Adam McCann, Financial Writer

Oct 8, 2019

“Green” living means a choice to engage in cleaner, more sustainable habits in order to preserve the planet as much as possible. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that “stricter environmental regulations are worth the cost.” And a majority of Americans think the government is currently doing too little to improve water and air quality (69% and 64%, respectively).

The Trump administration has recently changed standards for the coal industry, rolling back regulations on coal plant emissions, which has led to a lawsuit by 21 states. On the other hand, while many people expected solar power to struggle under new tariffs aimed at goods manufactured abroad, the industry has bounced back, with an expected job growth of 7% in 2019.

Apart from employing Americans, clean energy and other “green” practices, such as recycling programs and urban agriculture, benefit the environment and public health, all of which contribute to America’s bottom line, according to many experts. Recognizing those advantages, cities across the U.S. have increased their sustainability efforts and benefited economically.

To determine the cities promoting an environmentally friendly lifestyle, WalletHub compared the 100 largest cities across 28 key “green” indicators. Our data set ranges from greenhouse-gas emissions per capita to number of smart-energy policies and initiatives to green job opportunities. Read on for our findings, expert insight from a panel of researchers and a full description of our methodology.

Main Findings





Green Cities in the U.S.

Overall Rank

(1 = Greenest) City Total Score ‘Environment’ Rank ‘Transportation’ Rank ‘Energy Sources’ Rank ‘Lifestyle & Policy’ Rank 1 San Francisco, CA 72.48 8 6 16 3 2 San Diego, CA 72.04 5 28 9 13 3 Irvine, CA 69.83 6 38 1 7 4 Washington, DC 68.84 40 8 14 4 5 San Jose, CA 68.42 14 29 8 20 6 Seattle, WA 68.05 36 13 20 2 7 Fremont, CA 67.13 2 90 1 23 8 Sacramento, CA 65.90 43 16 17 5 9 Portland, OR 65.87 62 10 19 1 10 Oakland, CA 65.32 16 77 10 10 11 Minneapolis, MN 65.10 30 1 30 22 12 Honolulu, HI 63.78 35 3 32 11 13 Buffalo, NY 62.31 32 7 31 21 14 Chula Vista, CA 61.20 34 73 12 30 15 Boston, MA 60.73 9 9 43 29 16 San Bernardino, CA 60.59 47 62 1 15 17 St. Paul, MN 60.55 22 31 24 31 18 Madison, WI 60.39 11 2 76 32 19 Los Angeles, CA 60.22 68 49 13 14 20 Austin, TX 60.03 24 37 38 9 21 New York, NY 59.64 53 27 26 18 22 Long Beach, CA 58.79 76 46 11 24 23 Riverside, CA 58.68 94 60 15 6 24 Fresno, CA 57.49 89 68 1 8 25 Stockton, CA 56.89 80 72 1 16 26 Anchorage, AK 56.41 19 55 34 27 27 Santa Ana, CA 56.09 67 64 1 36 28 Anaheim, CA 55.79 78 70 1 28 29 Denver, CO 55.64 97 11 23 25 30 Orlando, FL 54.37 46 4 69 17 31 Boise, ID 53.96 92 15 25 41 32 Cincinnati, OH 53.72 7 14 85 35 33 Albuquerque, NM 53.41 42 25 40 47 34 Bakersfield, CA 52.72 99 65 18 12 35 Scottsdale, AZ 52.29 15 58 56 50 36 Lincoln, NE 52.24 37 43 35 81 37 Jersey City, NJ 52.24 23 5 99 38 38 Reno, NV 52.17 60 40 33 42 39 Indianapolis, IN 51.66 4 61 55 61 40 Las Vegas, NV 51.65 96 26 22 43 41 Garland, TX 51.12 31 48 44 94 42 Greensboro, NC 51.05 18 34 64 69 43 El Paso, TX 50.93 12 45 52 72 44 San Antonio, TX 50.76 54 54 37 57 45 Tucson, AZ 50.72 39 32 61 54 46 North Las Vegas, NV 50.67 63 80 21 83 47 Chesapeake, VA 50.60 1 91 93 79 48 Phoenix, AZ 50.19 75 42 36 52 49 Wichita, KS 49.90 44 92 28 98 50 Pittsburgh, PA 49.78 52 12 75 45 51 Tampa, FL 49.70 33 21 92 34 52 Raleigh, NC 49.65 10 74 70 55 53 Atlanta, GA 49.56 56 20 67 39 54 Aurora, CO 49.14 79 24 41 62 55 Colorado Springs, CO 48.96 59 87 27 56 56 Philadelphia, PA 48.70 48 17 73 48 57 Norfolk, VA 48.45 25 85 93 53 58 Kansas City, MO 48.31 51 22 68 58 59 New Orleans, LA 48.21 29 39 71 87 60 Lubbock, TX 48.17 58 53 44 68 61 Milwaukee, WI 47.93 71 19 77 33 62 Miami, FL 47.75 64 18 96 19 63 Charlotte, NC 47.66 13 59 84 65 64 Irving, TX 46.93 55 89 44 82 65 Chicago, IL 46.86 85 51 62 26 66 Baltimore, MD 46.64 91 23 60 37 67 Laredo, TX 46.53 82 71 44 40 68 Omaha, NE 46.40 50 33 63 71 69 Nashville, TN 46.34 28 66 74 86 70 Birmingham, AL 46.26 17 44 91 66 71 Winston-Salem, NC 46.11 41 81 64 88 72 Fort Worth, TX 45.83 61 75 51 77 73 St. Petersburg, FL 45.79 26 83 78 78 74 Plano, TX 45.65 57 93 44 91 75 Durham, NC 45.65 45 57 64 76 76 Oklahoma City, OK 45.41 90 50 42 90 77 Fort Wayne, IN 45.41 20 69 86 96 78 Columbus, OH 45.21 27 41 81 70 79 Tulsa, OK 45.19 98 36 29 93 80 Chandler, AZ 45.03 70 86 56 51 81 Arlington, TX 44.99 21 100 44 100 82 Dallas, TX 44.94 74 63 54 64 83 Henderson, NV 44.53 83 88 39 89 84 Houston, TX 43.86 81 78 53 59 85 Memphis, TN 42.90 66 56 80 75 86 Glendale, AZ 42.40 69 84 56 95 87 St. Louis, MO 42.37 65 67 79 44 88 Hialeah, FL 41.84 49 95 97 97 89 Louisville, KY 41.70 84 47 87 46 90 Newark, NJ 41.68 73 52 88 49 91 Virginia Beach, VA 41.66 3 94 98 80 92 Jacksonville, FL 41.64 38 97 89 92 93 Detroit, MI 41.62 72 35 90 84 94 Cleveland, OH 41.62 87 30 83 63 95 Gilbert, AZ 41.32 86 99 56 67 96 Mesa, AZ 39.80 88 98 72 60 97 Lexington-Fayette, KY 39.53 93 76 82 73 98 Toledo, OH 37.75 77 82 100 74 99 Corpus Christi, TX 36.25 100 79 44 85 100 Baton Rouge, LA 35.43 95 96 95 99

Ask the Experts

Environmental sustainability is one of the biggest challenges of our time. For additional insight, we asked a panel of experts to share their advice on living a greener lifestyle. Click on the experts’ profiles below to read their bios and responses to the following key questions:

Should cities invest in “going green”? What are the benefits of doing so? What types of “green” policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck? How can state and local authorities attract renewable-energy companies and other “green” businesses? What effect might the Trump administration approach to managing the EPA have on the environmental health of cities? What are some easy ways individuals can “go green” without much cost or effort? In evaluating the greenest cities, what are the top five indicators?

Methodology

In order to determine the greenest cities in America, WalletHub compared the 100 most populated cities across four key dimensions: 1) Environment, 2) Transportation, 3) Energy Sources and 4) Lifestyle & Policy.

We evaluated those dimensions using 28 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the greenest practices and policies. For metrics marked with an asterisk (*), we used the square root of the population to calculate the population size in order to avoid overcompensating for minor differences across cities.

Although recycling is vital to the sustainability efforts of each city, the types and sizes of recycling facilities vary widely by city. We therefore were unable to include — due to the lack of comparable city-level data — metrics that either measure the availability of recycling programs or the amount of waste recycled in each city.

Finally, we determined each city’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample. In determining our sample, we considered only the “city proper” in each case and excluded surrounding cities in the metro area.

Environment – Total Points: 40

Air-Quality Index: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Note: This metric measures the average exposure of the general public to particulate matter of 2.5 microns (PM2.5) or less in size.

Greenhouse-Gas Emissions per Capita: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Urban Heat Island Effect: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Note: This metric measures the average daily urban-regional temperature differences over a 10-year period.

Green Space: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Note: This metric measures the share of parkland.

Water Quality: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Daily Water Consumption per Capita: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Share of Green Hotels: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Population Density (Proxy for Overpopulation): Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Light Pollution Level: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Transportation – Total Points: 25

Share of Commuters Who Drive Alone: Double Weight (~4.55 Points)

Note: This metric includes commuters who do not carpool, walk, ride public transit or bike.

Average Commute Time by Car: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)

Walk Score: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)

Bike Score: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)

Miles of Bicycle Lanes: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)

Presence of Bike-Sharing Program: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)

Note: This binary metric measures the presence or absence of bike-sharing programs in a city.

Annual Excess Fuel Consumption: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)

Note: This metric measures gallons per auto commuter and was used as a proxy for “congestion level.”

Intersection Density: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)

Accessibility of Jobs by Public Transit: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)

Note: This metric measures the number of jobs that are accessible by a 30-minute transit ride per 100 civilian employed population.

Alternative-Fuel Stations per Capita: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)

Energy Sources – Total Points: 20

Share of Electricity from Renewable Sources: Double Weight (~10.00 Points)

Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Installations per Capita: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)

Number of Smart-Energy Policies & Initiatives: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)

Lifestyle & Policy – Total Points: 15

Farmers Markets & CSA Programs per Capita*: Full Weight (~2.50 Points)

Note: “CSA” refers to community-supported agriculture.

Certified Organic Farms per Capita*: Full Weight (~2.50 Points)

Community Garden Plots per Capita*: Full Weight (~2.50 Points)

“Green” Job Opportunities: Full Weight (~2.50 Points)

Number of Local Programs Promoting Green-Energy Use: Full Weight (~2.50 Points)

Presence of Plastic Bag Bans: Full Weight (~2.50 Points)

Note: This binary metric measures the presence or absence of policies that have banned the use of disposable plastic bags in a city.



Videos for News Use:



Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Environmental Protection Agency, Trust for Public Land, County Health Rankings, U.S. Department of Energy - The Alternative Fuels Data Center, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Environment America, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, Walk Score, Alliance for Biking & Walking, Center for Neighborhood Technology, Bikeshare.com, Indeed, Climate Central, U.S. Geological Survey, TripAdvisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USDA Organic INTEGRITY Database, Forbes and Yelp.

Image: Sylwia Brataniec / Shutterstock.com

Was this article helpful? Yes No Awesome! Thanks for your feedback. Thank you for your feedback. Sorry! Failed to send the feedback. Please try again later. Submit

Disclaimer: Editorial and user-generated content is not provided or commissioned by financial institutions. Opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and have not been approved or otherwise endorsed by any financial institution, including those that are WalletHub advertising partners. Our content is intended for informational purposes only, and we encourage everyone to respect our content guidelines. Please keep in mind that it is not a financial institution’s responsibility to ensure all posts and questions are answered. Ad Disclosure: Certain offers that appear on this site originate from paying advertisers, and this will be noted on an offer’s details page using the designation "Sponsored", where applicable. Advertising may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). At WalletHub we try to present a wide array of offers, but our offers do not represent all financial services companies or products.