City's Sustainability Ranks 30th in Nation
By Amy Bentley-Smith
Features Editor
Thursday, June 8, 2006
When it comes to sustainability, Long Beach is doing better than most large cities in some areas, but worse than most in others.
That is according to the SustainLane.com U.S. Sustainable City Ranking for 2006. The San Francisco-based online resource for healthy living ranked the country’s 50 largest cities on a number of sustainability factors, such as public transportation, air quality, energy policies, recycling efforts and even natural disaster survival.
Combining all factors, Long Beach ranked 30th. Number one was Portland, Ore., followed by San Francisco. Los Angeles faired better than Long Beach, ranking 25th. Other California cities and their ranking were Sacramento, 13; San Diego, 17; San Jose, 23; and Fresno, 33.
In establishing the ranking, SustainLane.com collected information from federal agencies and national non-governmental organizations, as well as conducted interviews and surveys with city officials and outside organizations that work with the cities
Long Beach fared poorly when it came to air quality, affordability and freeway/street congestion. In those categories it came in last, tying with Los Angeles on air quality and congestion. Those categories were considered on a regional or county basis, according to the report.
The port was the number one culprit for the region’s poor air quality. “One ship can produce as much pollution as 12,000 cars,” the report states. But SustainLane does commend the port’s efforts to encourage ships to use less-polluting fuels and other environmental policies being put into place.
Long Beach was ranked last for affordability, but it is not the sole California city at the bottom. San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego were 49, 48 and 47, respectively.
While Long Beach is last in congestion, its public transportation ridership is higher than a majority of the cities in the ranking. That category also was calculated regionally and Long Beach tied for seventh with Los Angeles.
But where Long Beach appears to excel is in its recycling and energy use. Long Beach tied for first with Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose in the Solid Waste Diversion category. The report credits a California mandate that cities reduce waste sent to landfills.
“It was kind of surprising,” said Jim Kuhl, manager of the city’s Environmental Services Bureau, adding that he assumed it would have been a city like Portland, which is nationally recognized for its recycling and conservation efforts. “We’re definitely pleased. � It’s a reflection on our residents. They have done a good job.”
Long Beach sends most of its non-recyclable waste to SERRF (Southeast Resource Recover Facility), a waste reuse plant that burns trash and uses the ash as road material at landfills.
“We’ve reduced by 85% what we send to a landfill,” Kuhl said of the SERRF plant.
The city also has a successful recycling program that further reduces what gets sent to landfills. Every residence has large purple carts to collect bottles, cans, plastics and paper. Kuhl said the recycling program also goes into some of the city’s major buildings, like the Long Beach Airport, Convention Center and City Hall. Other ways to recycle more — including how to recycle green waste —are always being considered.
“Any opportunity we can find to cap the material that goes to landfills and also remind the public, we’ll take it,” Kuhl said.
In areas such as green building design, city planning (parks per land comparison) support of local food (i.e. the number of farmers markets), and the creation of a green economy, Long Beach ranked around the middle.
The report states that the city has “elements” that can lead it to sustainability, but that more could be done.
The methodology used in the ranking — and a breakdown of the ranking by category and city — can be found at sustainlane.com under the U.S. City Rankings tab.
