Another reason why I am proud to live in SF! (San Diego: to buy, pros and cons)

[ubringliten]

Press conference: US and Canada Green City Index - Siemens Global Website

San Francisco grabbed the mantle of "greenest" major city in the U.S. and Canada Green City Index, with New York, Seattle, Denver and Boston rounding out the top five U.S. cities. The unique study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), and commissioned by Siemens, assesses and compares 27 major U.S. and Canadian cities on environmental performance and policies across nine categories – CO2 emissions, energy, land use, buildings, transport, water, waste, air quality and environmental governance.

Keep up the good work San Franciscans!

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by ubringliten

Press conference: US and Canada Green City Index - Siemens Global Website

San Francisco grabbed the mantle of "greenest" major city in the U.S. and Canada Green City Index, with New York, Seattle, Denver and Boston rounding out the top five U.S. cities. The unique study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), and commissioned by Siemens, assesses and compares 27 major U.S. and Canadian cities on environmental performance and policies across nine categories – CO2 emissions, energy, land use, buildings, transport, water, waste, air quality and environmental governance.

Keep up the good work San Franciscans!

I saw this on a different site... I can't tell if they're lumping in the rest of the Bay Area with San Francisco or if they're just pretending Oakland and San Jose don't exist

[ubringliten]

I think it's a stand alone city because I don't think there are 27 metro areas in US and Canada.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by ubringliten

I think it's a stand alone city because I don't think there are 27 metro areas in US and Canada.

If that's the case, then that's very, very odd:


oakland greenest city - Google Search

"An online green tech Web site surveyed the major city governments across the U.S. to see which ones made the most use of renewable energy for city operations.


According to SustainLane's government site, Oakland, Calif., gets 17 percent of its energy use from renewable sources. California cities Sacramento, San Jose and San Francisco are next with 12 percent renewable-energy use. The rest of the Top 10 list, in descending order: Portland, Ore. (10 percent); Boston (8.6 percent); San Diego (8 percent); Austin, Texas, (6 percent); Los Angeles (5 percent); Minneapolis (4.5 percent); Seattle (3.5 percent); and Chicago (2.5 percent)."
[LEFT]
Read more: Oakland is greenest city, Boston best in East | News Blog - CNET News
[/LEFT]

[ubringliten]

^^^The Green City Index by Siemens mentioned that they only included 27 US and Canadian cities, so apparently many cities were left off and Oakland is one of them. It is possible that Oakland is up there as well as San Jose, but they were not included.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Lots a Green PR in SF that is for sure. Lots of Green Fascism as well. Is that something to be proud of?

(Just a note - I write this as a person who was "Green" before "Green" was cool. I read "Ecotopia" in 1980. I worked on one of the first major sustainability demo projects in the US. That said, "Green" has morphed from a set of best practices into a millenarian quasi religious / quasi political movement. Someone I worked with back in the early 80s warned me that "Green" would go Fascist someday - at the time I thought he was nuts but now I realize he was right!)

[mayorhaggar]

It's not fascism, the problem is that things like banning plastic bags are such silly baby steps. As long as the vast majority of people drive gas guzzlers to work while local voters and governments shortchange public transit and drive riders away with filthy seats and crappy service, the Bay Area will be anything but green.

[dmode]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Lots a Green PR in SF that is for sure. Lots of Green Fascism as well. Is that something to be proud of?

(Just a note - I write this as a person who was "Green" before "Green" was cool. I read "Ecotopia" in 1980. I worked on one of the first major sustainability demo projects in the US. That said, "Green" has morphed from a set of best practices into a millenarian quasi religious / quasi political movement. Someone I worked with back in the early 80s warned me that "Green" would go Fascist someday - at the time I thought he was nuts but now I realize he was right!)

I agree. The political nature of the movement entirely comes from the constant Big Oil/ Middle East/ Endless Wars angle. If you most people whether they want to live in a place with clean air, low pollution, abundant renewable energy, local community based shopped, organic produce, local farming, most will say yes. It is simply demanding a better quality of life. A grassroots movement and raising awareness within people should be the aim of the environmental movement as opposed to a top down, policy based, government directed initiative. But then again, a grassroots movement will go nowhere as trying to compete with $$$$ from oil/military industrial complex will be fruitless. All such movements will have their pros and cons, let's just celebrate the good for one day and be proud that we live in a region (not just SF) where people are willing to go that extra mile.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by dmode

a grassroots movement will go nowhere as trying to compete with $$$$ from oil/military industrial complex will be fruitless.

As long as these guys keep getting to buy the people we (sort of) elect, we'll keep going down the potholed-road to nowhere that we're on. Alternative energy sources could well have been on their way to prominence in the 70's, if the will to fund R&D would have been there. Now people act like they just discovered photovoltaic cells yesterday, among other underutilized technologies that have been around for decades.

[Go9ers]

facism huh?