Quote Originally Posted by DetroitDad View Post
That seems about right. Do you have a link to the list of 50? I find it hard to believe that there are that many big cities above us in a couple categories.

LEED building standards used to not take into account square footage, has that been changed yet, or are they still calling single family mcmansions "green"? Green building in the exurbs is a waste when you have a good home and building supply in the inner suburbs and city that just need to be renovated. Building new itself makes many of these things unsustainable.
The link to the 50 is: http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/

Here's the whole thing in a nutshell. Green building isn't that hard. Superinsulating a building at construction R-60 ceiling/roof , R-20 in the walls, and the edges of the slab too, will give you a building that you can heat just from solar alone, with lighting adding heat as well. Cooling costs much lower too. It's really not all about place, or transportation.

It's the renovation costs that are really driving up the costs for green building in the city and inner ring. Retrofoam, that blow in foam fill, sounds easiest for an older building. That will give you a substantial R value, but the costs may be prohibitive for some. That's only in houses, though. You can't do this on cinder block or concrete structures.

Having checked out the site you mentioned, I decided to check out the source of the data. 2000 census data is a little dated. The census blocks I checked had income levels significantly below the median. That explains the lack of cars, they can't afford them. Remember, the devil himself can quote scripture and use it for his own purposes.