Posted by: Richie Bernardo

1. Main Findings
2. Ask the Experts
3. Methodology

Main Findings

  Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/16246/geochart-greenest.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2guVFEg;  

Overall Rank	City	Total Score	‘Environment’ Rank	‘Transportation’ Rank	‘Energy Sources’ Rank	‘Lifestyle & Policy’ Rank
98	Tulsa, OK	37.41	99	31	27	82
99	Oklahoma City, OK	36.40	98	51	49	95
100	Baton Rouge, LA	33.23	96	98	92	98

Ask the Experts < >

• Robert W. Taylor Coordinator in the M.S. Sustainability Science Program and Professor of Organizational & Urban Sustainability for the Department of Earth & Environmental Studies at Montclair State University
• Peter R. Hoffman Associate Professor of Geography and Director of Urban Studies at Loyola Marymount University
• Robin K. Craig James I. Farr Presidential Endowed Chair in Law and Affiliate Faculty for the Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources & Environment at the University of Utah
• Kevin J. Krizek Professor & Director for Programs in Environmental Design & Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder
• Victor B. Flatt Dwight Olds Chair in Law and Faculty Director of the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources (EENR) Center at the University of Houston Law Center
• Josh Galperin Research Scholar, Clinical Lecturer in Law, and Lecturer and Director for the Environmental Law & Policy Program at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
• Jack Gilbert Associate Professor at the University of Chicago
• Maggie Winslow Assistant Professor at the University of San Francisco
• Arden Rowell Professor of Law and University Scholar at the University of Illinois College of Law
• Pankaj Lal Associate Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Studies and Associate Director of the PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies at Montclair State University
• Philip Nyhus Associate Professor of Environmental Studies at Colby College
• Christine Curran Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Northern Kentucky University

Robert W. Taylor Coordinator in the M.S. Sustainability Science Program and Professor of Organizational & Urban Sustainability for the Department of Earth & Environmental Studies at Montclair State University Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Cities should invest in going green for the following reasons:

• Going green means that cities invest in green infrastructure, which reduces storm water runoff, reducing the severity of flooding events, and increases water quality in streams and rivers;

• The greenest cities, such as Seattle, are cities that have progressive and innovative companies. These companies attract the best and the brightest, and these employees desire to work with companies that are the most sustainable and willing to reduce their environmental footprint. Also, greener buildings tend to encourage employee performance and reduce absenteeism.

What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? Investments in energy conservation produce the fastest return. For example, changing to LED lighting can reduce a company’s energy expenses by one quarter. At my university we found that changing to LED lighting in the Parking Decks produced a savings of over $300,000. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? First, by supporting higher education programs, community colleges and apprentice programs at technical schools that can produce an educated workforce for many high-tech green businesses. Green businesses require the need for workers in everything from green infrastructure to wind turbine and solar panel installers. Also, the most innovative businesses are the ones built on technology and sustainability, and they need employees who can problem-solve and understand systems thinking. Second, communities can use their zoning laws and building codes to encourage buildings to be more energy efficient, and to transition to affordable renewable energy. They can do something as simple as giving a "fast track" to developers who are interested in building more sustainable communities. Generally, people want to live in these types of communities, as they are characterized by good building design, land use diversity, and open green space. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? It is hard to determine at this time, but our environmental protection laws are mandated and many states will pick up the enforcement of these laws if the Federal government falters in its mandate. What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? Reducing their individual waste through the proper purchasing of food. Food waste is an issue in the United States, even at a time where there can be food insecurity. Also, each of us can determine to be more energy and water-use efficient. While individuals seek a better environment and better use of scarce resources, certain incentives can be provided that motivates them to be less wasteful. For instance, we can offer renters a reduced rent if they save energy and water use. In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

• Reduction of carbon emissions;

• Maintaining green open spaces and green infrastructure;

• Development of a strong green business sector;

• Development of strong collaborations between business, education, and communities.

• Whether a city has a sustainability or green office that can provide vision and lead green initiatives.

Peter R. Hoffman Associate Professor of Geography and Director of Urban Studies at Loyola Marymount University Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Historically, for all but the biggest cities, the primary benefit was often symbolic -- it branded the city in a way that might attract like-minded individuals and companies and/or encourage investment. The economic benefits tended to be long-term, and often had tenuous returns on investment initially. As technology has evolved, and more and more cities adopted “green” policies, the benefits are increasingly moving in the other direction -- the economics of reduced energy consumption, reduced waste, decreased pollution, reduced congestion, etc., are starting to provide more tangible financial benefits, while the distinction of being a “green” city is becoming less notable, as seemingly every city is adopting more sustainable and environmentally-friendly policies and programs. This is especially true in states like California, where state mandates are essentially forcing every city to adopt green policies and smart growth/new urbanism plans. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? From the standpoint of the municipality itself, the biggest initial financial benefits tend to be associated with energy conservation and the related technologies -- e.g., moving the city’s vehicles to alternative energy models, installing solar panels on municipal buildings or converting street lights to more efficient technologies. The financial benefits of such conservation programs often have associated environmental benefits -- e.g., improved air quality -- that are somewhat difficult to quantify. For the residents of the city, programs that increase greenspace, improve “walkability,” or reduce congestion, often have the greatest impact on the quality of life but are, again, difficult to quantify, and their financial returns may take years to manifest themselves (e.g., in higher property values). For the “environment,” the programs that are most impactful tend to vary by the specific circumstances of the city -- e.g., a coastal/lakefront city might have the most positive environmental impact by constructing a storm water infiltration system that results in a dramatic improvement in the adjacent water quality, while a city in an arid climate might have the most positive impact from a program to improve water conservation through the encouragement of appropriate landscaping. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? In most cases, given their financial constraints, cities must rely on a toolkit of “incentives” to attract “green businesses,” much like they do to attract any kind of economic development. Fast-track permitting processes, reduced development fees, and reduced or delayed business fees and/or local taxes are all examples of the types of incentives many cities are using. However, as “green businesses” are becoming more commonplace and the incentives more widespread, it appears that more conventional factors of industrial location (e.g., energy costs, labor costs, transportation costs, etc.) are increasingly operative in the location decisions of “green businesses.” In the case of states like California, of course, state policies are mandating renewable energy programs so that the issue of “attraction” is effectively moot and being “green” is simply a requirement to operate. What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? In almost every case, the easiest and least expensive ways for individuals/families to “go green” are associated with conservation -- picking reusable grocery bags instead of disposable plastic bags, turning off the water while brushing your teeth or resetting the air conditioning level -- things that most of us have already internalized. At the next level, it’s moving to more efficient technologies that use less energy and/or produce less pollution -- changing out the light bulbs, buying more energy efficient appliances, etc. In most cases the price differentials between the most efficient systems and conventional models are increasingly less significant and are offset over the life of the system by the associated energy cost savings. Easy, but more expensive, are fundamental changes to the home and/or car -- upgrading your home’s insulation, for example, can dramatically reduce energy costs and associated pollution, but isn’t cheap. The same is true of a new car; hybrid and electric vehicles are increasingly “easy” to find, but typically still cost more than their internal combustion-powered equivalents, although that is changing rapidly, and making a “greener” choice in vehicles will soon be less of an economic decision. In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators? Determining the criteria to use to assess “green” cities depends on the definition of “green” and that is still somewhat unresolved. In general, however, there seems to be some consensus that any index of “green” cities would include some measures related to:

• Transportation (e.g., VMTs, average commute times, availability of alternative transportation modes such as public mass transit, bike routes, etc.);

• Energy consumption (including greenhouse gas emissions and/or the associated carbon footprint);

• Official recycling and conservation programs;

• Urban green/open space;

• “Green” planning and related governmental policies (e.g., an adopted climate action plan, an adopted sustainability plan, mixed use zoning policies, etc.).

Other more specific criteria (e.g., the number of LEED certified buildings) are often employed, but again, their utility and significance are ultimately dependent on the intended audience and use of the evaluation. Robin K. Craig James I. Farr Presidential Endowed Chair in Law and Affiliate Faculty for the Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources & Environment at the University of Utah Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Yes, but they have to do it thoughtfully and in location-specific ways. For example, green infrastructure to intercept storm water and allow it to filter back into the ground rather than running into storm sewers or combined sewers is often a good investment, because it can reduce water pollution and water treatment requirements and costs, improve water supply, and improve aquatic health. Green infrastructure also usually involves having more trees and other forms of plants in the city, which has a number of health (including psychological) benefits but also helps with climate change mitigation. What it means to be "green," however, can itself be contested. For example, one of the "greenest" things that many medium-sized (Portland, Oregon, Salt Lake City, UT, etc.) cities can do at this point is encourage urban infilling and invest in public transportation systems to reduce commuter traffic, even though that's a gray infrastructure solution to air quality and congestion issues. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? Depends on the city, and what its environmental and natural resource issues actually are. For example, water conservation measures tend to have a bigger bang for the buck in the West than in the Northeast. Investing in wind and solar probably makes more sense in regions still dependent on coal-fired power plants than in areas that already have a high percentage of hydropower. However, "bang for the buck" also depends on what your priorities actually are -- combatting climate change might take you in different directions than making your shrinking water supply more resilient. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? Generally, the same ways they attract any other businesses -- favorable legislation, tax breaks, and deals on land use rules, property purchases, and relocation/building. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? Luckily, authority for implementing most of the federal pollution control statutes -- Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act -- has mostly been delegated to the states, and the EPA has been serving more of a backstop role with respect to these statutes in most states for decades. Plus, states that are interested have always had the authority to do more than the EPA and Congress ever required with respect to almost all pollution problems. Plus, all of these statutes have citizen-suit provisions. We're already seeing states and environmental NGOs gearing up to pick up any slack in federal enforcement, so I don't think there will be much if any change for cities. What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? Install water-saving and energy-saving fixtures and appliances. After that, resist rampant consumerism--"Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without" is a very green philosophy as well as being better for households' bottom lines. Limit family size. In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

• Energy efficiency;

• Sources of energy;

• Water efficiency;

• Land use planning that limits sprawl, incorporates urban green space, and encourages walkable neighborhoods;

• Transportation planning that provides safe, efficient, and convenient public transportation, plentiful sidewalks, and safe and ubiquitous bike lanes (best in my experience on bike lanes: Copenhagen).

Kevin J. Krizek Professor & Director for Programs in Environmental Design & Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Green is the new black. It is inevitable and the ultimate convergence of what is possible, cheapest, makes you look good, and clean, all in the long term. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? Transport investments -- particularly anything that allows movement from clean power sources, including active transport (particularly bicycling) and news ways of engaging with new forms of 'livability" -- including a third space, and making more efficient use of our “soon to be” rights of way that have been relegated to cars. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? By attracting the types of businesses that prioritize true economics of sustainability into their business plans. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? These dimensions have lag effects that are longer than 3 more years of such. What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? One strategy that has shown considerable promise in many European contexts is relying forms of mobility that don't require considerable investment, provide freedom and flexibility for shorter trips, ensuring that destinations are within reasonably shorter distances (< 5 km), all of which are about active transport. In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

• The percentage of park lands;

• How people get around (e.g., accessibility to different services by transport mode);

• The percentage of business capital that is non-polluting (does not create externalities);

• The percentage of overall energy production from solar panels;

• Sourcing food locally.

Victor B. Flatt Dwight Olds Chair in Law and Faculty Director of the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources (EENR) Center at the University of Houston Law Center Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Yes. Benefits include: Lower costs for water treatment; Protection against flooding; Cleaner air; Better and more human-spaced recreational and social opportunities. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? Preserving and enhancing tree canopy (stop cutting off most mature trees; add large shade trees along streets and in parking structures). This leads to a much better social environment, a more comfortable city temperature wise (for we Southern folk), and better air quality. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? Some of it is simply making installation of renewables more economic, providing legal standards which spur renewable growth in a state, i.e., adopting net metering policies and construction policies. Usually the companies follow where the business/customers are. In terms of green businesses generally, in addition to the local tax implications, these companies tend to look more towards cities with what Richard Florida termed “the creative class” -- generally socially liberal, walkable human scale cities with good public transit. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? Possible slowing of new air standards and killing the Clean Power Plan means air won’t improve as quickly as needed, endangering health and adding costs for cities. Killing waters of the United States rules means more wetlands will be lost, which provide flood control and water purification for cities. Less enforcement (less money in the budget) means city populations will be exposed to more health risks through air and water (such as the superfund breaches that occurred from Hurricane Harvey in Houston). What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort?

• Best thing of all is to walk or bike more. This helps reduce air pollution and increase the cardiovascular health of the population. Best way to do this is to start small (and easy) -- just decide one instance per week (or day) where you will walk instead of drive (to go to dry cleaners, grocery shopping, to go to dinner, etc.).

• Use less bottled water. Invest in water purification at home if worried about tap water;

• Adjust thermostat when not home to use less energy.

In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

• Good, well used and extensive public transit;

• Tree cover;

• Walkability (easy to navigate by pedestrians, i.e., wide sidewalks, stores at ground level, etc.);

• Extensive and connected separate bike trails that can interconnect with transit and connect employment and residential centers;

• Widely accessible public park spaces.

Josh Galperin Research Scholar, Clinical Lecturer in Law, and Lecturer and Director for the Environmental Law & Policy Program at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Absolutely, and I don’t want to make the common mistake of burying the lede here. Cities should invest in going green because it is essential for human health and the environment. Green projects of various types can reduce air and water pollution that cause real health problems, and even reduce the impacts of climate change. This is all good for the lives of a city’s residents in that it protects their health and makes the natural environment within their city more enjoyable. It is also good because it has waves that ripple outwards to improve the health of people further afield, and to improve environmental conditions in wildlands beyond a city’s borders. I say that I don’t want to make the common mistake of burying the lede because many commenters might start by reminding that green investments are not just investments in human and environmental health for their own sake, but that they are in fact good economic investments. Green cities are more attractive, more productive, and more livable. All of this can bring significant economic benefits. That’s very real, and very significant, but to my mind it is secondary to the preservation of life. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? Urban greening can include planting trees, improving the ecology in existing parks and open spaces, protecting watersheds that provide drinking water, increasing clean and renewable energy generation, and using less dirty energy. All of these have important benefits -- including economic benefits -- to recommend them, but investments in energy efficiency and clean renewable energy are among the most economically sensible. When cities reduce their energy use, for instance, by converting their own vehicle fleets to more efficient or cleaner fuels, they first save money by saving fuel. Next, they get the environmental benefits of less pollution locally and, in the aggregate with other thoughtful cities and countries, less pollution, including climate pollution, globally. A city can, for example, switch its vehicle fleet to electric fuel. The benefits of this are real, but limited, when the primary source of electricity is coal. But if cities are relying more on solar, wind, or even natural gas, the costs can be significantly lower and the environmental benefits are many. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? Attracting renewable energy and other green business companies doesn’t take too much creativity because this sector is already booming. But there is a balance between sending signals and designing policy that will make your city the most attractive to these innovative companies. First, it is important that cities demonstrate a real commitment to environmental protection. This may not seem obvious on its face; in fact, showing a real commitment often means having real, enforceable, legal safeguards in place. In other words: environmental regulations. The common knowledge is that regulations keep businesses away. But law also sends important signals about the priorities of a community and helps to shape those priorities. Green entrepreneurs want to know that they are in a city, in a market, where the policymakers and the people are interested in their products and services. Laws demonstrate this interest and, when they are well crafted and meaningful, help to build the interest even more strongly among the public. But the laws do need to be well crafted. It is important for states and local governments to work together on this sort of progress. In New York State, for instance, there has been tremendous excitement for more solar power. New York is succeeding in this effort, but people there have realized that some local governments don’t yet have the legal infrastructure to really capitalize on the growing demand. Planning and zoning laws at the local level sometimes need updating to fully embrace smart solar development. By working together at the state and local level, green investments will go the extra mile. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? While things look so positive at the local level, the same is not true at the federal level. To put it bluntly, President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has been working hard to undo a generation of important environmental protections. Pollution does not obey political boundaries, so even when one city or state makes an effort to go green, the health and environmental benefits can quickly disappear if neighbors, or even those on the other side of the country, continue to spew pollutants. By way of example, the EPA was working for a decade, in the Bush and Obama administrations, to craft a strong rule to prevent pollution from one state blowing into a “downwind” state and impacting that state's air quality. This effort has focused on a market-oriented cap, and a trade program that looks at the level of pollution in upwind and downwind states, sets a cap in the upwind states, and then lets coal plants trade allowances to remain under the cap. The Trump Administration has, however, been working hard to increase coal mining and burning, which undermines this decade of hard work and, more importantly, the environmental health of cities. The good news is that the Trump Administration has been so outspokenly cavalier about its disinterest in environmental protection that many cities see a political benefit in coming to the rescue. Local efforts alone simply will not solve large-scale environmental problems. With that said, in an effort to counteract Trump’s pro-pollution bravado, we may see some good short-term progress from municipal leadership. What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? The primary burden for environmental protection shouldn’t come down to individuals. Environmental problems are complex, global, and largely the responsibility of a few key industries. Federal leadership is the place to start, and we have to remember this, lest individuals begin to feel hopeless about their own ability to make change. While purchasing decisions and daily habits are important, they are only a small part of the overall solution. We should not let polluters, who stand to make a lot of money from continued pollution, fool us into thinking that the best way to address environmental problems is primarily through individual action, thereby reducing the burden that should land on the big polluters themselves. Having said that, there are a few things that we can do differently. The one with the biggest impact is eating less meat. Meat production is a major contributor to climate change and water pollution. So just cutting down on beef and pork in particular is a good start. We can also walk more and drive less. Not only does this reduce car pollution, it makes us healthier and, as long as the weather is nice, happier! In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators? Health, public excitement and access, and global impacts are key pieces of any smart city. To that end, the following five urban strategies are the best indicators of green cities:

• Affordable and extensive public transit;

• Accessible, interesting, and diverse open space;

• Safe and well managed water supply;

• Thoughtful planning and zoning laws with meaningful opportunity for public engagement;

• The presence of a climate change action plan with timelines, enforceable standards, and a process for review and updating.

Jack Gilbert Associate Professor at the University of Chicago Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Sustainability and human health are the two biggest reasons. Being able to produce food locally, and engaging people in the active production of food or of green space is not only financially beneficial, but also helps promote fitness, improves people's health through exposure to a more diverse array of microbes and animal/plant life. It also helps strengthen the social fabric of communities, and provides jobs. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? I would argue that inner city farms play a huge role in having the broadest impact, from societal and human health to wealth generation and financial sustainability. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? A toothless EPA has the potential to lead to less responsible industry, which could increase pollution, but unfortunately, time will tell. I hope that business nowadays realizes that it only hurts them to pollute. What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? Gardening, and growing crops on their land. In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators? Human wellbeing and quality of life have to be up there. Maggie Winslow Assistant Professor at the University of San Francisco Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Multiple studies have shown that environmental regulations more than pay for themselves. For example, the Clean Air Act of 1970 has a more than 10 to one benefit-cost ratio. These benefits take the form of:

• Improved health (and lower medical costs) for citizens;

• Improved well-being;

• The spurring of innovations (some regulated companies reported that regulations have allowed them to save money by switching technologies);

• The creation of jobs related to environmental protection.

There are also savings from avoided costs associated with pollution (water pollution is the best example of this) and increased resilience (note Houston -- poor planning led to the hurricane being far more damaging). Finally, renewable energy creates far more jobs than the fossil fuel industry for the same kWh. As I am sure you know, there are a slew of jobs in the renewable energy sector now and this is going to keep accelerating. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? This depends on the city. Cities with insecure water should invest in their water infrastructure and protecting the watershed they depend on. Coastal cities would do well to be a model in reducing greenhouse gases, and improve their building codes to plan for flooding. Cities where smog is a problem should aggressively pursue electric vehicles and renewable electric generation, which is proving to be cheaper than fossil generation in many cases. The Puente gas plant in CA was rejected just today because solar and storage will be cheaper, even without subsidies. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? This is a chicken and the egg problem, but studies have found that educated people, who can choose where they live, choose cities with clean environments and access to green space. They also choose cities with greater diversity, but that is another topic. In order to attract renewable energy companies, it helps to have laws promoting green energy, such as renewable portfolio standards, so generators will know their energy will be sold. They also need an educated populace, since many of these companies need engineers, lawyers, and finance professionals with experience in the renewable energy sector. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities?

• By removing regulations -- such as building standard regulations related to floods, or energy efficiency standards, or safety standards/regulation -- cities will be less well prepared for catastrophes, and will be less resilient to climate change;

• Blocking the Clean Power Plan will make the air dirtier, will make the energy system less resilient, and will cost jobs. This isn't just for cities but this affects cities of course;

• Going backwards on reducing greenhouse gases will impact all coastal cities.

What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? One really easy way to help the environment is to time when you use optional electricity to correspond to periods of low demand and high supply. If possible, run the dishwasher or laundry machine or clothes dryer while the sun is high and take advantage of solar power, or at night when wind power kicks in. There is high demand for electricity at 8pm. The more people can avoid using electricity in the evenings, the less generating capacity needs to be built. If it makes sense for your family, drive an electric car. In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

• Air quality;

• Water quality;

• Access to green space;

• Climate resilience;

• Pedestrian/bicycle friendliness.

Arden Rowell Professor of Law and University Scholar at the University of Illinois College of Law Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Cities should try to promote healthy, productive environments for their citizens. They should try to conserve resources and construct cityscapes that people want to live in, now and in the future. In many cases, they can do all of these things by drawing on research on how to improve the environment. In some cases, they can even accomplish all these things with little -- or even no -- cost to the city itself. For instance, in some cases, “green” infrastructure is actually more cost-effective than traditional -- sometimes called “gray” -- infrastructure. Municipal water management is the classic example of this. Does this mean that cities should market themselves as “green” cities? Maybe -- doing so can often pay dividends in improved tourism and increased attractiveness to investment and new residents. It can also provide the basis for partnerships with other like-minded cities, as has happened with hundreds of cities and counties that joined the “We Are Still In” climate change network, pledging to reduce carbon emissions after President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. For other cities, however, particularly in red states, identifying themselves as “green” cities can actually create political pushback. So identifying a city as a “green” city is ultimately a political choice. Fortunately, any city can invest in the quality of its citizens’ environments, with or without calling itself a “green city.” What policies or investment offer the biggest bang for the buck? I can think of at least four types of policies that offer significant return on investment for most cities. Two of these -- air pollution policies and the creation of urban green spaces -- create such significant benefits that they are often worth the investment on the front end, and two -- green infrastructure investments and eco-taxes -- require little or no up-front capital investment from the municipality.

• Air pollution policies -- if the city’s goal is to reduce harm to their citizens from environmental risks, the biggest bang for their investment is often in policies that manage air pollution. That’s because air pollution is the greatest environmental hazard not only around the world, but also for most Americans: over 200,000 Americans are likely to die from air pollution in the next year, and much of that comes from sources that can be affected by local and municipal policies. A nice thing about air pollution policy is that, with good public communication, it provides an opportunity for buy-in across political lines. Many interventions have a very positive cost-to-benefit ratio. And no one likes people to die from heart disease, cancer, and respiratory disease -- all of which can be caused or aggravated by bad air quality. Although children, the elderly, and the poor often bear a disproportionate burden from bad air, air pollution is also an important killer of the wealthy and the middle-aged. In most urban areas, the biggest contributor to air pollution is transportation. The environmental impacts of transportation are also exacerbated by the fact that there tend to be more people in the most congested areas, which also tend to be the most polluted. It’s tempting to respond to traffic by building more roads. But modern research suggests that more roads actually encourage more traffic. As a result, even hugely expensive roadway expansions typically fail to substantially reduce traffic. Instead of allocating resources towards new road building projects, cities should typically tackle traffic -- and the pollution it causes -- by getting cars off the road. There are a number of strategies here, including investing in public transit; creating limited-access or pedestrian zones in downtown areas; and making pedestrian and bike lanes safer and thus more attractive. Big, flashy alternative-transit projects -- like San Francisco’s Central Subway, or Seattle’s light rail -- often get substantial press. This can be valuable for a city who is trying to build a reputation as a green destination, or for cities whose citizens already strongly value environmental reputation. But there are also reasonably-priced public transit opportunities for cities who have less to invest. Basically, the key is to establish transit lines on the highest-need routes: generally, where they will connect a lot of people to a lot of jobs. As a rule of thumb, for example, expensive parking can be a good indicator of where it’s most effective to provide transit. While creating so-called “grade-separated” routes -- routes that run on a viaduct or in a tunnel -- can increase ridership, doing so can be politically and financially expensive, and it is not an absolute requirement for an effective transit system. If the routes chosen are good ones, even a few buses can get a significant number of cars off the roads. Fortunately, there are now a number of resources available for cities trying to make decisions about how and where to invest in transit -- see Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success. On average, research suggests that communities see $4 in benefit for each $1 they invest in mass transit.

• Green spaces -- the creation of urban green spaces creates environmental, health, and community benefits that permeate across socioeconomic groups, and which can spread into the far future. Effective urban green spaces reduce air pollution and the “urban heat island” effect; help provide permeable surfaces that soak up urban runoff; provide recreational opportunities that promote a healthy lifestyle; provide opportunities for community and social engagement; can highlight native flora and provide important habitats for native fauna; and provide quantifiable improvements in quality of life. Even six minutes of looking at trees, for example, has been found to detectably reduce urban dwellers’ stress hormones. In a recent report, the World Health Organization found that the most effective urban green space interventions are “park-based interventions combined with social promotion activities” and “greening interventions,” which include planting trees next to streets; greening vacant lots; and the types of green infrastructure projects described below. Economic analyses of the impact of parks on property values often estimate between $4 and $11 of benefit per $1 invested, in the form of increased property values.

• Green infrastructure -- another key category of investment is green infrastructure. Green infrastructure investments often pay for themselves in savings from traditional (or “gray”) infrastructure, and/or can be structured as conditions for development. Cost-effective green infrastructure practices include promoting green roofs; planting trees and shrubs; permeable pavement; and water harvesting. Even where up-front capital is unavailable, these strategies can often be furthered at minimal initial cost to the municipality by providing development incentives. Chicago, for example, has been very effective incentivizing green roofs by prioritizing applications with green roofs, and by allowing developers to increase the number of units they may build in exchange for building a green roof in the city. Relatedly, EPA has identified a series of highly cost-effective strategies for reducing stormwater costs through Low Impact Development (LID) strategies and policies.

• Eco-taxes -- a final category of cost-effective policy intervention is the eco-tax. Eco-taxes are taxes on products or behaviors that cause environmental harm. When they are set at optimal levels, eco-taxes can force individuals to take account of any harm they are causing to the community or the environment by their actions. As a result, eco-taxes can both reduce costs and, in some cases, generate funds for further environmental investment. Fuel taxes, which are typically set by states (but in some cases also by cities), are one example. Another -- and one within the authority of more municipalities -- is a tax on plastic bags. One reasonable estimate suggests that, for each new plastic bag a consumer uses, it causes an average of 11 cents in environmental harm. Most of that has to be paid by local municipalities, who must fix the problems that come up when some of those bags end up as litter, in municipal water supplies, or incorrectly recycled. And then at least two cents of cost accrue in global harm from climate change, mostly from producing the energy needed to make and distribute the bag. This means that, without a plastic bag policy, cities (and to some extent the whole world) end up “holding the bag” for the costs of plastic bag use. Implementation of eco-taxes need not be complicated to administer: for bags, for example, fees can be imposed at the point of sale, and consumers can choose for themselves whether to pay for the harm their bag use causes. Eco-taxes like bag fees provide incentives for people to consider their impact on the environment, and can help cities manage their costs while producing environmental benefits.

What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? I think the biggest long-term impact of the Trump administration’s policies will come through reduced federal support for environmental research. Less funding for environmental research is bad news for cities, who often depend upon this research to know which policy interventions are most effective and/or most cost-effective. Few cities have the resources to invest heavily in basic environmental research on their own. What should cities do until or unless the federal government recommits to funding and making basic research available again? Their best options are to do what they can with existing research; to encourage their states to invest, where possible, in locally-important research; to pull on international resources (like those created by the World Health Organization and the European Union); and to work on relationship-building with similarly-situated entities around the country and the world. Pankaj Lal Associate Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Studies and Associate Director of the PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies at Montclair State University Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Absolutely, cities should certainly invest in going green. Adopting a path toward greening can not only result in a host of economic and environmental benefits, but can also make cities more sustainable and resilient against climate change and extreme weather events. As the infrastructure in a city ages, there is a pressing need to repair and/or replace outdated and less efficient infrastructure to keep up with the needs of the city. Furthermore, older infrastructure is sometimes more expensive to operate and maintain, making newer infrastructure an attractive, economically efficient option. Using green infrastructure can overcome these issues and provide a long-term solution that is not only aesthetically pleasing, but also economically beneficial. Investments in making cities green can reduce or reverse some of the adverse human influences on natural systems, and help regenerate some of the green spaces, ground water reserves, and improve the overall environmental health of a city. Apart from the direct benefits, there are a wide range of other benefits, such as attracting investments and talented/educated workforce that can boost a city. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? Research and development investments and green energy options and policies tend to provide the highest returns. However, it is difficult to pinpoint a single strategy as the most efficient; each city is at a different stage of development, and thus the “green solutions” that could be most beneficial for a particular city may not yield the same benefits for another. The needs of cities will vary wildly depending on environment, population and location, and thus each case must be considered individually. For example, in the New York-New Jersey area, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are an important issue, as they can potentially dump toxic wastes, sewage, and industrial wastewater into local water systems. Implementing green infrastructure solutions to address this problem could be extremely beneficial from a stormwater management perspective, and could reduce the strain on water treatment plants. CSOs, however, are not common in other areas of the country, so green systems to address these problems may be much less helpful in other areas. However, since cities are all huge energy users, reducing energy consumption can be a priority for any city; using smart systems that switch off when facilities or office spaces are not in use can lead to substantial cost and energy savings at an aggregate level. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? By taking into account their natural and spatial advantages, state and local authorities can prioritize certain renewable energy sector companies by offering them well-targeted incentives and prioritizing local technology implementation. Providing a supportive environment and human capital is the key. For example, with a considerable coastline, authorities in the New Jersey administration can evaluate the potential for offshore wind energy development and design policies that attract companies to invest in the region that will not only generate employment opportunities, but also diversify the state’s energy portfolio. Similarly, some cities might have specific advantages for solar energy due to high sunlight intensity, and accordingly micro and macro level projects can be encouraged to boost the regional solar energy industry. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? It is not fully clear how the recent changes might impact the health of cities. However, budgetary cuts will certainly restrict the monitoring and enforcement capabilities of the EPA; specific programs could be streamlined or shut down due to inadequacy of resources. Such factors could expose the public to health issues, but the impacts are likely to be very different across the country and also the community. Minority populations, or economically weaker sections may face higher exposure to these risks in the face of a system with poorer regulatory and enforcement frameworks. In addition, reducing funding for research could result in a slowdown in innovation and technological advancement over the next few years. Yet, this also presents an opportunity for the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and even private individuals who believe in the importance of sustainability to enhance efforts both through greater action and information dissemination. Even after the government’s announcement regarding withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, there were several industry leaders and organizations that voiced their disagreement. As such, we can hold ourselves to higher standards and strive to make our businesses more environmentally friendly. Several businesses see value in doing so, as it allows them to secure their organizations from risks emanating from potential supply chain disruptions. Furthermore, as more and more millennials enter the workforce, it will become imperative for organizations to espouse the value systems that their employees believe in, which can nudge them to adopt practices that are better for the environment. What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? From an individual perspective, one has several options. Smart energy consumption, reducing wastage of water, using public transportation whenever possible, driving lesser overall, more sustainable food choices including locally grown products, recycling and reducing trash, choosing a “repair-and-reuse” vs. a “use-discard-replace” lifestyle, reducing the use of plastics, and consuming environmentally friendlier items are all small things that come at a low cost or effort. In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators? Several organizations have performed detailed analysis on green cities. In my opinion, the top 5 indicators for green cities would be:

• Green spaces;

• Clean, safe water and treatment of wastewater;

• Recycling and efficient waste management;

• Efficient energy consumption for built infrastructure, such as residential and commercial buildings;

• A well-developed and time-efficient public transportation network. Some of the other important factors that contribute to making cities green would be improving air quality, reducing the per-capita CO2 emissions and reducing per capita waste, and thereby pressure on landfills and other waste management practices.

Philip Nyhus Associate Professor of Environmental Studies at Colby College Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Absolutely. Cities that invest in a green future will be healthier, more efficient and attractive, and contribute to a better local, regional, and global environment. Cities are at the forefront of innovative environmental policies, and this is important because an estimated 87% of the population of the U.S. and more than two-thirds of the global population will live in urban areas by 2050. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? Cities that focus on green transportation infrastructure, energy efficiency and the built environment, green space, wise zoning, and waste reduction will be healthier and more sustainable. For example, many urban areas struggle with congestion, air pollution, and the many short-term (e.g., exposure to air pollutants resulting in asthma and cancer) and long-term (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change) health and environmental impacts that come from development patterns that prioritize roads, cars, and incentivize sprawl. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? Municipalities that have created climate and sustainability action plans or joined with other cities to share green ideas and innovations will attract renewable energy companies and green businesses. For example, the Alliance for a Sustainable Future, a collaboration between the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) and Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), helps cities and businesses to work together to build sustainable communities and achieve climate goals. Some of the world’s largest cities collaborate to address climate change as members of the C40 network of large cities. If your city sets a goal to be carbon neutral, you will send a signal that solar, wind, and other renewable energy and green businesses are welcome. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Trump administration, unfortunately, has become the “Environmental Pollution Agency.” The bad news is, this administration is trying to dismantle half a century of federal efforts to improve the quality of our air, water, lands, biodiversity, and human health. Fortunately, however, local and state governments and the private sector are counteracting these efforts by investing in and championing innovative ideas and environmental policies. Encourage your city to sign the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? Individuals can make a positive contribution to the environmental impact of cities by making healthy choices and contributing to the civic and political life of their municipality. Help take cars -- and their emissions -- off the road by using light rail, bus, carpooling, or better yet, using your bike (with your helmet) or walking. Reduce your energy footprint and save money by making sure your home and workplace are well insulated. Replace energy-, chemical- and energy-intensive lawns with trees and natural landscaping. Substitute healthy supplies. Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost. Support local agriculture and consider growing some of your own food. Advocate for green choices in your neighborhood or city councils. Encourage urban planning that emphasize compact design, walkable neighborhoods, bike lanes and paths, and mixed land uses and green space instead of exclusionary zoning, more roads, and sprawl. Solar panels are great, but you can have a positive impact at no cost by engaging as a concerned citizen and being a good role model. Start or support a neighborhood group or organization that promotes green alternatives. Run for office, or support candidates for city council and other offices that support urban sustainability goals. Talk to your neighbors. Write letters to the editor. Christine Curran Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Northern Kentucky University Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits? Absolutely. The benefits are both environmental and economic. Walkable cities with strong mass transit attract young professionals who aren’t as tied to cars as their parents are. Walkable, dense housing supports a strong urban core with economic benefits in retail, cultural benefits in arts, and a more competitive climate for the major businesses in a city. The environmental benefits of reducing traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) benefit all residents of the city, and those downwind as well. Less traffic also means less congestion and improved safety. Cities that invest in renewable energy also reduce the overall impact of cities as heat islands, and will save money in the long term. What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? Energy conservation remains a great investment, whether it’s LEED certifying new construction or retrofitting older construction. Working with local homeowners and businesses can also be beneficial, helping to keep residents in the city core and protecting valuable, historic housing stock which can give a city its unique flavor. Investments in transit can be expensive, but the return on investment is clear both in energy savings and health benefits. EPA has a great software system to calculate these benefits, and they’ve been used for multiple city types. The bottom line is always positive, whether it’s building a good hike/bike trail system, or investing in more efficient and more effective transit systems. How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses? This has been a major issue in Ohio recently. The state had passed some great energy standards with bipartisan support, but there’s been a pushback in recent years to repeal them or slow their implementation. Without the proper government support and policies, it will take longer to bring in the right mix of solar, wind, geothermal, etc. An important consideration is how “renewable” is defined. Some companies are pushing for biofuels that would actually increase deforestation, so it’s not “one size fits all.” We need to take care to choose the right biofuels, so the production costs don’t generate more pollution than is saved by the lower emission fuel. What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities? In many ways, this is a wash. Mayors and governors are stepping up to honor and to increase their climate commitments. In Cincinnati, the mayoral candidates are trying to “out-green” each other. So, the short-term impacts might not be so bad. Long-term though, federal policy encouraging renewables over fossil fuels and nuclear power, and investment in environmental research is important and sorely needed. What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort? Take a hike – literally. It’s amazing how many short trips we take in our cars when we could walk or bike instead. My neighbors would laugh when I would walk to the grocery store on the hike-bike trail near our neighborhood, but you’re burning calories instead of gasoline. I had a T-shirt made once that said “The only fossil fuel I’m burning today is me! Hike, bike, paddle!” Find someone to carpool with. You’ll discover you have a lot less road rage when the person sitting next you agrees the person who just cut you off is a jerk. It also builds your work network. What’s not to like? Recycling helps too, but it’s amazing to me how many people still throw cans and bottles into a trash can when a recycling bin is a few feet away. In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

• Is the transit system connected? Too often a state or county line destroys the effectiveness of a transit system, and ridership plummets because it takes too long to get anywhere.

• Investment in transit vs. highway construction -- Northern Kentucky spends nearly 95% of its federal transportation funds on roadways. All they get in return is more congestion. No one counts orange barrel congestion, but it’s real and it’s less safe than multimodal systems.

• Energy consumption in government buildings, schools, etc. -- this is an area where taxpayers have some control, and tax incentives can bring the same benefits to homeowners along with strong renewable policies for public utilities.

• Clean air -- what does your air quality map look like? Smog alerts have moved from a summertime phenomenon to an April to October season.

• Clean water -- old sewer systems with combined stormwater/sewage overflows are dumping untreated sewage into our rivers on a regular basis. Lawsuits based on the Clean Water Act haven’t helped, because cities and counties get decades to fix the problem, and the cost gets dumped on the ratepayers.

Methodology

 

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress