a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 1 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2069319,00.html
America's Environmental Garden Spot: Would You Believe Manhattan?
What's the greenest place in America? If you answered something like the
granola-crunchy, Rocky Mountain-high town of Boulder, you'd be wrong. If you
guessed the sea breezes and warm sunlight of Santa Barbara, you'd be wrong
again. The greenest place in America is almost devoid of nature — the
buildings outnumber the trees — and the air isn't all that great. But what
it has is density and efficiency — the twin qualities that ultimately
define green in the global warming era. Applying those standards, the
greenest place in America is New York City — specifically, the overcrowded,
overpriced and sometimes overwrought island of Manhattan, which has a per-
capita greenhouse gas footprint less than 30% that of the national average.
It's that density — the sheer number of people living in such a small area,
often literally on top of each other — that makes Manhattan, and New York
City as a whole, so green. Manhattan's population density is 800 times the
national average. Density comes with negatives, certainly — small living
spaces, air pollution, lots and lots of concrete — but it also enables
amazing efficiencies. More than 80% of Manhattanites travel to work by
public transit, by bike or on foot — compared to an average of about 8%
everywhere else in the country. The vertical apartment buildings that
Manhattanites live in are far more energy-efficient than single-dwelling
housing in the suburbs. "Most Americans, including most New Yorkers, think
of New York City as an ecological nightmare, a wasteland of concrete and
garbage and diesel fumes and traffic jams," wrote David Owen in his 2009
book Green Metropolis. "But in comparison with the rest of America it's a
model of environmental responsibility." (See the top 10 green buildings of
2011.)
What's true of New York City is true of other American urban areas, albeit
to a lesser degree, which is why a growing part of the environmental
movement now focuses on greening cities, with the hope of attracting more
Americans back downtown and reversing suburban flight. That was the message
at the Garrison Institute's Climate, Cities and Behavior conference in New
York's Hudson Valley last week, which brought together urban managers from
around the country to brainstorm on sustainability. From deep-green capitals
like Portland to unexpected success stories like Minneapolis (which has the
second-most bicycle commuters per capita in the country), there's an effort
to make cities more sustainable, by improving public transit, reducing air
pollution and upgrading energy efficiency. But even more important, there's
a much-needed push underway to reverse decades of government policies that
have been weighted against cities in favor of the suburbs, with disastrous
consequences for energy, the environment and the climate.
Even without such a coordinated effort, there's plenty of local urban
greening going on. Vancouver — with its new LEED Platinum convention center
and its gorgeous downtown — has been able to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions 6% below 1990 levels, even as the city's population and economy
have grown. Sadhu Johnston, Vancouver's deputy manager — and the former
chief environmental officer for Chicago — pointed out that the city has
convinced some 60,000 people to move downtown, thanks largely to better
quality of life. Minneapolis has raised the number of bike commuters — no
small thing in a part of the country with such punishing winters — by
improving safety and service. San Francisco now diverts 77% of its waste
from landfills — including organic waste through composting — and
officials believe the city can recycle as much as 90% of the waste stream. "
We can effect change by designing better communities," Johnston told the
audience at the Garrison meeting. (See pictures of Bangkok untangling its
traffic gridlock.)
That's exactly the challenge. For all the emphasis on improving lighting
efficiency in city buildings, or pushing for less wasteful boilers in
apartment buildings, for all the convenience and richness of living in a
city, there are downsides too — and they can be big ones. New York, for
instance, has some of the highest childhood asthma rates in the U.S., a fact
that is exacerbated by its tightly packed population and the sheer amount
of energy — mostly in the form of fossil fuels — being burned in a small
area. As Owen points out in a book, on a per-capita basis Manhattan is an
environmental utopia, but on a per sq. ft basis it can still be an
environmental catastrophe. Air pollution contributes to approximately 6% of
the deaths in the city each year, along with more than 6,000 emergency
department visits for children and adults annually.
So it's welcome news that New York under Mayor Michael Bloomberg has
continued to push its PlaNYC scheme, an innovative long-term program to make
the city greener and more sustainable over the next couple of decades. Last
month Bloomberg announced an update to the plan that includes the phasing
out of heavy heating oils in New York City apartment buildings. Soot from
the 10,000 or so buildings burning heavy heating oils accounts for more than
85% of the heating oil soot emissions in the city — more than all the soot
created by New York's cars and trucks combined. The rules will phase out
the worst heating oils by 2030, to be replaced chiefly with cleaner natural
gas. "By the time today's new rules are fully implemented, we expect that
they will save something like 1,500 New Yorkers' lives each year and improve
the quality of life for thousands more," Bloomberg said. (See pictures of
PlaNYC's efforts around the city.)
Those rules — along with the parks and other environmental amenities put
into place under PlaNYC — should make the city more attractive to both
residents and potential residents, with net positive results for the
environment. Of course, urban life isn't for everyone. As someone who was
born in the suburbs but has lived his adult life in dense cities — Hong
Kong, Tokyo and New York — I know there are definitely downsides. These
cities can be expensive and cramped, and there are days when I just can't
face the A train. But don't doubt it: if you really care about your carbon
footprint, you'll live in a city. | D********e
发帖数: 2452 | 2 不信，从飞机上看，好多地方都比manhattan好多了。 | m*******y
发帖数: 14292 | | d***s
发帖数: 7683 | 4 人均排放是很少的,因为99%的人都是坐地铁. 如果美国大城市都用公共交通多好啊. 可
惜一些黑肥人太懒, 只想做小轿车,爬不动地铁. | a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 5 It's that density — the sheer number of people living in such a small area,
often literally on top of each other — that makes Manhattan, and New York
City as a whole, so green.
Manhattan's population density is 800 times the national average.
【在 D********e 的大作中提到】
: 不信，从飞机上看，好多地方都比manhattan好多了。
| d***s
发帖数: 7683 | 6 哪儿好去哪儿
【在 D********e 的大作中提到】
: 不信，从飞机上看，好多地方都比manhattan好多了。
| m*******y
发帖数: 14292 | 7 别忘了我们下班之后要接一下头
【在 d***s 的大作中提到】
: 哪儿好去哪儿
| p***y
发帖数: 18037 | 8 这一直是这样。
美国两个最绿的都会是曼哈顿和旧金山。曼哈顿因为有中央公园，旧金山有Golden
Gate Park。 | d***s
发帖数: 7683 | 9 暴露私人信件内容封14天.
6PM
【在 m*******y 的大作中提到】
: 别忘了我们下班之后要接一下头
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 10 是因为人多，人均就少了。。
【在 p***y 的大作中提到】
: 这一直是这样。
: 美国两个最绿的都会是曼哈顿和旧金山。曼哈顿因为有中央公园，旧金山有Golden
: Gate Park。
| | | d***s
发帖数: 7683 | 11 不是因为人多, 是因为乘坐公共交通的人所占比例极大.
你的GRE逻辑估计考的不好.
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 是因为人多，人均就少了。。
| p***y
发帖数: 18037 | 12 ？人多人均就少？那不就排不上名了？
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 是因为人多，人均就少了。。
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 13 per-capita basis Manhattan is an environmental utopia, but on a per sq. ft
basis it can still be an environmental catastrophe.
per-capita 是算人还是交通比例？
哎，别提GRE，还没考就得了 0 分。。
【在 d***s 的大作中提到】
: 不是因为人多, 是因为乘坐公共交通的人所占比例极大.
: 你的GRE逻辑估计考的不好.
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 14 一吨废物，如果只有一个人就全他的；两个人就每人半吨。。少的就绿点。
【在 p***y 的大作中提到】
: ？人多人均就少？那不就排不上名了？
| p***y
发帖数: 18037 | 15 问题是那不是评判的标准呀。
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 一吨废物，如果只有一个人就全他的；两个人就每人半吨。。少的就绿点。
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 16 根据文章，貌似是标准。。
【在 p***y 的大作中提到】
: 问题是那不是评判的标准呀。
| p***y
发帖数: 18037 | 17 你和我说的是两回事。我说的是我以前看到大都会里面绿地和总面积比最高的两个都会
，一个是纽约，另一个是旧金山。
不过你的文章说的判断标准是：
Residents that think and act eco-consciously: 43%
Residents that are not eco-conscious: 15%
Residents that recycle: 68%
Average weekday trips on public transportation: 13,303,000
Homes with solar heating: 0.01%
也和你说的废物绿地不同。
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 根据文章，貌似是标准。。
| i**********o
发帖数: 5993 | 18 per-capita greenhouse gas footprint
要是去非洲原始部落更低 | Y******u
发帖数: 1912 | 19 the view is exactly the same from my office | a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 20 非洲什么时候也属于美国范围？
【在 i**********o 的大作中提到】
: per-capita greenhouse gas footprint
: 要是去非洲原始部落更低
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 21 哦，两回事。。。
鬼老的文章，要知道说什么，很多时候看第一段最后一句话就知道要说的东西了。。其
它都是支撑点。。 per-capita greenhouse gas ..
【在 p***y 的大作中提到】
: 你和我说的是两回事。我说的是我以前看到大都会里面绿地和总面积比最高的两个都会
: ，一个是纽约，另一个是旧金山。
: 不过你的文章说的判断标准是：
: Residents that think and act eco-consciously: 43%
: Residents that are not eco-conscious: 15%
: Residents that recycle: 68%
: Average weekday trips on public transportation: 13,303,000
: Homes with solar heating: 0.01%
: 也和你说的废物绿地不同。
|
|
