(Hint: not Seattle)
I had to read this article like six times before I could figure out what the heck they were saying. Is Seattle high on the list of contributors to global warming, or is it low? Geez, Scientific American, if what you’re doing is actually giving us a list of the cities with the lowest carbon footprint, perhaps you could do better than the headline “Which U.S. Cities Contribute Most to Global Warming?”
“‘Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America‘ examined fuel use in transportation and energy use in homes, landing, from fourth to 10th ranking, New York City; Boise, Idaho; Seattle; San Jose, Calif.; San Francisco; El Paso, Tex.; and San Diego.”
Got that? No? Neither did I the first three times. I’ll make it simple for pea-brains such as mine own:
Cities that contribute LEAST to global warming, in order:
1. Honolulu
2. Los Angeles (Surprised? Me too.)
3. Portland
4. New York City
5. Boise
6. Seattle
7. San Jose
8. San Francisco
9. El Paso
10. San Diego
The most shocking thing about all this is everyone in Seattle complains constantly about always needing a car and how crappy our transportation is. We moved to the not-so-hip, but infinitely more affordable (than, say, Ballard) West Seattle in order to be able to walk to stores. It’s not so much my wanting to have a smaller footprint, though there is that. Honestly? I became convinced we would run out of oil with no new cars to replace the old ones, so I want to be able to walk to stores in the event of this apocalypse.
How the stores will get supplies, though, in my little fantasy world is anyone’s guess.
