And Now for Something Totally Different

I was doing some calculating. The math exercise in which I was engaged contemplated the intersection of gasoline consumption, people, and the "green" movement.

When I think of a "green planet", my mind's eye sees a pasture, farmland, trees, etc. It does not see New York City. It does not see Houston, Texas. I think most people share an imagery consistent with mine when contemplating "green." I also think that when most people think of "un-green" they think of hydrocarbons. Using something other than oil as an energy source is generally referred to as "green."

Ok...so what we have established here is that cities are not the image of "green" relatively speaking and hydrocarbon burning is a root cause of "un-green". If you want to be green and more a part of the green movement like our farmland dwelling cousins, then burn fewer hydrocarbons. It is pretty simple.

So here is the math exercise. I mapped out the population density of each state in the union based on inhabitants per square mile. I then obtained the per capita gasoline consumption for each of those states and here is what it showed:

• The per capita gasoline consumption of Alaska dwarfs that of New York. It's not even close by a factor of something like 2x. In other words, the data very very clearly showed that the higher the population density..the less the per capita consumption of gasoline.
  

So...it might be said that...if we define "green" geographies on the notion of per capita hydrocarbon avoidance, then the "greenest" place in the United States is New York City. Said another way, if we want to reduced hydrocarbon emissions around the globe, one method could be for all of us earthlings to move to what may otherwise be perceived as the least green place on the planet....the "concrete jungle."