What major metropolitan area in the continental United States has the smallest carbon footprint? It's Los Angeles, not ordinarily thought to be a mecca of energy conservation.
There are a few different things going on here, aside from the methodological caveats outlined in the article. One is that Los Angeles is simply less sprawling, and more dense,
than most people realize (well, you might realize it when you're stuck
in traffic on the 405...). In fact, this is true of the West generally:
The region's popular image notwithstanding, it's the most urbanized
part of the country, because rural areas simply can't support much in
the way of economic activity. Ten of the country's fifteen most densely
packed metropolitan areas are in the West.
Since denser settlemement patterns reduce energy consumption, the West
does pretty well on these measures despite its lack of a public
transporation infrastructure--all but one of ten most carbon-intensive
metropolitan areas are located east of the Mississippi.
Climate
also contributes significantly here. Air conditioning requires much
less energy than heating, so all else equal, warm-weather cities emit
less carbon dioxide. (Honolulu is the only city in the country that
beats L.A.) According to Wired,
heating a typical home in the Northeast emits 13,000 pounds of carbon
dioxide annually, while cooling a typical home in Phoenix emits only
900 pounds. And southern California--at least the part of it within
about 20 miles of the coast--stays cool enough in the summer than even
air-conditioning emissions are pretty low. Incidentally, this
warm-weather advantage makes it even more remarkable that seven of the
ten highest per-capita emitters are in the South, despite its mild
climate. A heavy reliance on coal is partly to blame, but there's also
a lot of low-hanging fruit to be had in terms of improving efficiency.
--Josh Patashnik