What exactly are they trying to measure? As silly a concept as “green drivers” is, my intuition is that, were someone to measure it, it would have to represent a measure of pollution per unit of output (e.g. vehicle-miles).

Instead, the list dances around the issue and into unrelated matters such as mass transit use.

Hence the nonsensical list that results. The only discernable pattern is that cities that rank as “green” are either small urban areas, college towns, or both.

If the point was really to measure their “carbon footprints”, then the analysis would have to be expanded to non-transportation sources. Doing so, as a Brookings Institution report recently did, results in much different results. Texas cities don’t fare nearly as poorly, as they use lower-carbon fuels for electric power generation. Also, Lexington, KY would fall from the top quintile to near the bottom.

I’ll promise to stop telling Men’s Health how to do a push-up if they promise to stop putting out lists like these.

Is there anything they can do well, besides blow hard, execute people and specialize in eating lots of meat?

I spent a few years living in or out of (I was traveling quite a bit) Indianapolis. The city has 4 major freeways running through it (the only such city in America).

I think the good folks of Chicago (I-94, I-90, I-80, I-55) would disagree. Not to mention the spurs, beltways and major U.S. highways going through there.