City Dwellers Greener Than Country Cousins

The Indy Channel ^ | May 29, 2008 | unknown

[Abathar]

WASHINGTON -- While cities are hot spots for global warming, people living in them turn out to be greener than their country cousins.

Each resident of the largest 100 largest metropolitans areas is responsible on average for 2.47 tons of carbon dioxide in energy consumption each year, 14 percent below the 2.87 ton U.S. average, researchers at the Brookings Institution say in a report being released Thursday.

Those 100 cities still account for 56 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide pollution.

But their greater use of mass transit and population density reduce the per person average. "It was a surprise the extent to which emissions per capita are lower," Marilyn Brown, a professor of energy policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology and co-author of the report, said in an interview.

Metropolitan area emissions of carbon dioxide are highest in the eastern U.S., where people rely heavily on coal for electricity, the researchers found. They are lower in the West, where weather is more favorable and where electricity and motor fuel prices have been higher.

The study examined sources and use of residential electricity, home heating and cooling, and transportation in 2005 in the largest 100 metropolitan areas where two-thirds of the people in the U.S. live. It attributed a wide disparity among the 100 cities to population density, availability of mass transit and weather.

Lexington, Ky., had the biggest per capita carbon footprint: Each resident on average accounted for 3.81 tons of carbon dioxide in their energy usage. At the other end of the scale was Honolulu, at 1.5 tons per person. Oklahoma City had the eighth biggest per capita carbon footprint, while Tulsa is 11th.

Carbon dioxide is released from burning fossil fuels and is the leading "greenhouse gas." It drifts into the atmosphere and forms a blanket that traps the Earth's warmth. About 6.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into air annually in the United States.

From 2000 to 2005, carbon dioxide from transportation, electricity use and residential heating in the largest metropolitan areas increased 7.5 percent.

For the entire nation, it rose 9.1 percent. The average per capita footprint in those 100 cities rose at an annual rate of 1.1 percent a year, half the average yearly increase of 2.2 percent nationwide.

In explaining differences among cities, the researchers cited weather, the type of fuel used for heating and cooling, the development of rail transportation, the amount of urban sprawl and the cost of energy.

Cities with the largest carbon footprints are mostly in the eastern half of the country from Indiana to western Pennsylvania - areas that rely heavily on coal for electricity production and natural gas for heating.

The smallest carbon footprint was in cities in the West and New England.

Half of the dozen cities with the stingiest carbon output were in California, where electricity prices and motor fuels are expensive. Also cited was the Seattle-Portland, Ore., region, which relies heavily on hydropower.

Cities in Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana dominated the bottom tier of high carbon emitters.

These urban areas are "kind of a poster child of what high carbon intensive growth looks like," said Brown. She noted their reliance on coal for electricity and natural gas for heating, a shortage of mass transit, and often older, energy-inefficient buildings.

[Abathar]

"Half of the dozen cities with the stingiest carbon output were in California, where electricity prices and motor fuels are expensive."

A shiver just went down the collective leg of the Marxistenvironazis, just tax the stuff so high that people will have to stop using it, it obviously works in California...

[mgc1122]

Color me skeptical ... one can’t have millions of people in a small geographic area and claim to have a lower any kind of foot print smaller than rural areas.

[californianmom]

But people in the country are constantly offsetting their carbon footprints by having more trees. And rural people grow gardens, which offsets carbon. City people have to have their veggies trucked in.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Unfortunately for the citizens of the big cities, many predators are all too willing to turn other residents into lifeless piles of carbon. I’ll take the country, thank you.

[Defiant]

Damn those clingers!

[Ford4000]

Another meaningless garbage-in garbage-out study from the liberal Brookings Institution.

[Rebelbase]

The ultimate goal of the envrio nazis is to depopulate rural areas and force everyone into collectives.

[Malsua]

Carbon dioxide is released from burning fossil fuels and is the leading "greenhouse gas."

No, Carbon dioxide is a MINOR greenhouse gas!

[AlaskaErik]

I could care less. I would wither in a cesspool like New York City. I’m staying right here in my nice big house on my nice big lot.

[subterfuge]

Pure propaganda.

[BigBobber]

"Half of the dozen cities with the stingiest carbon output were in California, where electricity prices and motor fuels are expensive."

BS.

California cities are on the Pacific coast the climate there is mild year round. High energy cost has litle to do with low erergy consupmption there.

[Mogollon]

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

[Vigilanteman]

Utter horsecrap. It depends on the measures you use. Carbon footprint is an utterly worthless measure. In my life, I've been a city dweller, a country bumpkin and stops in between. Here are just a few observations:

1. Country people buy things in bulk or with low impact wrapping. City people tend to buy things with more packaging than product plus higher impact wrapping because they have to keep off the natural environment or have much more severe storage limits.
   
2. City people flush more, wash more and buy bottled water whereas country people can pee in a bush, skinny dip in the creek and drink water straight from the pump.
   
3. City dwellers have to cut their grass, whether it needs it or not, and water their grass. The clippings go in plastic bags and into the landfills. Country people plant clover lawns, sometimes use livestock to graze them and spread the clippings around to recycle the nutrients.
   
4. City people drive fewer miles, but spend more of them sitting in traffic spewing carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.
   
5. Country people make less money, pay fewer taxes and consume more products like fence posts and chicken wire, but they also use fewer drugs, whorehouses and tax-financed shrinks to help them accept their sexuality or their Jizyah status as white male.

[dragnet2]

just tax the stuff so high that people will have to stop using it, it obviously works in California...

You should understand, where big populations are such as Los Angeles area, the weather is near perfect year round and people don't need to run air conditioning 27/7.

I don't live in LA, but in S. Cal, and I can tell you we use very little electricity, or gas and we are very conservative with our use of ANY energy sources.

In addition, we've improved our insulation, and planted 9 trees on the property and around the home.

I can tell you, most people in S. Cal or extremely conservative when it comes to using energy.

Since we're paying for it, you can bet I'm going to be stingy and save every dime I can including using motion detectors for outside lights instead of burning outside lights ALL night, every night of the year.

Bottom line with us? We pay the utility companies as little as we possibly can.

[dragnet2]

California cities are on the Pacific coast the climate there is mild year round. High energy cost has litle to do with low erergy consupmption there.

Not all together true. Yes our climate here is the best, but you can bet on top of that, we are stingy as possible when it comes to using energy, and paying the utility companies as little as possible.

See #14.

[Old Professer]

I have read two stories today on this study; the one in the Tennessean focused on Nashville as the sixth largest emitter, the numbers were sparse and only included the per capita annual tons of emission of CO2.

But either way, I am confused as to how 300 million people emitting 2.87 tons each annually nationwide can equal 6.6 billion tons.

300,000,000 X 2.87 = 861,000,000

6.6 billion/2.87 = 2.3 billion people or 6.6 billion/300 million = 22 tons of CO2 per year per capita.

Or, 5.74 billion is released from non-human activity in which case the human-caused contribution is only 15% of their supposed total emissions of 6.6 billion tons.

[caseinpoint]

Well, I suspect a lot of little carbon footprints belong to folks just sitting on their duffs all day watching the telly and collecting welfare payments instead of going out and working for a living.

[ctdonath2]

Never mind the fact that absolutely nothing “natural” exists in cities, having had every square inch buldozed and most covered with concrete.

Carbon footprint?
How about concrete footprint?

[ctdonath2]

No, CO2 is PLANT FOOD!

[VanShuyten]

"The smallest carbon footprint was in cities in the West and New England."

Since most of the homes in the Northeast rely on oil or natural gas to heat in the winter, I can't believe that Quebec Hydro offsets that.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Czech President's 'Inconvenient Challenge' To Al Gore

Coal-Cap Disaster

Cato Scholar Comments on Brookings Institution Report on Carbon Footprints

What to Do about Climate Change

The end of the fake consensus on global warming

Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Proposal, New Poll Suggests

Conservative Group Presses Senate to Kill Climate Bill

G8 cautious on cutting emissions

On global warming, it's Wcmg v. GOP

Global warming sceptics in an unholy row

The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming

CO₂ Science, Vol. 11, no. 22

Global Warming on Google

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[LonePalm]

Since when is CO₂ a pollutant?

Does that mean that the act of breathing is a source of pollution?

Think of the plants, man! Think of the plants!

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[dfwgator]

The ultimate goal of the envrio nazis is to depopulate rural areas and force everyone into collectives.

Sounds like the Khmer Rouge, but only in reverse.

[moondoggie]

Such BS!

What about rural folks who live off the grid????

How abour rural folks who hunt, fish and grow their own veggies and don't have to drive "anywhere" for their groceries?

Do city folks use re-claimed water for vegetation so as not to waste a drop?

Come to Colorado and let us living in the wilderness show you city dwellers what living green is all about. We were living that way looooooooong before it was the cause dujour.

[Old Professer]

As I noted before, the numbers don’t add up; to read the whole report (in PDF format) just click here:

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski/metroprofiles.pdf

[Old Professer]

Codgy, follow this link to #25.

[socialismisinsidious]

Exactly and with the outcomes they want. Where are there higher concentrations of Liberals? Cities...so of course the studies (what a bunch of crap! how do they measure this nonsense any way?) are going to show that cities are greener. The only Loony Lib conclusion: tax people who live in the country b/c they have a higher carbon footprint. (Time to stand up and denounce the premise....there is no such thing as global warming, there is no such thing as measuring carbon footprints.)

[socialismisinsidious]

Carbon dioxide is released from burning fossil fuels and is the leading "greenhouse gas.

LIE. The biggest producer of so called greenhouse gas is water vapor.

[dsrtsage]

If CO2 is essential for photosynthesis, and we are not at saturation levels for what plants need, then any increase in CO2 will help plants grow. The more plants grow, the more photosynthesis, the more production of chlorophyl..which is the stuff that makes plants green...therefore emitting CO2 is by definition the more green alternative

[tacticalogic]

But people in the country are constantly offsetting their carbon footprints by having more trees. And rural people grow gardens, which offsets carbon. City people have to have their veggies trucked in.

City people have to have practically everything trucked in. A lot of it comes from those "rural areas", and the energy costs of producing it for them get counted aganist the residents of those rural areas.

[palmer]

I think the discrepancy is the total for the US is 6.6 Gt of CO2, but the total US carbon is less because carbon weighs less than CO2. How much less? The numbers you have above imply 10:1 but I see 44:12 on some websites. So bottom line, I don’t know.

[cogitator]

It’s a long report; do you have a link to your critique?

[cogitator]

Maybe you're related to this guy:

"The recommendations of the Brookings Institution's report that American cities should build more transit lines and promote more compact development to reduce their carbon footprints are not supported by the data. Actual numbers reveal that most transit systems produce more greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than the average automobile, and nearly all produce more than a hybrid such as the Toyota Prius. For example, the Washington Metro produces almost 20 percent more CO2 per passenger mile than the average passenger auto. Encouraging people to drive smaller cars will do more to reduce carbon footprints at a lower cost than building new transit lines." (Randal O'Toole, Cato Institute)

I certainly couldn't evaluate all these types of studies, but if transit systems are producing more emissions per passenger mile than an "average passenger auto", then those transit systems certainly aren't very energy efficient.

I wonder how much the numbers change if there's a 5, 10, or 20% increase in transit ridership due to the high price of gasoline. I.e., since transit cars are multiple riders, how much does the capacity of the system(s) have to increase to be auto-equivalent?

[ukie55]

Good points.

I wonder if they consider ALL the little things in life.

Like the health benefits of country living in the form of clean air, more exercise, better quality food.....

I’d like to see folks in Manhattan or Los Angelos hanging out their laundry.

[Old Professer]

The MTA in Nashville just cut seven bus routes and raised the basic fare by 25 cents because they are facing a $336,000 deficit in their diesel fuel budget.

It’s takes a lot of Green to be green.

[Old Professer]

True enough but the numbers I crunched were all based on CO2 equivalents not raw carbon sources, reread the Brookings report.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !