WalletHub released its report on 2023’s Greenest States.
The personal finance website compared 50 states in terms of 25 key metrics that speak to the current health of the environment and residents’ environmental-friendliness. Data includes green buildings per capita and share of energy consumption from renewable resources.
Vermont is the greenest state, followed by New York, California, Hawaii and Maryland. Virginia is no. 17 with an environment quality number of 15, eco-friendly rating of 19 and climate change contributions ranked at 20.
The least green states in the U.S. are West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Wyoming.
Blue states are greener with an average rank of 14. 92 compared to red states with a ranking of 36.08.
The highest share of energy consumption from renewable resources is in Washington at 49.73 percent, which is 17.9 times higher than in Delaware, the state with the lowest at 2.78 percent.
According to George A. Gonzalez, a professor at the University of Miami, to make their communities more environmentally friendly, state and local authorities can pursue high-density urban development. They can encourage city residents to walk, bike, take mass transit and live in smaller dwellings.
“American urban zones are the most sprawled (low-density) and auto-dependent in the world. As a result, the U.S. automotive fleet is responsible for roughly half of all CO2 automobile-related emissions. Additionally, the relatively large abodes (single-family homes) characteristic of low-density urban development creates massive (profligate) energy demand — global warming emissions. Comparatively large homes require excess energy to heat/cool and to power the excess appliances (lighting, electronic devices) that fill such dwellings,” Gonzalez said.
Heather Payne, an associate professor at the Seton Hall University School of Law, said states and localities must decarbonize.
“Therefore, state and local authorities should focus on what causes carbon emissions. So, they can support the generation of wind, solar, and geothermal energy to address electricity emissions. They can require all new buildings to be all-electric, provide incentives for existing buildings to electrify and require their regulator to determine how to quickly shut down the natural gas distribution system to address building emissions. They can focus on density near public transit, walkability/pedestrian safety, providing incentives for electric vehicles, and extending public transportation to address emissions from the transportation sector. Many more actions states and localities could take, but these are a few,” Payne said.
Dr. Rajesh Sharma, associate professor and director of Engineering Technology at Arkansas State University, said that protecting the environment is not the antithesis of economic growth.
“Our air is much cleaner and most of our waterways are less polluted than they were 50 years back. We have adopted a large number of policies to protect our environment in this duration without any adverse impact on our economic growth. In fact, I would say that environmental protection technologies would be a driver for economic growth soon,” Sharma said.
Daniel Matisoff, an associate professor and Director of MSEEM Program at Georgia Institute of Technology, agreed that an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth is not necessary.
“Sure — in the short run you can often make money and produce short-term economic growth by destroying the environment. But in the longer term, I think you are usually better off protecting the environment and investing in more sustainable innovation and growth. Buying things that are ‘greener’ and that are produced more responsibly might cost a little bit more, but means that we will spend less on healthcare in the long run. From a big-picture perspective — consuming renewable energy might cost a little more (although renewable energy is now actually cheaper than fossil fuel energy). But it avoids particulate matter and toxic air pollutants that make us sick. It does not involve destroying mountain streams in the pursuit of coal and poisoning drinking water. Beyond renewable energy, investing in products and processes that are cleaner and more sustainable tends to produce higher value-added products. Sure — we might be paying a little bit more for an energy-efficient building or home, but the operating costs will be lower; people who inhabit those buildings will be healthier and happier, and more productive. Too often we get wrapped up in the initial sticker price or in some aggregate figure like GDP growth without considering the total costs of ownership or broader concepts like quality of life,” Matisoff said.
Payne said the single most impactful action for individuals is to reduce their carbon footprint in their own lives. She recommends thinking about consumption and trying to reduce the purchase of single-use and low-quality items.
“It is also important for individuals to recognize that decarbonization and the electrification of everything will be cheaper systematically than what we have today, and even more so if we take all the safety and health impacts into account,” Payne said.
Joseph F. C. DiMento is a distinguished professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.
“This is a great question one I get often. Participate: go to local and other government meetings on development projects. Comment there. Write to local news outlets and blogs. Write to your representatives and ask others to. Be persistent and polite but clear and strong about your involvement and message. If you are facing seriously negative responses, consider litigation,” DiMento said.
Share
Rebecca Barnabi
