Calgary outgreens us!
May 26, 2010
The Mercer Quality of Living Survey is out. (Available here.) This year, Vienna is tops. Vancouver ties for fourth with Auckland. In between are Zurich and Geneva – nothing too surprising for a Swiss-based company.
Until you come to this:
Calgary is the world’s top in our Eco-city ranking, followed by Honolulu, with Ottawa and Helsinki in joint 3rd place.
Calgary!
“Calgary’s top ranking is down to its excellent level of service on waste removal, sewage systems, and water drinkability and availability, coupled with relatively low air pollution.”
Vancouver? Thirteenth.
Okay, West Coasters, expect to be lorded over in 3… 2… 1…
Advertisement
6 Comments
leave one →
And not a single US city cracks the top 25. Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, ….? Is one really expected to take this ranking seriously?
From the linked report: “*Eco-City Ranking 2010 includes the following criteria: Water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion.”
Some pretty weak criteria there… What about energy consumed per capita? What about emissions per capita (GHG and other pollutants)? What about water consumption?
I think we can safely disregard this study.
[As an aside, whoever gave Calgary a good score for traffic congestion has clearly never tried to commute in that city.]
One thing I feel helps Calgary greatly when it comes to the issue of air quality. It does not have any mountains around it to stop the wind from blowing it away.
While Vancouver has the unfortunate problem of the mountains. Which means it takes more for the air pollution to be moved away.
It is the biggest reason why I feel Vancouver and the Valley will never have the best air quality. Unless of course it were to stop creating pollution out right.
Thanks for the criteria list. I found that result bizarre and now understand how the city scored so high. Calgary is only JUST implementing a curb-side recycling program, and almost everyone seems to aspire to own a large truck (Hummer, Durango, Tundra, etc.). The attitudes don’t seem to be that green.
On the other hand, Calgarians actually have quite high propensities to walk or take transit to work (the $25/day parking cost likely contributing to that stat).
I was surprised when I saw this, too–that is until I read the criteria list and realized this was a bunk rating. Just taking into account Calgary’s urban sprawl would be enough to negate their number one ranking. Not to mention all the other factors that Agustin mentioned.
A lot of defensiveness here since the real commodiities at stake are not environmental values, but urban branding statements and bragging rights, which in turn are connected to real estate marketing strategies.
It’s a real pin in Vancouver’s self-image balloon to be told that Calgary, an oil city, is doing better on actual green practices.
But it’s not a new assertion. A couple of years ago one of the major environmental NGOs, I forget which one, stated that Calgary and Edmonton were both doing well with water and sewage works, a lot better than Vancouver and Victoria.