USA ranks 28th in Environmental progress toward a cleaner world

[Sauniere]

This is sad news, pathetic really, that we have allowed our ability to research and create alternative forms of energy and clean up the environment to come to a stand still in our abeyance to the car industry, energy companies, and rampant greed that controls this country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23environment.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1138062163-Re1OCu7JlwtqO6BFt1NeiA

-snip-

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - A pilot nation-by-nation study of environmental performance shows that just six nations - led by New Zealand, followed by five from Northern Europe - have achieved 85 percent or better success in meeting a set of critical environmental goals ranging from clean drinking water and low ozone levels to sustainable fisheries and low greenhouse gas emissions.

The study, jointly produced by Yale and Columbia Universities, ranked the United States 28th over all, behind most of Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Costa Rica and Chile, but ahead of Russia and South Korea.

The bottom half of the rankings is largely filled with the countries of Africa and Central and South Asia. Pakistan and India both rank among the 20 lowest-scoring countries, with overall success rates of 41.1 percent and 47.7 percent, respectively.

The pilot study, called the 2006 Environmental Performance Index, has been reviewed by specialists both in the United States and internationally.

Using a new variant of the methodology the two universities have applied in their Environmental Sustainability Index, produced in four previous years, the study was intended to focus more attention on how various governments have played the environmental hands they have been dealt, said Daniel C. Esty, the director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and an author of the report.

The earlier sustainability measurements "tell you something about long-term trajectories," Mr. Esty said. "We think this tool has a much greater application in the policy context."

For instance, Britain ranked 65th in last year's sustainability index, but 5th in the latest study, among the 133 nations measured. Among the reasons for the earlier low ranking, Mr. Esty said, was that "they cut down almost all their trees 500 years ago and before," something that modern British governments could not control.

The 16 indicators used in the latest study, the report says, provide "a powerful tool for evaluating environmental investments and improving policy results."

The report will be issued during the World Economic Forum, an annual conclave of business and political leaders which meets in Davos, Switzerland, this week. Mr. Esty said the report was also intended as a tool to help monitor progress on the environmental issues included among the Millennium Development goals adopted by 189 nations at the United Nations Millennium Summit.

"It's like holding up a mirror and having someone help you see what you couldn't see before," he said. But the report acknowledges "serious data gaps" that resulted in leaving more than 65 countries out of the rankings. In addition, some thorny methodological issues, like how to measure land degradation or loss of wetlands, have no widely accepted solutions, the report noted, and the authors used the best measures they had available.

Like the sustainability index produced last year, the pilot study ranks countries within their geographic peer groups, so that nations in arid regions or tropical ones can be measured against one another. So Belgium's overall ranking of 39, with a 75.9 percent score, can be viewed by region and by issue. Belgium ranks last, for instance, among European countries in protection of its water resources.

Air quality rankings tend to favor less industrialized nations like Uganda, Gabon, Ecuador and Sri Lanka. Among the countries of the Americas, the United States ranks in the bottom third on this scale.

In the Americas, the United States is at the bottom of the scale measuring agricultural, forest and fisheries management, in part because the study is weighted against countries with a high level of crop subsidies. The study's authors say that such subsidies "in agriculture, fisheries and energy sectors have been shown to have negative impacts on resource use and management practices."... [more]

[Simba]

Once again, the United States this, the United States that. *Yawns*

Three cheers for New Zealand, I would rather say.

Simple positive reinforcement. The negative will get you no where.

[Sauniere]

Once again, the United States this, the United States that. *Yawns*

Three cheers for New Zealand, I would rather say.

Simple positive reinforcement. The negative will get you no where.

Hey, I'm NOT taking sides, most everyone is guilty, don't get me wrong, but as the second largest polluter on the planet the USA has a responsibility to do more. We say we want to set the example for world deomcracy and freedom, why not the environment, also? I live my life as an example to others, but as I've posted elsewhere, I'm trying to shape young minds here, not through proselytizing, but by education... :flowers:

[BugMan]

I really get sick of these partisan environmentalist taking stupid cheap shots at the United States.

First of all, you CANNOT compare a nation of 300 million people to a nation of 2 million. It doesn't work.

In addition, the United States actually LEADS THE WORLD in most air quality improvements in the last 20 years.
- Look at the incredible improvements in coal burning technology.
- Look at the explosion of wind-generators being erected - by the hundreds - in the Midwest.
- Look at the ethanol industry, with it's production of E85 fuel - something most blue states don't even offer to commuters.


The list could go on and on and on. But facts don't matter to the anti-American crowd.

[Eddie]

First of all, you CANNOT compare a nation of 300 million people to a nation of 2 million. It doesn't work.

Of course you can. Per capita figures make it quite possible...

In addition, the United States actually LEADS THE WORLD in most air quality improvements in the last 20 years.

I`m not saying that you are wrong. I know too little about this, but do you have any comparisons or reports to back up that statement?


Oh, and the link seems to be broken

[::Major_Baker::]

As the 'leader of the free world', we should be in the top 10.

No ifs ands or buts about it.

Just because comeone exposes an area that needs more work does not make it anti american. You have been watching way too much FOX NEWS buddy.

[BugMan]

As the 'leader of the free world', we should be in the top 10.

No ifs ands or buts about it.

Just because comeone exposes an area that needs more work does not make it anti american. You have been watching way too much FOX NEWS buddy.

You have no idea what I watch, so I'd suggest you stop the condescending little comments like that.


Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

- I've spent a fair amount of time working in the Dominican Republic. I'd challenge you to go there and simply drive through the city of Santiago. You'll barely be able to breathe, due to thick black smoke belching out of alll the diesel vehicles, in addition to the gassers having no emissions-reduction systems at all. It literally makes your eyes water.
- Then, just last week, I drove through the heart of St Loius - a major metro area in America. 4 lanes one way of traffic, and you cannot smell anything emissions-related. The metro transit busses don't even smoke. Most of the cars and small truck are burning ethanol-blend fuel.

Now... would you care to tell me how America's pollution problem is so much bigger than that of other nations?


And I'll guarantee you that pollution in the Dominican Republic is virtually nothing compared to the black snow in Russia, the nuclear fallout in Eastern-bloc countries, and the landfill-type landscape of Mexico.


Like I said, America leads the world in clean-air technology.

[BugMan]

Of course you can. Per capita figures make it quite possible...



I`m not saying that you are wrong. I know too little about this, but do you have any comparisons or reports to back up that statement?


Oh, and the link seems to be broken

Actually, per capita numbers do NOT make it accurate.

You really cannot compare the "emissions" one American, who lives in a northern state (and, thus, requires a heating system for his house) and commutes to work - to a African tribesman who never walks more than 5 miles from his home that sits near the equator.

It's apples and oranges.

[::Major_Baker::]

[QUOTE]You have no idea what I watch, so I'd suggest you stop the condescending little comments like that.
Ok, just humor me and tell me you don't watch FOx news. Dare ya.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

- I've spent a fair amount of time working in the Dominican Republic. I'd challenge you to go there and simply drive through the city of Santiago. You'll barely be able to breathe, due to thick black smoke belching out of alll the diesel vehicles, in addition to the gassers having no emissions-reduction systems at all. It literally makes your eyes water.
- Then, just last week, I drove through the heart of St Loius - a major metro area in America. 4 lanes one way of traffic, and you cannot smell anything emissions-related. The metro transit busses don't even smoke. Most of the cars and small truck are burning ethanol-blend fuel.

Now... would you care to tell me how America's pollution problem is so much bigger than that of other nations?
I did not suggest that.


And I'll guarantee you that pollution in the Dominican Republic is virtually nothing compared to the black snow in Russia, the nuclear fallout in Eastern-bloc countries, and the landfill-type landscape of Mexico.


Like I said, America leads the world in clean-air technology.
I have been to Mexico and central america, and I agree the environemental regulation, or lack therof, are horrifying. Street runoff runs directly into rivers, no sewage treatment, etc.

However, the GDP of Dominican is roughly $5,600 dollars, compared to $35,000 for the USA. A bit of a development gap ther, eh?
Sure we may lead in clean air technology, but my point being, that as the leader of the free world, and the most developed country, we should be a shining beacon for environmental protection, not 28th on the list.




http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdp.html

[Eddie]

Actually, per capita numbers do NOT make it accurate.

You really cannot compare the "emissions" one American, who lives in a northern state (and, thus, requires a heating system for his house) and commutes to work - to a African tribesman who never walks more than 5 miles from his home that sits near the equator.

It's apples and oranges.

Sure, there are reasons why the american has hiogher levels of emissions than the average african. That`s kind of the point with making comparisons...

And of course you can compare the emissions of one american and one african. Granted, there are perhaps less to learn from that kind of comparison than the comparison between, say a north european and a north american (both because of similiar climate and a similiar economy).

In any case, the total population of a nation is rather irrelevant in this case. Population density might be more interesting though.

[BugMan]

[QUOTE=BugMan]
Ok, just humor me and tell me you don't watch FOx news. Dare ya.

I did not suggest that.

I have been to Mexico and central america, and I agree the environemental regulation, or lack therof, are horrifying. Street runoff runs directly into rivers, no sewage treatment, etc.

However, the GDP of Dominican is roughly $5,600 dollars, compared to $35,000 for the USA. A bit of a development gap ther, eh?
Sure we may lead in clean air technology, but my point being, that as the leader of the free world, and the most developed country, we should be a shining beacon for environmental protection, not 28th on the list.

http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdp.html


GDP has nothing to do with this.

In addition, I have serious doubts as to the objectivity of this "study" that places the United States in 28th. Exactly what standards were used? What "weight" was placed on each standard? You can pretty much come to whatever conclusion you want to come to.


...and by the way, I RARELY watch FOXNews. I flip through the channels, stop for a moment, and move on. Do you get your news from MoveOn.org? ;)

[BugMan]

Sure, there are reasons why the american has hiogher levels of emissions than the average african. That`s kind of the point with making comparisons...

And of course you can compare the emissions of one american and one african. Granted, there are perhaps less to learn from that kind of comparison than the comparison between, say a north european and a north american (both because of similiar climate and a similiar economy).

In any case, the total population of a nation is rather irrelevant in this case. Population density might be more interesting though.

And you've just admitted to what I'm saying.

This "study" has very little merit. It means very little, and is just another way of saying, "America sucks".

[::Major_Baker::]

[QUOTE=::Major_Baker::]


GDP has nothing to do with this.

In addition, I have serious doubts as to the objectivity of this "study" that places the United States in 28th. Exactly what standards were used? What "weight" was placed on each standard? You can pretty much come to whatever conclusion you want to come to.


...and by the way, I RARELY watch FOXNews. I flip through the channels, stop for a moment, and move on. Do you get your news from MoveOn.org? ;)

GDP could be used as a measure of development; undeveloped countries often have little or no environmental regulations in place.

Not saying it's the best way, but comparing polution in the Dominican Republic to that of the USA is utterly ridiculous. I mean, pedestrians hit by cars in the Dominican Republic are sometimes left in the road for extended periods of time. Talk about backwards and undeveloped.

Moveon.org? Negative! I have actually only logged on to it once, and found it too left-leaning and childish for my taste, not presenting accurate arguements, and just as biased and comical as say......."newsmax"

Besides, dude, 28th on a list of 192? It's not that bad, and far from 'anti-american'...............But, as the #1 country in the World, as many theorize, I think we should be higher than 28th. That was my only point.

[Eddie]

And you've just admitted to what I'm saying.

This "study" has very little merit. It means very little, and is just another way of saying, "America sucks".

What? In what respect did I "admit to what you where saying"?

I couldn`t access the study, but the fact that countries are different hardly invalidates any ranking of countries. I don`t see how the study says that "america sucks" (the article might, but that`s another issue).

[BugMan]

What? In what respect did I "admit to what you where saying"?

I couldn`t access the study, but the fact that countries are different hardly invalidates any ranking of countries. I don`t see how the study says that "america sucks" (the article might, but that`s another issue).

My point - yet again - is that this study is skewed, biased and designed to say what the people doing it want it to say.

- The study included such things as "sustainable fisheries". What they heck?
- In one year, Britain went from 65th to 5th. Hmmmmm. They did all that environmental work in one year?
- The article included statements like, "In addition, some thorny methodological issues, like how to measure land degradation or loss of wetlands, have no widely accepted solutions..." In other words, they don't even know how to measure what they want to measure!


Shall I go on?

This study really doesn't say much of anything, other than that some countries are doing better environmentally than others. Unfortunately, there will always be some idiots - somewhere - who will use this study (and ones like it) for some partisan political hacking.

[Eddie]

My point - yet again - is that this study is skewed, biased and designed to say what the people doing it want it to say.

And what are "the people" wanting it to say? That the United States ranks at 28th? :confused:

I hope you do realise that not everything revolves around the United States or their partisan politics.... ;)


- The study included such things as "sustainable fisheries". What they heck?

That would be refering to overfishing. A rather important enviromental issue in many parts of the world.


- In one year, Britain went from 65th to 5th. Hmmmmm. They did all that environmental work in one year?

That difference is due to a change in methodology. It`s in the article.


- The article included statements like, "In addition, some thorny methodological issues, like how to measure land degradation or loss of wetlands, have no widely accepted solutions..." In other words, they don't even know how to measure what they want to measure!

Nothing extraordinary. Studies and especially indexes always have methodological problems (if nothing else, the weighing of factors will always be a problem). It doesn`t invalidate the results unless the various metodological techniques produce very different results.

This study really doesn't say much of anything, other than that some countries are doing better environmentally than others. Unfortunately, there will always be some idiots - somewhere - who will use this study (and ones like it) for some partisan political hacking.

I would say that it particulary highlights the areas that needs to be improved in various countries. From looking at the report on Sweden, I learn that overfishing and lack of wilderness protection is probably our most serious issue at the moment. Sure, some countries succeed better than others, and that should perhaps be a wake-up call for some country:s leaders. The better performing countries could also serve as examples and guides to how better enviromental polycies can be pursued and better sustainability can be achieved.

[Tokyoman]

But facts don't matter to the anti-American crowd.

The fact is the US came 28th. Is the US the world's biggest or second biggest polluter now?

[BugMan]

The fact is the US came 28th. Is the US the world's biggest or second biggest polluter now?

...or is this study really just kind of a farcical exercise in academia?

Your comment that I bolded simply proves what I'm saying. People with an agenda - like you - will use this skewed study to make an inane point about "big bad America".

That's why comments like yours are so easily exposed and ignored.

[BugMan]

And what are "the people" wanting it to say? That the United States ranks at 28th? :confused:

I hope you do realise that not everything revolves around the United States or their partisan politics.... ;)




That would be refering to overfishing. A rather important enviromental issue in many parts of the world.



That difference is due to a change in methodology. It`s in the article.



Nothing extraordinary. Studies and especially indexes always have methodological problems (if nothing else, the weighing of factors will always be a problem). It doesn`t invalidate the results unless the various metodological techniques produce very different results.



I would say that it particulary highlights the areas that needs to be improved in various countries. From looking at the report on Sweden, I learn that overfishing and lack of wilderness protection is probably our most serious issue at the moment. Sure, some countries succeed better than others, and that should perhaps be a wake-up call for some country:s leaders. The better performing countries could also serve as examples and guides to how better enviromental polycies can be pursued and better sustainability can be achieved.


I agree - to a point.

There is ALWAYS something to be learned, and something to be improved.

But the dolts that make broad-brushing comments (like the one I responded to immediately above this post) based on a study that does NOT say what they want it to say... Well, they're the problem. Stupidity does not work well in the real world.

[Eddie]

I agree - to a point.

There is ALWAYS something to be learned, and something to be improved.

But the dolts that make broad-brushing comments (like the one I responded to immediately above this post) based on a study that does NOT say what they want it to say... Well, they're the problem. Stupidity does not work well in the real world.

Sure. People are prone on making wild assumptions based on indexes and studies as long as it suits their agenda. That`s a fact of life I guess :D

It is always good to be critical towards the things we read. But it is also good to remeber that we all have bias. Even I as the beholder.

[BugMan]

Sure. People are prone on making wild assumptions based on indexes and studies as long as it suits their agenda. That`s a fact of life I guess :D

It is always good to be critical towards the things we read. But it is also good to remeber that we all have bias. Even I as the beholder.

Well here's the way I look at it:

I cannot personally change the way the whole world pollutes the environment. I can, however, do my part - and I do.
- Our home has the highest efficiency furnace available, and it's very well insulated.
- We drive highly efficient vehicles.
- I burn E85 in all my vehicles.
- We recycle everything that can be recycled.


In addition, I provide a fair amount of heat for my house and office - just by getting steamed up at all the stupidity that floats around and is gulped down by ignorant people who want to accept it as fact! :)

[Tokyoman]

...or is this study really just kind of a farcical exercise in academia?

Your comment that I bolded simply proves what I'm saying. People with an agenda - like you - will use this skewed study to make an inane point about "big bad America".

That's why comments like yours are so easily exposed and ignored.

If you ignored it, why did you respond to it? :confused:

It's obvious the fact of the US being 28th really upsets you.

I also find it ironic that you said:

But the dolts that make broad-brushing comments (like the one I responded to immediately above this post) based on a study that does NOT say what they want it to say

What do you want the study to say?

Given the discussion is not about the admirable efforts of NZ or the Scandinavian countries, but about the US, it's perfectly reasonable to ask if the US is the world's top polluter as reported by the media and the US DOE. I believe the US has reduced air pollutants significantly in the last 30 years.