Ed Glaeser, Harvard economics professor and Manhattan Institute senior fellow, has a post up at the “Economix” blog on the New York Times’s site on the environmental benefits to living in a big city vs. the country:

Matthew Kahn, a U.C.L.A. environmental economist, and I looked across America’s metropolitan areas and calculated the carbon emissions associated with a new home in different parts of the country. We estimated expected energy use from driving and public transportation, for a family of fixed size and income. We added in carbon emissions from home electricity and home heating. We didn’t try to take on the far thornier issues related to commercial or industrial energy use.
This exercise wasn’t meant to be some sort of environmental beauty contest, but an estimate of the environmental costs and benefits associated with living in different parts of the country. In a recent City Journal article, I gave a brief (and somewhat polemical) synopsis of the results.
In almost every metropolitan area, we found the central city residents emitted less carbon than the suburban counterparts. In New York and San Francisco, the average urban family emits more than two tons less carbon annually because it drives less. In Nashville, the city-suburb carbon gap due to driving is more than three tons. After all, density is the defining characteristic of cities. All that closeness means that people need to travel shorter distances, and that shows up clearly in the data.

But with President Obama promising skyrocketing energy taxes, the return of welfare statism, and an unserious approach to counterterrorism, how livable will our cities be in a decade?