And we can do better -- so let's do so!

There was a great article in the October '04 New Yorker entitled "Green Manhattan" which really sheds light on this issue. In reality, New York's density is what makes it so sustainable -- when you have thousands of people living on the same sq. mile of earth, you tend to use alot less than you otherwise would (and share better, too).

If density correlates with sustainable, then it would seem that the report's boosters will be with us a long time.

The low car ownership of New York is an important factor in decreasing "greenhouse gas" emissions, but also note the disappearance of factories from the city environs. Sitting in front of computers all day does not correspond with making "things," including greenhouse gasses.

But to suggest that the city is thus inherently sustainable seems to ignore things like water usage from upstate reservoirs and garbage output.

With enough campaigning, "Green Manhattan" could come about someday -- but only because someone else, somewhere poorer, is doing the dirty work.

Good points all.

We've been fascinated by this fact for awhile - that some of our odd urban habits force us or allow us to live with a more restrained use of resources - BUT the very fact that we live disconnected from nature for much of week translates - I think - into a disconnection with the greater environmental problem that rick is talking about.

In the city it is hard to "feel" the impact of what is going on with our rivers, oceans and air. I think it is easier for us to keep our head in the sand.

Al Gore writes about this in his book. He thinks the biggest danger is that we don't know what we're missing (as the nature of our planet is slowly degraded).

I really don't understand why there aren't more solar panels on top of buildings. I also saw something about grass roofs a while back that was very interesting. It really didn't seem to be all about having outdoor penthouse space, although it kind of looked like it, there was something about all that insulation that it made that helped the building maintain temperature or something.

Meanwhile, I think those windmill things that create energy are some of the pretties industrial things around these days.

ah, but they kill birds, dear Curtis...

One thing that i try to do (with varying degrees of success) is compost and deliver bags of same to the people at the greenmarket who collect it - and buy compost back from tehm to feed my plants. That way I remain connected to that part of at least one natural cycle. I do wish we could mandate that all tops of all bldgs be required to provide whatever green they can as part of the city's "lungs" and to control runoff when it rains like it did last week. I mean how bad could it be to have a garden to walk in atop your bldg?

Interesting issue. I've traveled extensively throughout the US as a child and adult. I love NYC. I think, however, Maxwell's comment about our disconnection is so true.

I work with numerous people who have been raised in NYC and haven't really ventured far out of it, except to another large city. The places on the planet where we can stand and breathe and actually be a part of nature truly are dwindling. Wildlife is dwindling. Anyone watching Planet Earth?

The earth is breathtakingly beautiful and for those who live mostly in larger cities, there can't possibly be the same awareness or understanding of the need to keep sacred and pristine the remainder of what we have in nature. We can intend to care, we can donate, but until you spend some time in a place like Big Sur and look at the cliffs, the ground cover, the ocean, and feel the same thing that our forefathers felt, its very difficult to see that it takes action to keep these places sacred. We do tend to bury our heads in the sand, which could one day......disappear.

Takes your kids to the Grand Canyon instead of Disneyworld.

Hmmm. As a Vermont native who has lived in NYC for 15 yrs, I have to disagree with the premise that New Yorkers' disconnection from nature makes us particularly vulnerable to disrespecting the planet. Its my observation that the more land people have around them, the more wasteful they are, because their impact seems so insignificant, and the natural resources seem so great. Thus the anti-environmental political stance in parts of the country with the most wide open space. And why we are far behind the more densely populated Europe when it comes to protecting our environment.

I believe there is the political will in NYC to make serious change. But it will take time, determination, and it will be expensive (which may impact our city's low-income population in negative ways). Bloomberg is taking the first steps, through green building incentive programs, etc. he plans to cut the city's carbon emissions by 30%. Many of our buildings are old and need serious revamping to increase efficiency - buildings making up 75% of the city's emissions.

There are many exciting programs happening already. And green building is happening. And things will change. It won't be easy, cheap, or quick. But I believe in New Yorkers. Our values are right in line with this change - and as a city we have the resources financial and otherwise to make it happen.

I agree completely with emss: one of the whole reasons for the existance of suburban spawl is the idea that city people need more nature, and so they ought to have there own little plot of it on the outskirts of the city. Humans have a really bad habit of domesticating nature to the point that it isn't really nature any more. Urban living isn't really disconnection from the environment because without out it--without such masses of people sharing a small part of the earth--nature as we know it couldn't exist with everyone deciding they need their own little patch of it.

Emss - I'm with your optimism! And you are right about Bloomberg, he's totally on this issue.

Chester -- great idea, let's have more building regulations in New York City! We already have rent control, draconian building codes, "essential services" provisions, etc. Why don't we make it official that owning a non-luxury building equals a financial death sentence for a landlord. What a way to prevent the existence of any affordable housing!

As Rick pointed out, the reason we don't emit much in terms of greenhouse gases is that we don't have factories here. Why don't you visit Flint, Pittsburgh, or one of the other industrial cities in the Midwest/Great Lakes? What works for New York isn't going to work elsewhere. As much as Al Gore thinks that the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to civilization (cf. Earth in the Balance), it's here to stay and we haven't yet come up with too many ways to replace it. Someone has to produce steel, someone has to provide energy, etc. It just all happens in fly-over country.

Installing solar panels or windmills? They just do not provide the energy necessary. Windmills would probably work in Iowa, though they would still provide a tiny fraction of the energy needed to sustain industry. Solar panels would work in Arizona, again, with minimal energy to be gained from it. The dirty little secret is that yes, we can do little things to help with greenhouse emissions, but to make a dent that will matter for global warming, we would need severe, radical changes to our energy uses. We would need to come up with an energy alternative that provides us with the BTU of petroleum but without the nasty CO2 emissions. So far, few such energy sources are promising (nuclear is great, but you can't make a nuclear-powered car... well, not yet at least).

Finally, does the report take into account the trash produced in NYC that goes to landfills as far out as Texas? Landfills are the #2 emitter of CH4 (methane) after cow farts. CH4 is much more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effects. And while we're on cow farts, does the report take into account the beef consumed in NYC (which I am sure is lower than in say, Texas, but still non-negligible) which contributes to cow farts in rural areas? These things add up, you know.

The world is interconnected and there's division of labor. New York provides a lot of the brainpower to the rest of the country. But someone elsewhere provides a lot of the manpower, with its concomitant greenhouse costs.