The latest news on this change — carefully culled from the world wide web by our change agents. They do the surfing, so you don't have to!
Want to feel closer to nature? Then pack your bags and head for...Altanta. Or Dallas. Maybe even San Francisco.
A new Brookings Institute study says that if you're interested in preserving the environment it might be best to keep your city digs. The study, which determined individual carbon footprints by looking at highway traffic and household energy use, found that residents of large metropolitan areas like Los Angeles and New York produce nearly half as much CO2 as those from rural areas like Lexington, Kentucky. Overall, the study found that people living in the nation's 100 most populated areas produce 14% less carbon than the national average.
Urbanites use more public transportation (we're not sure about LA. Have you sat in traffic on the 101 lately?), have a shorter commute, and generally live in smaller residences that require less energy to maintain. If moving to a big city just isn't in the cards for you, don't let it stop you from adopting big city habits. Check out your city's options for mass transit. If you find them lacking, perhaps you could bring your thoughts to city hall. Chances are they're feeling the energy crunch as well. Also, don't be afraid to check out smaller residences. Traditionally suburban cities like Mesa, Arizona and Spring, Texas have some really cool high rise condo properties in the works.
What do you think? Is the big city better than the suburban life when it comes to green living? Tell us how you're reducing your footprint! [PopSci.com]