These are the most sustainable cities in the United States.
Earlier this year, San Francisco and Oakland filed suit against five fossil fuel companies, including Chevron and Exxon Mobil, in an attempt to hold them financially responsible for the damage caused by climate change and to withstand its infrastructure. Such as the seawall. Although a federal judge dismissed the case, the West Coast cities are still experiencing big oil: together with Seattle and Portland, they rank first in the 40 most sustainable cities in the United States.
The rankings organized by the commercial real estate website Commercial Cafe determine the sustainability of the city by measuring their energy sources from green sources and determining their total carbon emissions from activities such as transportation. Of course, because the focus is on commercial real estate, the results also consider the progress of green building practices in the city. Each city is rated as the best score between 0 and 100-100 to promote sustainable development.
First, Commercial Cafe looks for a carbon disclosure project, an open data portal that analyzes the energy mix of each city. For each of the five renewable energy sources – hydro, geothermal, wind, solar and biomass – up to 5 points per city (the more the score, the better). On the contrary, cities receive very few points because they rely on resources such as coal, oil and natural gas. Each city also receives as many as 30 points, which is inversely proportional to its total carbon dioxide emissions. Cities with relatively low emissions like San Francisco are close to 30 points than places like Dallas, and Dallas’ emissions are quite high, thus defeating its score.
A large part of the overall emissions map is the city’s traffic habits. Commercial Cafe looked at ChargeHub.org to determine how many electric car charging stations a city has and rewards up to 10 points based on its popularity. Cities with more people walking or cycling to work can get an extra range of points – up to five in each category – based on how many people choose these more sustainable modes of transportation.
All in all, San Francisco topped the list with 88.53 points. Because its overall carbon footprint is relatively low, it only increases by about 27 points for this indicator, and is close to the highest score that exists in electric vehicle charging stations, as well as the percentage of people walking and cycling. On the other hand, St. Louis does not have points for electric stations, and there are relatively few points for cycling and walking; its solar, geothermal and biomass scores do not exist.
Overall, the rankings show that the most advanced cities in sustainable development are concentrated on the West Coast. With the exception of Minneapolis and Austin, the Midwest and the South are still largely behind. In addition to Boston (ranked fourth) and Washington, DC, the East Coast is also struggling./According to commercial cafes, Washington, DC has the highest percentage of LEED-certified buildings in the country, about 20%. Although building efficiency is not explicitly included in the rankings, how buildings power themselves and the amount of energy they need play a huge role in the city’s overall sustainability metrics and may raise national capital to the ninth The position has played a role.
Urban sustainability is of course a complex issue, but by breaking it down into measurable aspects, this ranking should provide the city with a clear picture of where they are located and where there is room for improvement.