on a 2006 base-line. The city is engaging in community out-reach and negotiating with residents and localbusinesses over appropriate reduction targetsfor the municipality as a whole. Its goal is to setcity-wide emissions-reduction targets of 10% by2012, again based on a 2006 baseline; goals for2020 and 2050 are the same as for municipaloperations. The overall plan currently encom-passes a total of 33 specific measures that focuson buildings, transportation, land use and wastemanagement.

Energy: 13th, 69.4 pointsWashington’s electricity consumption per capita, at 70 gigajoules per person, is above theIndex average of 52 and the highest rate amonghigh-income cities in the Index. The city doesbetter when GDP is taken into account, consum-ing only 127 gigajoules per $1 million of GDP, farless than the average of 332 gigajoules. Wash-ington’s performance in the energy category isheld back due to only partial scores for its effortsto deploy green and local energy. The city hasonly small solar and wind power projects,although it does provide incentives for greenenergy adoption (see “green initiatives” below).

Green initiatives: The city’s Renewable EnergyIncentive Program provides rebates for residentsand businesses that produce renewable sourcesof energy. In 2009 and 2010 the program provided rebates for a total of approximately 900 kilowatts, far exceeding its initial goal of200 kilowatts. As of 2010 the program was onlyaccepting applications for homes and business-es installing solar photovoltaic panels and windturbines, but in the next two years it expects toexpand to other sources of energy such as solarthermal, geothermal heating and air condition-ing, biomass, and waste-gas capture.

Land use: Sixth, 69.9 pointsWashington is buoyed in this category by a high percentage of green space and stronggreen land-use policies. With 19% of the city’s 61 square miles devoted to green space, the cityhas the fourth highest share in the Index, and

well above the Index average of 12%. The city isalso above average for population density, with9,800 people per square mile compared with anaverage of 8,100 people. Not surprisingly, thecity is strong on policies to sustain and improvegreen space, and indeed, over the last decade, ithas launched several programs to improve andincrease green space. Programs include the Ana-costia Waterfront Initiative to clean up anddevelop the urban waterfront, and the DCschoolyard greening program. The city couldimprove efforts on sprawl, achieving only partialmarks for brownfield regeneration and protect-ing greenbelts from development.

Green initiatives: Plant a Tree in DC is a pro-gram originally launched in 2008 that grantsresidents a $50 rebate if they plant a largecanopy tree, such as an oak or elm, at any resi-dence in Washington, and pledge to water andcare for it for at least two years. The program is administered by Casey Trees, a local non-profitorganization, in partnership with the city’s en vironmental department. Through the pro-gram the city has contributed to planting over 2,000 trees over the past few years, while CaseyTrees has planted over 6,000 more on its own. Additionally, Washington’s CapitalSpacepartner ship unifies green space managementacross various levels of government. It concen-trates on six themes: creating a greenway to linkparks, improving public schoolyards, enhancingurban natural areas, improving playing fields,en hancing center-city parks, and transformingsmall parks into public spaces.










0

20

40

60

80

100

Buildings

Waste

Transport

Water

CO2

Energy

Washington DCBestAverage

Air Land use


138 139

Buildings: Third, 79.3 pointsWashington has the third highest percentage of LEED-certified buildings in the Index, at 15.8 buildings per 100,000 people, well abovethe Index average of 6.4. Since 2007 the city hashad regulations in place requiring buildings inthe city over a certain size to meet the standards(see “green initiatives” below), and it was thefirst US city to include private buildings in theregulations. The city also has strong incentivesfor energy efficiency retrofits, including fullweatherization for low-income residents. Inaddition, it offers free home energy audits.

Green initiatives: Washington’s Green Build-ing Act of 2007 requires that all new publicbuildings over 10,000 square feet and new pri-vate buildings over 50,000 square feet complywith LEED standards. These standards includemini mum requirements for energy savings,water efficiency and CO2 emissions reductions.The city also expedites building permits for LEEDgold-level projects, which have higher standardsfor green design than standard LEED-certifiedprojects.

Transport: 13th, 52 pointsThe city performs well for the share of com-muters that do not drive to work, at 18% com-pared to the Index average of 13%, and a higherthan average total vehicle revenue miles per per-son (a measure of public transport supply), at 40 miles per year versus the Index average of 24 miles per year. Washington’s performance inthis area could improve even more in the com-ing years as the city has been focusing recentlyon increasing bicycle and pedestrian transport,and it has the largest bicycle sharing service ofany US city (see “green initiatives”). However,the city’s performance on other indicators sug-gests it could strengthen aspects of the publictransport network, when compared with othercities in the Index. For example, the city’s public

transport network is shorter than average, at 0.4 miles per square mile, compared with theaverage of 1.1 miles. Furthermore, the city hasone of the longest average commute timesamong cities in the Index, at 33 minutes com-pared with the average of 29 minutes.

Green initiatives: Launched in September2010, Capital Bikeshare is currently the largestbicycle sharing service in the US. The service,operated by the city’s department of transporta-tion in cooperation with a private bike sharingcompany, provides over 1,100 bikes at morethan 110 stations. As of January 2011 the pro-gram had over 5,000 members. Capital Bike-share stations are powered by solar panels, andthe system’s pricing scheme favors com mutersby making the bicycles free to members for thefirst 30 minutes, sufficient to cover most Wash-ington commutes.

Water: 24th, 67.3 pointsThis is Washington’s weakest category in theIndex. Although the city’s daily water con -sumption at 150 gallons per person per day isactually slightly better than the Index average of155 gallons, Washington’s score is weigheddown by its water system leakage rate. Washing-ton loses 14% of its water to system leakages,slightly more than the overall average of 13%.And while Washington’s water conservationpolicies are strong, including a partnership withthe US Environmental Protection Agency’sWaterSense program to promote conservationamong city residents, the city receives only par-tial points for its efforts to use recycled waterand is one of two cities in the Index that does not have a completed storm water management plan on file.

Green initiatives: Since 2008 the AnacostiaWatershed Trash Reduction Plan has worked toclean up the Anacostia River – one of the most

polluted on the East Coast – and aims to makethe river trash-free by 2013. Starting in January2010 residents have paid a five-cent fee forevery disposable bag from grocery and similarretail stores, four cents of which go to rivercleanup efforts. As of October 2010 Washingtonmer chants reported giving out over 80% fewerdisposable bags than the year before, while thenumber of bags found as litter in the AnacostiaRiver has declined by 66%.

Waste: 18th, 44.8 pointsWashington’s ranking in this category is largelythe result of a middling recycling rate of 18%,which is well below the Index average of 26%,but the city is working to improve this situation(see “green initiatives” below). Although Wash-ington also has limited policies for divertingwaste from landfills, the city’s environ mentaldepartment has made waste reduction a focalpoint of its public advocacy efforts, and offersadvice on reducing junk mail, donating unneed-ed items, buying used goods and goods withless packaging, and composting food and yardwaste.

Green initiatives: In 2010, as part of a largereffort to increase recycling in Washington, thecity’s public works department expanded itsrecycling services to provide monthly curbsiderecycling of household hazardous waste andunwanted electronic equipment.

Air: 11th, 78.9 pointsWashington has better than average perfor-mances for all three of the pollutants measured

in the Index – nitrogen oxides, particulate mat-ter and sulfur dioxide – largely because it is themost services-dominated economy in the Indexand has a relatively low reliance on automobiles.Washington also has robust air quality policies,including a cap-and-trade program to con -trol nitrogen oxides emissions. However, it ismarked down in the Index for only partial effortsat setting specific targets. The city is looking toset air quality targets to improve its air qualityperformance, but progress has thus far beenlimited.

Green initiatives: The city’s ongoing SmallBusiness Assistance Program has improved com-pliance on air quality regulations by small busi-nesses. The program provides free specia liststhat can help owners and managers understandwhich rules apply, develop plans for reducingpollution, cooperate in the develop ment of reg-ulations, and resolve disputes. Since its incep-tion in 1993 the program has been used on aver-age by 15 businesses per month.

Environmental governance: First, 100 pointsWashington tops the Index in environmentalgovernance, along with Denver and New York.

The city’s overall environmental strategy, calledthe Climate of Opportunity, has a wide networkof political support from the mayor, other elect-ed officials and city staff. It includes a baselinereview, continuous reporting and strong tar-gets. The municipal government frequently en -gages local communities and solicits input intoits environmental policies through publicnotices and hearings. Residents and local busi-nesses have been closely involved in crafting thecity’s environmental strategy, and officialsrecently held hearings on renewable energy de -velop ment, watershed implementation plans,regional haze control programs, cleanup sites,and more. Furthermore the city has a dedicatedenviron mental department, the District Depart-ment of the Environment.

Green initiatives: The city has partnered withthe non-profit Alliance to Save Energy to edu-cate Washington students about how energyuse impacts the environment and demonstratepractical ways to increase energy efficiency. Thepartnership also created a summer jobs pro -gram to give students hands-on training in im -ple menting energy efficiency measures. Sincethe program’s inception in 2009, it has reachedmore than 2,000 students.


CO2

Energy

Land use

Buildings

Transport

Waste

Water

Air



















Comments

Using MSA GDP


Using MSA GDP











Average

296.4

14.5

0.33

52.2

11.9

8,106.8

6.4

13.0

1.1

24.4

9.0

28.9

25.8

155.1

12.8

66

25

22

Basis

MSA

MSA

City

City

City

City

City

MSA

Metro-area

Metro-area

Metro-area

MSA

City

MSA

City

City

City

City

Year

2002

2002

2008

2008

2008

2009

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2007

2005

2009

2005

2005

2005

Washington DC

192.8

13.3

0.13

70.4

19.4

9,766.4

15.8

17.9

0.4

40.2

5.4

33.4

17.6

149.5

14.4

48

24

14




Pepco; US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Pepco; US Census Bureau


US Census Bureau







District of Columbia Department of Public Works

USGS

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority




Publisher: Siemens AG Corporate Communications and Government Affairs Wittelsbacherplatz 2, 80333 MunichFor the publisher: Stefan [email protected] Project coordination: Petra [email protected] Siemens USA: Alison [email protected] Siemens Canada: DL [email protected]

Economist Intelligence Unit project manager: Emily Jackson, FrankfurtEditorial office: Jason Sumner, Vanessa Barchfield, Economist Intelligence Unit, London and ViennaResearch: Richard Stein, Dana Vorisek, Nadia Hussaini, Economist Intelligence Unit, New York

Picture editing: Stephanie Rahn, Manfred Viglahn, Publicis Publishing, MunichLayout: Oliver Mertz, Gabriele Schenk, Jochen Haller, Seufferle Mediendesign GmbH, Stuttgart Graphics: Jochen Haller, Seufferle Mediendesign GmbH, StuttgartPrinting: BechtleDruck&Service, Zeppelinstraße 116, 73730 Esslingen

Photography: R. Alan Adams (Pittsburgh), Dan Bannister (Calgary), Melissa Barnes (San Francisco, Sacramento), Scott Bell (Chicago), Fred Chartrand (Ottawa), Roy Feldman(Detroit), Terry Halsey (Houston), Chris Hamilton (Atlanta), John Hrynink (Toronto), Stuart Isett (Seattle), Ann Johansson (Los Angeles, Phoenix), Christina Kiffney (Denver),Raffi Kirdi (Montreal), Steven Kovich (Miami), Johannes Krömer (New York City, Philadel-phia, Washington), Matt McKee (Boston), Jason Miller (Cleveland), Scott Miller (Orlando),Tim Parker (St. Louis), Rainer Plendl (Vancouver), Chandler Prude (Dallas), John Ripley (Charlotte), David Turner (Minneapolis)

Photo credits: Bernard Dupuis (p. 128, 130); Panthermedia (p. 27)Whilst every effort has been taken to find the owners of copyrights, it can't be avoided that some copyright may be missing. In such a case and after checking of the necessaryevidences to be brought, an appropriate fee will be paid.

Any exploitation and usage which is not explicitly allowed by copyright law, in particularreproduction, translation, storage in electronic database, on the internet and copying ontoCD-ROMs of this print work requires prior consent of the publisher.

Whilst every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of this information, neither Siemens AG, The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd., nor its affiliates or the individual members of the expert panel, can accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this information.

Munich, Germany, 2011

© 2011 by Siemens AG. All rights reserved.

Order no.: A19100-F-P179-X-7600

www.siemens.com/greencityindex

north america green city index

Entertainment & Humor