Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Who Are The Greenest (States) Of All

The cases of New Jersey and West Virginia are exceptional. New Jersey is a very small state with a very high population density. They will drive less because things are closer. Not because the people of New Jersey are naturally greener (or bluer). And because of their numbers, they have more incentives and pressures to deal effectively with a number of environmental issues. Kind of like your statements about Atlanta starting to implement greywater meausures - an environmental initiative. Atlantans aren't suddenly much greener. They are in a situation where they don't have a choice. Green is 'in' because it is the last option. West Virginia is the coal center of America. The coal industry destroys that states environment (and that of the rest of the world). It is not West Virginians destroying their environment - it is the coal industry that unfortunately for them happens to be in their state. I think that people throughout the US are more or less divided into those that are responsible (green, with about equal numbers of blue and red) and those who are irresponsible (nongreen, with about equal numbers of blue and red), and more or less spread evenly throughout the whole US. Let's us not paint all Republicans as non-green and all Democrats as green. There are many green Republicans and there are many anti-green Democrats. And the govts. of states like New Jersey are more influenced by the needs of the people while the govts. of states like West Virginia are more controlled by strong economic sectors within them (like coal) at the expense of their citizens.

Its the power demand from places like New Jersey that is causing mountain top removal coal mining in West Virginia.

Moreover, if you go to West Virgina, you will find vast, beautiful areas of wilderness and actual nature. Thats not so common in New Jersey.

But the whole notion of "wilderness" can be deceptive. In fact, I'd guess that the reason the states at the bottom have no plans to deal with any of this is that they're deceived by the fact that they're largely rural, with lots of undeveloped wilderness. Their state governments think "non-urban" = "green".

I grew up in Louisiana, which is also at the bottom of the list. There are huge stretches of undeveloped wilderness areas, low population density, lots of farmland and rural communities. There is also a huge number of chemical plants, oil refineries, and other heavy polluting industrial facilities.

I think the real reason the survey plays out the way it does in terms of the Red/Blue divide is that so many red states are in the pockets of big industry. Which of course is the source of 70% of pollution.

But the whole notion of "wilderness" can be deceptive. In fact, I'd guess that the reason the states at the bottom have no plans to deal with any of this is that they're deceived by the fact that they're largely rural, with lots of undeveloped wilderness. Their state governments think "non-urban" = "green".

I grew up in Louisiana, which is also at the bottom of the list. There are huge stretches of undeveloped wilderness areas, low population density, lots of farmland and rural communities. There is also a huge number of chemical plants, oil refineries, and other heavy polluting industrial facilities.

I think the real reason the survey plays out the way it does in terms of the Red/Blue divide is that so many red states are in the pockets of big industry. Which of course is the source of 70% of pollution.

In the 2004 elections 21 states had less than a 10% difference between percentage voting Republican vs Democrat based on total voting population. Dividing states by electoral college votes is disingenuous and absurd.

Looks like Forbes wanted to have a "green" article like the other guys.

What Forbes Magazine has classified as highly "green" states are what US political polsters once commonly referred to as "Blue States," while the 'un-green' are your basic "Reds."

Colorado, Idaho, and Arizona are "blue" states??

It should be completely unsurprising that the more liberal states are also more green - it's a core value. Such states also have much higher per capita incomes and educational achievement, as well as being ranked best in various quality-of-life surveys. Such states also have the highest concentration of expensive real estate, which follows from the above (high incomes, high quality-of-life).

The less educated one is and the the more poor one is the easier one falls for things like bigotry, bible-thumping, and war-mongering. The genius of the Republican party's transformation over the past few decades has been getting a bunch of poor, uneducated people to vote for policies which almost solely benefit very educated and wealthy people, all at their own expense. It's evil, but it works.

When we lived in New Jersey, we drove less because there were so many cars on the road we were afraid to leave the house!

Check out the US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level...

http://www.eredux.com/states/

NJ has been consistently working on sustainability for at least a decade on the state level.

There was a study a few years ago that showed the states with the strictest environmental regs also have the best economies.

Arizona???? They are writing checks their body can't cash by importing water from Mexico and surrounding areas. That is sustainable???? Give me a break!

As proud as I am of Maryland's (my home state) top 5 ranking, this list is not really that relevant. As long as we are using coal from West Virginia and products made in these other states, we're ALL ranked no. 50.

Abe Lincoln: The way our political system works, the side that has the majority has most of the power. So that 55 or 60% is the side that controls the policy of the whole state.