I'm actually surprised to see Alexandria and Newport News VA on the list. I've lived in both of those towns (not that long ago) and didn't really feel the eco-love. Maybe they've made some recent changes. Looks like I'll be heading to Portland soon!

Ok, this list is complete crap.

How in the world did they judge this. Amarillo, TX is on the list? I lived there for years, there is no way it is "Greener" than even Dallas. At least Dallas has a public trans system. Not to mention recycling pick up.

This is just crap.

INteresting, but seems like more of a ploy to sell mags with yet another ranking list. Any city that is part of a metro area is inherantly a part of that metro and should therefor not be compared to a city that is separate. LIkewise, suburbs should not be compared to their major city. It's a skewed comparison.

I don't see how Minneapolis, Minn and St. Paul, Minn can rank 11th and 12th. Think of all the energy that is wasted to keep that place warm and remove snow in the winter. They are not exactly bike friendly in January either.

On the other hand look at California go!

It's be interesting to see all these cities plotted out on a map of the US. It looks as if the North East is lacking, while the South, Midwest are there in force. I guess that just shows that we/I might need to rethink stereotypes of these areas.

I live in Sunnyvale (#13 on the list) and am actually sad that we made the list. There are only 12 US cities greener than here? Sigh.

If Hawaii made it that high on the list, it's probably all fluff and not a measure of anything worthwhile. I'm in Honolulu right now, and it IS NOT green. For example:

0. Ok, one point because our air is clean. Absolutely. BUT:

1. Electricity? In Hawaii we IMPORT EVERYTHING. And from very far away! This includes basically all of our energy (oil), food, goods, people... (waaay too many people...) everything.

2. Recycling? In Hawaii this is problematic--we've got no real recycling plants here. None. This means that our glass, plastics, and paper are *shipped back to the mainland* to be recycled! This is NOT green. The debate goes that either we build more parks out of landfills (some are damn pretty), or we ship them back in big cargo containers that would be going back empty, anyway. Of course, that trash has a whole lot of weight to it, which adds up to a whole lot more fuel to move them.

3. Transportation? No way. Single drivers everywhere, and way too many of them are in Hummers and SUVs for such a small island.

4. As you may know, our economy here is dependent on tourism. Last I heard, all those people flying to Hawaii from all around the world build up a whole lot of CO2. Green? Not a chance.

NOTE: Our governor just announced a few weeks ago that she wants to make Hawaii one of the greenest sources of energy in the nation. It sounds like they're finally catching on--a little late, but still great to hear.

chicago doesn't even have recycling pick up! bah!

i lived in dallas for most of my life. they know whats up. even the the EPA recognizes the city of dallas for being environmentally friendly.

It always amazes me when organizations come up with ranking systemsbased on their own pet data sets, turn the crank, and publish the results without first asking if the the result passes the "red faced test."

This one clearly does not.

16. Albuquerque, N.M. (19.1) Really. Have they even thought about the impacts of unconstrained growth on water supplies?

I guess not.

Syracuse is on the move up. Check ot Destiny USA project.

I live right near Greensboro, and am ashamed it is number 50 on the list. It seems there are alot of people with negative views on being green around here. I hope we will do better!

Sad not to see my old home town of San Diego not on the list... all that sunshine not being put to good use - very disappointing.

First off let me say I absolutely love Portland. It is a great, happy, wonderful city. I have had some really great times in Portland, and the people are nice as hell.

But these rankings are crap.

Portland always ranks top on the list because it feels green, not because it IS green. It is a town that wears it’s eco-liberal desires on it’s sleeve, it is showy- IN FACT the public transport there sucks (there is no subway, buses stop at 10:30 or so) most people drive (older cars with horrible emissions) and other than the look and feel there is really nothing green about it. It has the fortune to get clean water from Mt. Hood, and good air-patterns to drag all the air-pollution elsewhere (into the eastern deserts) but by no means is it a REAL green city. Great trees, but the city is relativity young- give it time. There are old cities in the East which have as many parks/green spaces and have been around 150 years longer.

If we dig into the details of their own report, on the things that are CERTAIN to make a city more sustainable, Portland does not rank high, but on the things that are SUBJECTIVE or can not be shown to have any benefit it ranks very high:

Washington DC: 33% commute by public transport
New York: 55% commute by public transport
Portland: 13.3% commute by public transport

Portland came in 10th in city commuting, DC came in #1, yet DC is not on the list and Portland is, why? When commuting is the #1 cause of most environmental pollution (along with industrial waste, which Portland has… but that is another story).

The things that put Portland over the rest (a few examples) Climate change policy, “green economy”, and “knowledge base”… ok what does any of that really matter? I mean who the hell cares what a cities climate change policy is? Especially a city as small as PDX which is really invisible to all outside the NW, so it does not drive policy anyway! I mean Tacoma Park Maryland is nuclear free and that is just about meaningless too. “Green” economy, does that mean selling hemp underwear and shoes? Retail? Trading? A bit subjective don’t you think? Is Portland the largest center of Solar technology manufacturing, NO, clean-cars, NO, the list goes on, so what is the green-economy? Tofurkies? (which I love and could not personally live without by the way). And finally “Knowledge base”? Really more that Boston with MIT? Subjective again.

I mean c’mon even LA has 10% of it’s people that use buses and trains! Portland is only slightly more and it is #1 green? A prime example of lots of show and talk, but no reality. Portland is a city of green-style, and no substance. And by no means is a very specific fashion-driven model there ever going to apply to a “real” city (the hundreds of them all over the world. So if you want to look green, and talk green, but really have no impact, go enjoy. I personally think that is great, but I just get annoyed when it is expressed as anything other than that.

Another thing, other cities have as many LEED buildings- the bigger cities have green buildings built before LEED certification was around.

Portland has one of the best public transportation systems in the USA (assuming you live downtown). Other cities visit her first when designing public transportation. However, adding up all the green things to make it a winner seems odd when adding up all the brown gooey things makes it a loser.

I've lived in Portland(1), San Francisco(2), Oakland(4), Eugene(4), Berkeley(6), Sunnyvale(13), Honolulu(14), Concord(43), Fremont(44) and Stockton(49).

San Francisco is the only one I would consider returning to, but I like trees so that's not likely to happen. Portland maybe; if they cleaned up their air, water and toxic discharges.

Fremont is an industrial wasteland, Nothing chooses to live there.

Stockton is a bath of industrial pollution, not to mention a delta of pesticides, herbicides and homicides.

Oakland is next to Fremont, but includes accidental discharges form the west-coast shipping hub, and, oh yeah, "Murder Capital" status.

Berkeley is next door to Oakland and downwind of SF and the bay bridge, feeding a quarter million cars through your front yard every day. And careful of the over-developed hiils, they burn like Southern California.

Sunnyvale, well, if a cloud of brown smog over your head is acceptable, and 24/7 traffic congestion, then it's fairly mellow - welcome to sprawl. Public transportation is mostly limited to getting the hell out of there.

Concord - oil refineries? Hello... only miles from No. Cal's oil refineries. I have to roll up my windows just to drive past that area. Seriously.

Honolulu is obviously the least green place in the state of Hawaii, as addressed above.

With that, I guess there isn't a green city.

I'm not surprised that I don't see a single Florida city on here. Here in Tampa and the nearby major suburb city we have the worst, most pathetic excuse for a public transport system I've ever seen. I used to live near Minn/St. Paul and their awesome transport system leads me to believe this was a major factor in considering a city "green".

Wow, a 2/10 for New York on electricity. I guess they don't like nuclear...

But hey, 10/10 for transportation ain't bad. It seems like it got shoved way behind the other leaders.

Weee and Anon.. I think what you may be pointing to is less the problems with this ranking and more the overall sad state of this ENTIRE COUNTRY!!!

I live in the Portland area and can see how, based on the criteria at the top of this post, it ranked well. We have the best curbside recycling I have seen anywhere. We don't use mass transit as much as NY but we have lots of people walking and riding bikes. Our transit system is great compared to other cities our size. We are the only city of the size we are or larger that has only 2 lanes of freeway going through the city center. (Emphasis on alternatives) We have a GREAT cycling system. This is kind of a freebee (and it's "green-ness" is arguable) but most of our energy is from hydro and a lot from wind. Green living? Well I don't know how you measure that exactly... we have a lot of local food, there is a big organic movement, and community environmental groups have a BIG say in what goes on in this city.

I don't think this ranking is garbage. I just think that, sadly, a city with a river running though it that is a toxic superfund cleanup site can be the greenest city in this country.

Two thoughts on this latest green list.

First, we're tallking relatively large cities - perhaps the article should be about the least Un-Green Cities in the U.S. (and not America, as a previous commentor kind of pointed out)

Second, all those western cities (and I really like a lot of them) that did so well because their electricity comes from Renewable Resources, which includes hydro-electric, should actually be docked in part for that hydro-electricity.

Sure, they're not spewing as much SO2 into the air as the coal burners, and it's renewable as long as the water flows, but the DAMS that create hydro are also the primary reason for several species of fish being listed as threatened or endangered with EXTINCTION under our endangered species act. HOW CAN THIS BE GREEN?

(sorry if I'm shouting, but I'm getting tired of everyone wanting to be green to be hip, then finding whatever rationale they can think of to legitimize them saying they're green)

I'm going to sound sour. But as a North american I'm constantly anoyed by the generic America you americans use to identify your country. You all make the same mistake. You live in the United States of America. America in a continent. So every time you generalize it's frustrating. Your cited article America's 50 green cities only refers to US cities. So the generic America is again used to identify your nation while in the same time ignoring the OTHER America, Believe me we have our own identity ! We even have a few green cities ! We are Canadians of North America. We say and think you live in the United States, not in America, to us we are two distinct nations on a CONTINENT named America !
You are the only ones on the planet to confuse country and continent. The french or germans don't call themselves europeans...
Pleeeeeeaaaase. Make the difference !
I hope I'm civil enough...

I'm going to sound sour. But as a North american I'm constantly anoyed by the generic America you americans use to identify your country. You all make the same mistake. You live in the United States of America. America in a continent. So every time you generalize it's frustrating. Your cited article America's 50 green cities only refers to US cities. So the generic America is again used to identify your nation while in the same time ignoring the OTHER America, Believe me we have our own identity ! We even have a few green cities ! We are Canadians of North America. We say and think you live in the United States, not in America, to us we are two distinct nations on a CONTINENT named America !
You are the only ones on the planet to confuse country and continent. The french or germans don't call themselves europeans...
Pleeeeeeaaaase. Make the difference !
I hope I'm civil enough...

I grew up in Syracuse, NY (#17), and as much as I miss it, I have to question that result. One thought comes to mind..... ONONDAGA LAKE. I know they are trying to clean it, but in my eyes you have to take that into account.

Of course this is subjective. This isn't supposed to be science. It's not like somebody traveled to each city and sampled water and polled the population on their composting knowledge. It was somebody who did some Google searches and never left his office. His/her job was to write one of those TopCities(TM) articles where you have to click through to see if your town is on one of them. You know, with the suspenseful tag line "and the number one city is ..." I mean, you'd have to be a total ... oh wait. Oh damn.

Ranking SF No. 2 surprises me. I live in SF in a high rise apartment building. In November 1998 an immense restaurant, Kokkari, opened below us. It has four major emission sources, including a very large wood burnuing (oak) fire place. Its roof is cluttered with noisy machinery that runs 24/7. The pollution is long and intense. In 1998 the carcinogenic effects of second hand smoke were well understood. How did this restaurant get a permit to pollute? The area is like a canyon and the smoke lingers for hours. The fireplace is on all year - regardless of weather. it is decorative, except when they roast animals. They use oak wood. How many expensive "green" (spare-the air, global warming) projects are negated by just one night by this polluter. Please revisit SF ranking. Living here is like living above a 1980s steam-train depot.

Ranking SF No. 2 surprises me. I live in SF in a high rise apartment building. In November 1998 an immense restaurant, Kokkari, opened below us. It has four major emission sources, including a very large wood burnuing (oak) fire place. Its roof is cluttered with noisy machinery that runs 24/7. The pollution is long and intense. In 1998 the carcinogenic effects of second hand smoke were well understood. How did this restaurant get a permit to pollute? The area is like a canyon and the smoke lingers for hours. The fireplace is on all year - regardless of weather. it is decorative, except when they roast animals. They use oak wood. How many expensive "green" (spare-the air, global warming) projects are negated by just one night by this polluter. Please revisit SF ranking. Living here is like living above a 1980s steam-train depot.

SF has one of the newest and largest polluters in the country. Kokkari Restaurant. It has 4 chimneys (including a massive oak wood burning fire place) located under the largest high-rise residential complex it the city. This restaurant began polluting with "immunity" in 1998 and continues. No! SF is by no means No. 2 - Not if you live and breathe in the carcinogenic smoke belt.

I'm a resident of No.45 Elizabeth. I love my city. I work in this city so when I say green doesn't mean clean believe me. Elizabeth is surrounded by an Exxon refinery, Anheuser-Busch factory and Newark Airport so please visit this green city breathe our air, taste our water, and feel the tingle of our acid rain.

I'm surprised San Jose didn't even make the list. Our mayor has great plans to make us one of the greenest cities in the U.S. Santa Clara county has an incredible transportation system, which I can attest to from my daily use. We have recycle pick-up, and our temperate climate doesn't require much heating or cooling. Something about this list is a little off.