http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

Anyone, have any idea?

depends what ur talkin about if its about water resources...texas, florida, and arizona are tops i think.

depends what ur talkin about if its about water resources...texas, florida, and arizona are tops i think.

Arizona? You must be kidding if you're talking about water. The West is going to run out of water in the next 100 years if current trends continue. Washes in Phoenix and Tucson that used to fill every month now lay dry for years at a time. There've just been too many dams and too many snowbirds watering grassy lawns all night in what's naturally desert.

Texas, Florida, and Arizona would probably be the least sustainable states in the broadest sense of the term (as Wikipedia defines it: economic, social, and ecological). Think about how archaic Houston's huge expressways will be once we run out of oil and have to reduce private vehicle useage. The Sunbelt will probably fall in the post-auto age as bad as the Rustbelt did as America became post-industrialized. Texas has very little land use regulations either. If, as Wikipedia says, "the philosophy of infinite economic growth and infinite growth in consumption are completely unsustainable and will cause great harm to human civilization in the future," Texas and Florida are the epitome of unsustainability in the States.

Oregon is very progressive when it comes to sustainability requirements when building communities. For instance, every city is required to have (or be a part of a) urban growth boundary to concentrate population growth in urban centers. I'd say it's the most sustainable state in the country.

DUH!!!!! It's Cali baby, we got it all here, wine, cheese, fruits, meat, ocean, mountains, movie stars, high tech, ...

DUH!!!!! It's Cali baby, we got it all here, wine, cheese, fruits, meat, ocean, mountains, movie stars, high tech, ...

Water?

yeah and what about power?^^^^

Well, as a group I'd bet on the Great Lakes/Great Plains states...generally the Midwest

Water?
Not to mention earthquakes, mudslides, sprawl, congestion, lots of development on "foothills" that aren't safe in the long run to build on, etc. California was the birth of the movement for lower property taxes and higher income taxes to make up for the loss. Oh yeah, and let's not forget the Southern California phenomena of CEMENTING RIVERS!
http://www.unc.edu/~leimbach/LAriver.jpg
http://www.unc.edu/~leimbach/arrovoriver.jpg
Talk about ruining natural ecosystems.

Well, as a group I'd bet on the Great Lakes/Great Plains states...generally the Midwest
I agree with this. The agriculture economy is stable. I'm not sure how the agriculture is effecting the environment in those states, but, as far as I know, the environment is not threatened. The population growth is not high, thus, governments have a good grasp on what future budgets will look like. All in all, I'd say the most sustainable region in the US.

depends what ur talkin about if its about water resources...texas, florida, and arizona are tops i think.
Care to explain this in further detail? Do these states have good water resources conservation programs?

Not to mention earthquakes, mudslides, sprawl, congestion, lots of development on "foothills" that aren't safe in the long run to build on, etc. California was the birth of the movement for lower property taxes and higher income taxes to make up for the loss. Oh yeah, and let's not forget the Southern California phenomena of CEMENTING RIVERS!
http://www.unc.edu/~leimbach/LAriver.jpg
http://www.unc.edu/~leimbach/arrovoriver.jpg
Talk about ruining natural ecosystems.


Cali has more ecosytems than you can shake a stick at BABY!!!!! All beautiful places are prone to natural disasters, but dying in an earthquake in LA sure as hell beats the slow death of the MIDWEST!!!!

^Ouch!

Go Ontario!

Cali has more ecosytems than you can shake a stick at BABY!!!!! All beautiful places are prone to natural disasters, but dying in an earthquake in LA sure as hell beats the slow death of the MIDWEST!!!!
What the hell are you talking about?

The only thing California doesn't have is their own water. Really, it's not a big deal, who needs water? ;)

I dont think that the south will neccesarily crumble because after the demise of oil I am sure that in the next few decades cars will be able to run on some other sort of renewable fuel like making Indiana a pretty good canidate coz of all the corn LOL. But I agree with the great lakes states being a pretty sustainable as well as Oregon. I remember when I lived in California they were talking about the huge water problem in the future. Los Angeles got all of its water from diverting a river and draining the Owens Valley Lake making it a wasteland and ruining other ecosystems to the north. California was and is a desert and is really not meant to look like it does....And then we are supposed to mourn for the people whose houses crumble off of hills or catch on fire from being surrounded in brush or living on a fault or flood or draught...its endless. On economy alone I would say california and texas would be a definate. "All beautiful places are prone to natural disasters, but dying in an earthquake in LA sure as hell beats the slow death of the MIDWEST!!!!" I dont understand that comment at all, how is the midwest experiencing a slow death? Secondly, how many "movie stars" that a place has does not have anything to do with anything...anyone can be in a movie, anyways outside of the little posh LA world people dont really care as much about who Cindy is doing this week and who we saw at the mall.

I would love to have a car that runs on corn!:)

I would love to have a car that runs on corn!:)

HAHA me too I dream about it someday happening and going out in the back yard and finding a corn stalk and yellin MAW we can move uptown we hit gold!

LOL:lol:

Cali has more ecosytems than you can shake a stick at BABY!!!!! All beautiful places are prone to natural disasters, but dying in an earthquake in LA sure as hell beats the slow death of the MIDWEST!!!!

You are right, it is like hell here!!!!!
http://kansascity.cjb.net/chicago-skyline.jpg

Oh no - how horribly depressing! You can almost see the frustration & despair on the people's faces! Hey - what's that! Masses of people are in line jumping off the buildings! OH THE HUMANITY!!!!

The wikipedia article has complex definitions of sustainability. How about this as an assessment?

"Which state or province could best support its current and future population as far into the future as imaginable without importing any resources."

Very few, if any. So, add the following caveat as well:

"if they need to import resources, would that state or province have the finances to do so as far into the future as imaginable?"

Californians beware; a stupendous amount of water for the southern part of the state comes from the Colorado River, and that originates in the State of Colorado. Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado want more. Some say Houston, Denver, Atlanta, and coastal Florida are in danger of running out of water. We are possibly in a decades long drought. Would Arizona be able to continually produce building materials to support its housing needs? Which states or provinces would continually be able to produce power or food to support its needs? And it underscores the question--is it really that important to attempt to sustain unmanageable growth without a sustainability plan of some type?

Tough questions indeed.

Rossiapacifica.

Go Ontario!

Go Ontario.
This is one of the Richest ,most industrialized and most beautiful state/province that I have ever visit in my life along with California. This province produce 40% of canada's GDP.
The Greater Toronto Area is so huge, you can drive from Niagara Falls to Toronto and it is so builded up, also driving from Kitchener to Toronto or from Toronto to Oshawa is almost the same city now.

It reminds me of Southern California, The bay area and the New York, NJ, CT area

I would love to have a car that runs on corn!:)

Or a message board ;)

I dont get it:?

Most Canadian provinces would probably possess more sustainability qualities than most US States. Ontario and BC both are power and water rich; and they are both very large in area in respect to their population.

Rossia

Texas, Florida, and Arizona would probably be the least sustainable states in the broadest sense of the term (as Wikipedia defines it: economic, social, and ecological). Think about how archaic Houston's huge expressways will be once we run out of oil and have to reduce private vehicle useage. The Sunbelt will probably fall in the post-auto age as bad as the Rustbelt did as America became post-industrialized. Texas has very little land use regulations either. If, as Wikipedia says, "the philosophy of infinite economic growth and infinite growth in consumption are completely unsustainable and will cause great harm to human civilization in the future," Texas and Florida are the epitome of unsustainability in the States.


I wasn't talkin outa my butt. Those states have advanced water-sustainability research programs. Obvoiusly Arizona saw the threat and has worked for a solution. Texas has two of the three large aquifers in the United States, and is academically known for its hydrogeology progams. Florida is too known for its advanced and innovative research in that area.

In all categories considered at once, Texas definitely wins. We have tops in many things, and could survive as our own country. In fact, I'm a big advocate of that.

^ lol... I DARE you to take Dumya back as your governor, and become an independent country.

Me too. With Texas gone, The US would never have to worry about Republicans again!

Mwuahaha!

Do it.

:D

Most Canadian provinces would probably possess more sustainability qualities than most US States. Ontario and BC both are power and water rich; and they are both very large in area in respect to their population.

Rossia

Actually... BC is sorta having a drought, but only in a couple towns, the coast and the north have lots of water, but Vancouver might have a drought aswell, its very hot and dry here and we have almost 400 wildfieres burning in the Province.

Me too. With Texas gone, The US would never have to worry about Republicans again!

Mwuahaha!

Do it.

:D

I'd like to. I'm getting tired of being subservient.

I'd gladly take Bush back as the president of the Republic of Texas. There is no question that Texas would have the best chance as surviving as its own country and is also something that I believe in for various reasons.

I was taking the question to mean more of sustainable natural resources. If the term 'sustainablity' is used as smart-use of these resources, Texas would probably not be the most. It is definitely a consume-until-its-gone state. Luckily for Texas though, it would have enough oil to support itself into the next century, vast ranching and farm land, natural gas, ore deposits, aquifers, on and on and on.

I'd gladly take Bush back as the president of the Republic of Texas. There is no question that Texas would have the best chance as surviving as its own country and is also something that I believe in for various reasons.


Sure, until you all call us back because Mexico is kicking your ass :)

In all categories considered at once, Texas definitely wins. We have tops in many things, and could survive as our own country. In fact, I'm a big advocate of that.

Most Texans are big advocates of that.

In all categories considered at once, Texas definitely wins. We have tops in many things, and could survive as our own country. In fact, I'm a big advocate of that.


Most Texans are big advocates of that.

As well as most of us non-Texans. So let's make it happen!!!

With all due respect to Texas and other American States, this is one thing where Canada will beat the USA. Other then our beer and hockey. Ontario, BC and Alberta have all the natural resources that are needed.

Actually northern California has plenty of water, some of it gets send to southern California, but there is some water that also comes to So.Cal. from the Colorado River, specially to irrigate the imperial valley agricultural fields.

But It's still very hard to claim that any place in particular is 100% sustainable without contact from the outside world, maybe North Korea is as close as it comes to really seeing if a country is sustainable or not.

I agree with Rossia, any province in Canada is more sustainable than any state in the US. Our growth is what hurts us. We can't help that we have better weather than that country. :)

I agree with Rossia, any province in Canada is more sustainable than any state in the US. Our growth is what hurts us. We can't help that we have better weather than that country. :)

I would disagree that Prince Edward Island is more sustainable than Minnesota...

The only thing California doesn't have is their own water. Really, it's not a big deal, who needs water? ;)

California supplies most of it's own water. Socal gets some from Colorado River so they don't have to conserve. Otherwise, if the state was up against a wall, it could sustain itself. Also, there's the option of the Pacific ocean, but desalination is a last resort because its expensive and doesn't taste all too good.

California, and Texas.

Cali has all of that stuff, and more.

Texas has access to the gulf, which has plenty of fish, and oil reserves. The state itself also has plenty of oil. Texas has vast acres of arable land, which will help sustain a foodsource. The hill country has sources of stones, which could be used for building.

Ok, its not just about the states, what about provinces..?

I would disagree that Prince Edward Island is more sustainable than Minnesota...
I 've never heard of that province.

I 've never heard of that province.

Sorry you haven't - it's a little island off of New Brunswick or Quebec - anyways at the mouth of the St Lawrence River. Rather pretty island from what I understand.

it is tiny, smaller than Vancouver Island.

Maryland would have to be the most sustainable state IMO.We have access to the Atlantic,the Chesapeake,dozens of rivers and lots of other water sources. We also have the mountains for coal and plenty of forests for lumber.

Ontario is up there.

Fresh water(thousands of lakes, polar icecaps), ability to generate own power, incredible food basket in S. Ontario.


Economy, very diverse, ranging from auto-production to finance centres.

Education, the most and some of the more prestigious universities in Canada.

Healthcare, universal.

Basically the whole upper half of the province is untapped.

BTW, the province is actually sea bound to the north, providing a escape route.

Sorry you haven't - it's a little island off of New Brunswick or Quebec - anyways at the mouth of the St Lawrence River. Rather pretty island from what I understand.
I've heard of Prince Edward Island, I just didn't know it was a Canadian province. I was being facetious. ;)

The pacific nw in general is probably the most sustainable(Oregon, Wa, BC, Alaska.) Huge amounts of natural resources, cheap and reliable hydroelectric power created by many dams from plentyful rivers(especially the Columbia River), which, btw, are in no danger of ever being over-drawn because of the huge glaciers that provide. And those same dams provide water to the most fertile farmland on the planet. Vast aquifers. Fertile seas for fishing. You name it.

Plus, the largest reserves of oil and natural gas in the US in Alaska.

Basically the definition of sustainablity.

Maryland would have to be the most sustainable state IMO.We have access to the Atlantic,the Chesapeake,dozens of rivers and lots of other water sources. We also have the mountains for coal and plenty of forests for lumber.
MD is a very environmentally-conscious state but I don't think it's amongst the most sustainable. It's very proactive in preservation and smart growth, it's actually leading the nation in this dept. I have to commend MD for that. On the otherhand, from what I understand, the Cheasapeake is an ecological disaster and DC-Baltimore's growth is expected to add more sprawl to MD for the next 20 years.

"Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."

Most Canadian provinces, no doubt, can do this.

I would nominate Ontario or Quebec. In terms of natural resources and size, there's no question. You could pour millions of people into either and still have wilderness abound, and plenty of water.
Not that that should happen though... lets keep it sweet and discreet! :)

Once the US gets crakin on Ethaynol production Ohio is going to be out of control rich...mark my words.

Quebec. It's Hydroelectrical system is fucking MASSIVE, and it's not even close to being completely realized (of course another hundred thousand caribou will have to be wiped out and a whole bunch of Cree displaced). Not only can it provide enough juice to the entire provice, but New York is salivating at its potential. It's also a province with expansive forests, fresh water and minerals. I would put Ontario as number one, but the electricity thing puts Quebec far ahead.

Bump

Ontario, Minnesota, Washington

Top Ten Sustainable U.S. Cities
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=16931

California. We do have water sources in the nothern part, and the colorodo river runs through cali, so we have that as well. Mexico gets water from the colorodo and its a seperate country, so cali can too.

Also, the future always makes technology more within reason, so desalinization would be an option.

All beautiful places are prone to natural disasters, but dying in an earthquake in LA sure as hell beats the slow death of the MIDWEST!!!!

lol......a city beating an entire region of the US.

what slow death you mean?

Btw... LA, the city is 18th on the sustainable city compare to Chicago's 8th place...

so you think LA which is 18th can beat the entire midwest that holds 2 cities in the top 10 sustainable city.

Maybe the west coast beat the midwest could but LA couldnt.

The most sustainable providence is gotta be Ontario. State is California.

lol......a city beating an entire region of the US.

what slow death you mean?

Btw... LA, the city is 18th on the sustainable city compare to Chicago's 8th place...

so you think LA which is 18th can beat the entire midwest that holds 2 cities in the top 10 sustainable city.

Maybe the west coast beat the midwest could but LA couldnt.

The most sustainable providence is gotta be Ontario. State is California.


Santa Monica is 5th on the list, which is a big part of LA ;)

YOU LOSE!! :runaway:

its a suburb....Lol... I said LA, the city...

suburbs...dont count..........to me...from that list...

edit

LA, the city, covers a lot of land

cities, areas that have a forward plan for the future are the most sustainable and progressive areas such as in the northwest and california should be of no suprise that they are the top of the list.

texas' cities very from houston (spot on for its lack of sustainability) to austin with its high marks. austin has ambitious plans concering its future beyond short term fixes while houston does not and just builds another freeway and its development is so short sighted that i'm afraid it will crash harder than buffalo, new york or detroit in the 70's as the infastructure further deteriotates, the population booms and the economy stagnates.

I would say: Great Lake States/Provinces, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon etc.

The cities in Texas do vary as far as sustainability. Houston and Dallas are much better off than the fast growing cities on the border.Austin is doing good by planning ahead, but they werent prepared for all the people that have recently moved there in the last 10 yrs, the traffic is bad for a city that size. Houston is at least on the right track in lightrail just 15 years late. There are alot of reserviors and lakes in northeast and east TX and more could easily be built.

Cali has more ecosytems than you can shake a stick at BABY!!!!! All beautiful places are prone to natural disasters, but dying in an earthquake in LA sure as hell beats the slow death of the MIDWEST!!!!

Great argument.. i'm convinced now :hahaha:

California is the most sustainable state and Quebec is the most sustainable province.

I wouldn't say Saskatchewan, since they depend on rain. Whenever there's a drought, they're in trouble.

BC or Quebec.

Both have enormous resource wealth which would sustain their provincial populations for centuries. They are rich in almost every valuable mineral and are blessed with hundreds of thousands of square miles of renewable wood lands.

Both BC and Quebec have very low population densities which would allow for small footprints on the lands the people occupy.

Both have large agricultural outputs although Quebec is geared towards dairy while BC is more wine and fruit oriented.

The trump card that both hold is vast supplies of cheap renewable hydro-electric power. Almost all electricity in both jurisdictions is hydro-electric, and both export sizable amounts of their output. Another benefit of the topography they are blessed with, is an abundance of fresh clean water.

All the requirements to build a sustainable society are present in these 2 provinces. Not only sustainable, but the ability to maintain a very rich population at the same time. I would give the edge to BC due to it's varied topography. Almost every ecosystem on earth exists in BC from plains to mountains, rainforest to desert, temperate to arctic, lakes/rivers to ocean. BC is unrivalled. It really is paradise.

In the USA, I would have to say Washington or Alaska, but they are not as fortunately endowed as BC or Quebec. Alaska loses points due to it's limited agricultural potential and reliance on oil and gas rather than clean hydro-electric. Washington has almost everything that BC has, but in smaller quantities. Washington has double the population in a jurisdiction a fraction the size of BC. Although not a huge problem, it is still less desirable if we are talking about sustainability.

As far as the world's most sustainable large city/county goes, Honolulu is the only American city that won this award from the U.N. (United Nation). It's also the only city that is constantly on the list of the world's most sustainable large cities. It won against cities like Singapore.

In 2004...

" The United Nations-endorsed International Awards for Livable Communities (LivCom) has awarded Honolulu the 1st place Gold Award as the most livable, sustainable large city in the world. Honolulu was one of 48 communities from 20 counties selected as finalists to participate in the competition held last week in Niagara, Canada. "

"
LivCom judges praised the City for advancing initiatives aimed at cutting pollution, decreasing dependence on imported oil, and expanding recycling of solid waste and wastewater. Examples of Honolulu’s progress in this area include the use of H-Power to reduce landfill disposal by 90 percent, and the Honouliuli water reclamation facility’s recycling of wastewater for commercial and agricultural purposes. "

"
LivCom cited Honolulu’s comprehensive energy program aimed at slashing electrical demand by utilizing renewable energy. In recent years the City’s co-generation facility at Honolulu Hale has reduced grid energy demand by as much as 80 percent. Honolulu has also converted more than 1,000 city vehicles to use biodiesel fuel and installed LED traffic lights at an annual electrical savings of more than $250,000. "

" A panel of international judges presented the City with the coveted 1st place Gold Award as a result of its innovation and leadership in planning, building and managing Honolulu sustainably. "


Honolulu is also on the United Nation list again for 2007. It also won numerous awards from other organizations like NewsWeek USA and environmental groups.

http://www.world-wire.com/news/1028040001.html

Or you could just to go U.N. site or Honolulu Advertiser (Main newspaper).