I was surprised to read this. It's not very convincing, nor does it account for an almost complete lack of greenspace and parks.

It's a good website in general, but I think they missed the boat on this one.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/57973/?page=2

....... an almost complete lack of greenspace and parks.

Have you ever been to Bangkok?

I was surprised to read this. It's not very convincing, nor does it account for an almost complete lack of greenspace and parks.

It's a good website in general, but I think they missed the boat on this one.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/57973/?page=2

Does the editor drink to excess often ?

Does green mold count?

I was surprised to read this. It's not very convincing, nor does it account for an almost complete lack of greenspace and parks.

It's a good website in general, but I think they missed the boat on this one.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/57973/?page=2

Does the editor drink to excess often ?

one of your drinkin buddies Doc

that must be a joke indeed..... I know at least 20 cities with a population of 2 million plus, half of them in Asia. And for sure, Bangkok is the LESS greenest of all of them. what is tiny Lumpinee or tiny lovely Rama-9-Park (by far the most beautiful place in Bangkok), compared to the size of the city.

even nasty man-made Monsters such as Jakarta or scary apocalypse-like Manila have more green space within their city limits.

....... an almost complete lack of greenspace and parks.

Have you ever been to Bangkok?

Have you ever been OUTDSIDE Bangkok in your entire life ? at places such as Singapore, Hanoi, HongKong, Kuala Lumpur ?

It's a liberal website, facts are only relevant if they spin the right direction. In this case Bangkok was one of the 15 international cities the guy could think of without looking in a book. Who's going to check his facts, it's a fluff article.

....... an almost complete lack of greenspace and parks.

Have you ever been to Bangkok?

Have you ever been OUTDSIDE Bangkok in your entire life ? at places such as Singapore, Hanoi, HongKong, Kuala Lumpur ?

I have lived both in Hanoi and Kuala Lumpur and for me Lumphini park, Queen Sirikit park, Chatuchak park far outweigh in quality the offerings of Hanoi and KL. I used to walk round Lenin park in Hanoi and count the bloody syringes strewn on the grass that kids were supposed to play on. And I had to pay to get in while the junkies got in free!

To say that there is an almost complete lack of greenspace and parks in Bangkok indicates the presence of a certain medical condition.

IMO

No matter how much farangs bash Bangkok, it's still better than the sh!t hole they come from.

No matter how much farangs bash Bangkok, it's still better than the sh!t hole they come from.

... but it's not very green...

Did any of you actually read the article? They are not talking about green spaces and parks, but "green" from enviromental initiatives. Having said that I am scratching my head over Bangkok being on that list, same too with Sydney for that matter. I think the guy was smoking something green.

Toxin would have had him on staff!

Bangkok was MUCH worse .. it is MUCH better ... its no where close to being a green city but improvement wise?

Converting of the buses and taxis to natural gas, the mass transit I.E. sky train, subway. The city almost goes completely dark at night, light pollution is down. Yes , this is to save money but it also cuts down on energy consumption. I see some buildings that virtually disappear at night and if they didn't have the flashing red lights on each corner you wouldn't even know its there. Its comparative... If Los angles has improved from where it was 5 percent in the past 10 years compared to the 35 percent change from 10 years past for bangkok and then project this moving forward, I could understand how they come up with Bangkok moving towards being a green city.

Swain, you are exagerating. I hear what you're saying, but...

the buses.

the cars (no mot here).

the <deleted> everywhere (litter).

people's attitudes.

the sewage system.

the plastic bags (instead of traditional banana leaves).

the rubber bands.

They have gone backwards, over the last 15 years, I would say.

Swain, you are exaggerating. I hear what you're saying, but...

the buses.

the cars (no mot here).

the <deleted> everywhere (litter).

people's attitudes.

the sewage system.

the plastic bags (instead of traditional banana leaves).

the rubber bands.

They have gone backwards, over the last 15 years, I would say.

Ok... well peoples attitudes I am sure are not part of the parameters that made up the basis for why Bangkok is on the their green city list. I would agree with everything that you mentioned. I dislike Bangkok for many of the same reasons and moved to Chiang Mai to get away from it. But as far as moving towards being a greener city, I have to say I would agree with this publication. They are moving in the right direction, but who knows if the city will stay moving in the right direction after the new government comes into power.

Sewage seems to be one of the largest problems bangkok has and I have not heard of any plans on addressing this issue and I do keep my ears open. Please point me to an information source if I am in error.

The article is rubbish.

The fact is, Paris, that did not make it to the "greenest cities" top 15 has 20 sqm of parlkland per head.

Bangkok, who made it to No. 8 has -----1.5sqm (one point five) per resident.

Did any of you actually read the article? They are not talking about green spaces and parks, but "green" from enviromental initiatives.

Yes, the sub-title of the article does read "Here's the top 15 cities and few runners up who have made the most impressive strides toward eco-friendliness and sustainability." (My highlighting).

I still can't say I agree with their findings though.

Did any of you actually read the article? They are not talking about green spaces and parks, but "green" from enviromental initiatives.

Yes, the sub-title of the article does read "Here's the top 15 cities and few runners up who have made the most impressive strides toward eco-friendliness and sustainability." (My highlighting).

I still can't say I agree with their findings though.

One of the things that helped Portland get No. 2 is and it boasts 92,000 acres of green space and more than 74 miles of hiking, running, and biking trails.

I assumed they looked BKK from that side too.

The word "strides" puts the article in a new light for sure.

I hope Bangkok continues to move in the right direction. The city I come from has about 300,000 people and has more parks than Bangkok. Lumphini is quite a huge park, though. Not tiny.