What Makes Boston Different?
Boston finished runners up in our investigation with an Eco Score of 6.5 making it the only US city to finish in the top five.
It also supports our findings that the best-performing cities are those with existing environmental commitments.
Due to its location on Massachusetts Bay, Boston regularly feels the impact of severe flooding with the city underwater for 19 days in 2024.
With sea levels expected to rise by 20cm in the city by 2030 (compared to 2000), Boston has had no choice but to take sustainability seriously.
To offset the harm of climate change, the city is working towards being climate neutral by 2050. It supports programs, such as the Building Emissions Reduction Disclosure Ordinance and Renew Boston Trust, aimed at making buildings more energy efficient.
As a result, Boston scored highly in our air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions factors.
A Lack of Eco Options in the USA
A major downfall of all American host cities is their transport score; Dallas and Miami performed the worst in this factor overall with both receiving a dismal 1.3 out of 10. Many of the US stadiums are over a 20-minute drive from the centre of the host city.
The lack of public transport means fans have no other choice but to take a cab or hire a car, both of which will increase pollution in the highly congested cities.
The number of public transport stops within a ten minute walk of BC Place Stadium in Vancouver, the highest scoring city for transport on 7.3, is 26.
Dallas, one of the two worst performers for transport on 1.3, has no public transport stops within a ten minute walk of AT&T Stadium.
A lack of public transit options is one of the reasons Dallas is ranked third in the world for transport-related greenhouse gas emissions!
A Visual Comparison
Our tenth-worst-performing city, Miami, is another with no public transit stops within a ten minute walk of the stadium.
The city’s Hard Rock Stadium will host seven World Cup matches in June and July 2026. However, it will be a shock to many fans to learn that the stadium is actually located 17 miles north of the city center.
With no public transportation in reach, many will be forced to drive or take a cab to reach the games.
In contrast, Vancouver’s BC Place Stadium is right in the heart of the city.
As a result of its central location, it has 26 stops within a ten minute walk. That will allow fans to hop on a bus or catch the SkyTrain to reach the games, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.
The Dirtiest Host Cities
Two US cities were joint for the dirtiest of all those we investigated: San Francisco and Los Angeles. Both scored a very low two out of ten for waste and produce high volumes of rubbish which can’t be recycled.
San Francisco’s Levi Stadium has a capacity of 71,000 fans and LA’s SoFi Stadium a capacity of 70,000.
Those fans are predicted to generate around 56,400kgs of waste per game in each stadium.
In cities already straining under the weight of trash produced, that additional waste will be a headache for organizers.
LA – One of the Least Sustainable Cities
Los Angeles is one of the host cities which finds itself at the bottom of our rankings with a score of 4.3 putting it in joint last with New York and Houston.
The surprising thing though is that LA actually scored a perfect ten for the number of electric vehicles charging points and seven out of ten for air pollution.
The city had 178,500 EV charging points in 2024, dwarfing the next highest of Miami at 328 and actually overtaking the number of gas nozzles in the city.
In turn, LA’s preference for electric vehicles and programs like the Innovative Clean Transit Rule and Drayage Truck Regulation has helped to lower pollution.
Despite that, LA fell down the rankings with a score of two for its commitment to sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions and waste production.
High levels of waste production has become a particular problem for the city with each resident producing 170.93kgs a year!
