By John Sutter
A ranking of “sustainable” cities released Monday put Oklahoma City and Tulsa among the least environmentally friendly cities in the country.
A green media group called SustainLane ranked OKC 49 and Tulsa 48 on its list, which included the 50 most populous cities in the country. Mesa, Ariz., finished last on the list. Portland, Ore., ranked No. 1, followed by San Francisco. The report takes into account things like climate policy, bus ridership, commute length, city planning, air quality and water quality.
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said he was “disappointed” in the ranking, but did not argue with the results. The city is looking to hire a director of sustainability to address environmental issues, he said, adding that quality of life in Oklahoma City is still high.
Commute lengths set the city back in the rankings, he said. He called for a cultural shift away from automobile dependence.
The Wall Street Journal’s “Environmental Capital” blog makes an interesting point concerning the survey:
The big winners are all out west: Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle. The biggest laggards are, too: Las Vegas, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City.
The bottom line: The kind of things that make cities “sustainable” also make them expensive. Take the rankings of “housing affordability.” The cheapest cities—San Antonio, Fort Worth, Arlington, El Paso—also scored the worst on public transit, bike-friendliness, and ability to walk to work. The big winners there are also among the most expensive places to live, like San Francisco, New York, San Jose, and Boston.
“I want her to learn to be self-sufficient. That way, if she ever has to grow her own food, she can, and if she doesn’t have to, she can grow it because she enjoys it,”