Bristol will continue with its 'green' plans even though it suffered a Green Capital loss (see story here). One commenter on the story (YourLakeshore) said "...it is great news that Bristol came 2nd in the whole of Europe - particularly as it had tough competition and Bristol has made it to the final twice. It also presents Bristol as being the green city of the UK..." If Bristol is the green city of the UK why then is its ecological footprint only 17th best out of 60 in the country (see ranking and figures here)? Why is Bristol's ecological footprint set to rise with new road building, loss of green spaces, increase in population...? Doesn't there need to be a committment to cut this footprint significantly if Bristol is to be credible in its green claims? It is after all 2.9 times bigger than a sustainable level!
Also, its not really about being in competition with every other city in the 'whole of Europe' but only about competing against those who entered - and on criteria still a very long way from genuinely sustainable cities.
