Since I get my news from the Natural Patriot, I know that NRDC actually contributed some of the data for the survey and that Forbes looked at six categories: carbon footprint, air quality, water quality, hazardous waste management, policy initiatives, and energy consumption. While Forbes gives some detail about what the exact measures were, such as number of LEED certified buildings, they've missed a good opportunity to be more transparent about their analysis on the web. For example, looking at water quality are they using stormwater violations or just the standard "fishable/swimmable" categories for lakes and rivers? And what policies are they talking about? Only ones narrowly related to their six categories? 

Of course, I have a bit of a bias here in that I'd like to see coastal and ocean resource protection figure somewhere in these rankings. After all, there are 35 coastal states (if you include the Great Lakes states, which Congress usually does) and the majority of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties. States like New York (#9) and California (#14) have umbrella Ocean Acts, laying out progressive policies for ocean management. You can also see the effects of better land use policies along the Mississippi down in the Gulf, so looking at coastal indicators can be a way to measure inland state performance, too.

Ultimately, Forbes had to make some choices and narrow things down to make their rankings workable. Rankings can be a great thing, driving states to try and improve their scores. I hope Forbes will consider airing out its methods and adding a few factors next time. They could look at the work Redefining Progress has done on environmental justice and ecological footprints. Or they could just look at their own magazine and ask why is it that only Washington State makes it into the top five as both a Green State (#3) and a Best State for Business (#5)?