Although there is not an official EPA ranking system to determine the “Greeness” of a city, The Mother Nature Network has measured and compared several important aspects of sustainability in American cities, and has declared Cambridge the sixth greenest city in the country. This puts our small 7.13 square mile city higher in the ranks than large cities like Seattle, WA; Chicago, IL; & Austin, TX. Cambridge even ranked higher than the famously green/progressive city of Berkeley, CA!
Portland, OR, was awarded the title of greenest city in America for its dedication to bicycles, sustainability education efforts, and local businesses. San Fransisco came in second for its emphasis on solar power, its new recycling program, its plastic bag ban, and its plan to divert 75% of its landfill waste by 2010. Cambridge’s neighbor, Boston, was awarded 3rd place for the Down2Earth conference, and it’s emphasis on alternative energy vehicles. Boston Mayor candidate Michael Flahrety has recently released a YouTube Video that explores the possibilities of providing green collar job training and opportunities to the city’s at-risk youth.
Winners of 4th and 5th places, are Oakland, California, and Eugene, Oregon. Oakland wins for it’s clean tap water, local and organic food, hydrogen-powered public transportation, and its growing oil independency (17% of the energy is received from renewable sources and the city plans to be oil-independent and produce zero waste in ten years time). Eugene is another friendly bicycle city, with an impressive Hybrid Public Transit system too!
All over the country, cities are stepping it up in the name of sustainability. While many of the cities that are investing in new alternative technologies and sustainability programs are big cities with big budgets, Cambridge is an excellent example of the possibility for all cities – no matter how small they may be – to embrace sustainable development. Recent Sustainability developments in Cambridge include Bicycle programs , Climate protection programs such as the Cambridge Energy Alliance and the Climate Protection Action Committee, as well as a growing number of renewable energy systems to power our businesses and homes.
Committees, programs and alliances are all well and good window dressing but the actual impact the alphabet soup of do-gooders is rather small if measurable at all. Sure, leadership of some sort may have contributed to a small fraction of green-ism in the City but its really market-driven by people who make decisions outside of the ‘cheerleaders’ for climate change. That’s why very few organizations, homes or businesses ‘go solar’ because it makes no economic sense whatsoever for 98% of all users. Its also why people with 30 year old boilers change them to high efficiency because it makes dollars and sense. It has little do to with the CEA that someone got a free energy audit already provided by utility programs. These alleged green goodness changes have little if anything to do with the committees and programs and alliances that pepper the landscape with mostly political and ideological messages which have little consequence or impact on the average person who needs energy relief but can’t afford it. But go ahead, grab all the “credit” you want for whatever imperceptible role you actually play in the so called Greening of Cambridge.
….and using the MIT Strata Center building in your pic – what a disaster of a building. Leaky, moldy & mired in operational problems.
While private industry is an important driver of innovation, public initiatives and programming are critical elements of many successful campaigns. Take for instance the Marshfield Energy Challenge, promoted by NSTAR in coordination with Mass Tech Collaborative, schools, local non profits, the city of Marshfield and the business community.
Utility based rebates and energy programs were already in place, but through collective outreach and education they were able to boost audits 10 fold within a year. There are plenty of examples like recycling that required outreach campaigns to before they were adopted by the public.
Every dollar spent on energy efficiency programs in the home are worth $2 to $3 spent on alternative energy sources. It’s what Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute calls “negawatts”. This effort in combination with the switch away from fossil fuels will provide energy relief to the average person, by providing a sustainable means of energy production and use.
What you point out about businesses not going solar is really more of a failure of the market than of the government. If the market could solve our energy crisis then all businesses would have gone solar years ago before the price of oil skyrocketed and the polar icecaps started melting. The market tends to treat the environment as a resource to be extracted rather than the foundation on which all life depends.