greenbiz.com — For every greenest/eco-friendly/least-wasteful city award, thecontender list for top spot is painfully boring (Seattle, Portland,San Francisco, etc.). That's why it's always more fun to see whatturds have sunk to the bottom. Houston, this is your moment!
Apr 16, 2010 View in Crawl 4
fasterthanthouApr 17, 2010
houston doesnt usually give a s**t about anything. now they can add waste to their list.
zalysterApr 17, 2010
yay us for wasting our friday night on digg!...:/
karmashockApr 17, 2010
Please go live in China or better yet Russia... all you guys were telling us how great Russia was before the wall fell. Enough already. Either go live in the east, join some hippy commune, or kindly be quiet.I mean... are my great grand children going to have to listen to you people tell us how much more efficient the next US rival is?... It's always some stupid complaint and it never amounts to anything.
heliopolisterApr 17, 2010
Houston, we have a problem.
tmdpnyApr 17, 2010
You obviously need to go back to your math classes before you start throwing around terms like 'idiot'
d3dmApr 17, 2010
In this case, Supply is the number of available trucks in the local area, and Demand is the number of people that want to lease them and drive across the country. Prices typically increase when the demand for goods and services exceeds the supply. I'm not sure what the size of the local population has to do with this. My opinion is that the disparate prices indicate that the demand for moving from SF to Houston is higher than the reverse.
maomoaApr 17, 2010
It seems that cities with a higher cost of living made the top of the list along with a few lower cost/lower population cities. Could it be that people are more concerned with saving money in those cities rather than saving the planet?
ogletreeApr 18, 2010
That is just stupid. How in the world can you make a list like that just asking 3,750 people?
jbellaApr 19, 2010
Not sure what you mean by "economic status."But some interesting stats SF vs HousonCost of Living: 1.6 vs .89 (times national average)Density: 17,325 vs 3870 ( people per square mile)Rate of violent crime: 845 vs 1107 (incidents per 100,000 people per year)Area: 46.69 vs 579.4 (square miles)