A global report card on nations doing the most, and least, to clean up the environment.
Comment: Is there a link to the see the actual ranking? I would really like to see where countries stand in the list.
Comment: Is there a link to see the actual ranking?
Comment: I am personnally disgusted with all of the America is a rotten place people that are commenting on this topic. First, get yourselves some true scientific knowledge, not this junk science of the PC world. Then wakeup and realize that without the USA and it's many interventions in this not so perfect world you and most of the lands you pontificate about would be TOTALLY ruled by genocidal murderers and not have to worry about the carbon footprint, as they would have no human footprints. Turrn on the news anywhere on any channel, Darfur comes to mind, do you really think that those innocent people give a hoot in hell about your silly PC stuff? This country has been an amazing plus for the Earth for over 200 years, to deny that is nothing short of a complete lack of objectivity or brains on any level, You America Haters just keep being guilty for everything and the rest of us intelligent lucky Americans can continue to laugh at you, and believe me there are millions of us.
Comment: Why is it that when John Mc Cain wants to ramp up nuclear power it is bad, when the French do it , it is great? Get a real stance and keep it!
Comment: I agree with the previous contribution in the sense that industrialized countries generate a huge ecological footprint due to international trade and moving industrial power abroad that is rarely accounted for in such indicators as the EPI. As, said before, the top deciles countries are natural resources sinks fed by far away sources through rather energy inefficient air and sea transport. As quoted by Elisabeth Rosenthal (New York Times; April 26; 2008,) the cost of international trade is artificialized by tax exemptions on fuel used by international air freight moving due to the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed in Chicago in 1944. Rosenthal also says that fuel for oceanic freight is likewise subsided. The carbon footprint of trade is huge and if we take into account the number of brands from industrialized countries that manufacture goods overseas (most times with more relax environmental standards) and the freight companies from such countries that move these goods around the globe, the EPI rankings might shift significantly. However, it is no only a matter of freight and manufacture; what about the environmental cost inflicted in source countries due to having fresh fruits and vegetables year-round in northern winter-ruled countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and so on? In a globalized world, environmental responsibilities are also accounted for overseas.
Comment: I do not agree with this article due to the fact that most of the industrialized countries produce their pollution outside their own borders! in a globalized world where transnationals ignore borders, such a ranking may turn out to be even dangerously wrong since most of the environmental damage is directly or indirectly tied to consume. due to this, it is actually countries like guatemala or cuba that should rank as the most ecological instead of switzerland who is actually as all the other rich industrialized countries a resources sink!!
resources devastation and CO2 emissions have to be calculated different! this point of view of the world is very old and to my opinion completely wrong. the only merit this study has, is the valuable information that was gathered and analyzed so as to perform these rankings! jet these numbers should be viewed per capita! if these nice numbers were to be computed similar as individual CO2 footprints and multiplied by the inhabitants of any country of the world, switzerland would find itself inside very low in a similar ranking. probably not so far from the Usa and other industrialized countries which actually indirectly pollute the world much more than other countries like china etc.. imagine the Usa had as many inhabitants as china! many worlds would be needed! industrialized countries should finally accept their responsibility in deforestation and pollution of the world so that they can consume cheap products and energy!
Comment: I do not agree with this article due to the fact that most of the industrialized countries produce their pollution outside their own borders! in a globalized world where transnationals ignore borders, such a ranking may turn out to be even dangerously wrong since most of the environmental damage is directly or indirectly tied to consume. due to this, it is actually countries like guatemala or cuba that should rank as the most ecological instead of switzerland who is actually as all the other rich industrialized countries a resources sink!!
resources devastation and CO2 emissions have to be calculated different! this point of view of the world is very old and to my opinion completely wrong. the only merit this study has, is the valuable information that was gathered and analyzed so as to perform these rankings! jet these numbers should be viewed per capita! if these nice numbers were to be computed similar as individual CO2 footprints and multiplied by the inhabitants of any country of the world, switzerland would find itself inside very low in a similar ranking. probably not so far from the Usa and other industrialized countries which actually indirectly pollute the world much more than other countries like china etc.. imagine the Usa had as many inhabitants as china! many worlds would be needed! industrialized countries should finally accept their responsibility in deforestation and pollution of the world so that they can consume cheap products and energy!
Comment: The Central Issue of dealing with the preservation of the natural balance of the earth has been and would be a focal point of research,proposals and solutions for the coming years.Physical geography and the detailed presentation of the distribution and taxonomy of the flora and fauna of the globe has been and would continue to a task of paramount importance to all who take interest in the balance of the given physical earth and to all who take the case a research topic within the most advanced institutions of learning .
The question of the balance of the Eco-systems of the given earth,the taxonomy of bio-diversity as well as the proper classfication of the plant and animal kingdoms was the land mark of such great naturalists as Charles Darwin.What the average person terms as climate change,clean air and water is the most innocent expression of what the great naturalists once called the survival of the fitest,the stong and the enduring.The temporary world has taken the old debate of the natural balance of the great naturalists in to the new language of industrial green gas houses,carbon accounting and in to the current urgent topic of climate change.
Learning institutions of the contemporary world have made great strides in the presentation of the natural balanc of the contemporary world by the proper and advanced treatment of the issue using further detailed classfication and survey methods that are more advanced in methodology and content as compared to the early naturalists of the age such as Charles Darwin.The learning institutions of the contemporary world are more detailed as to not on the main topic of natural philosophy ,rather as to their orientation to public service and the modification and intervention of the human factor in the balance of the Eco-systems of the world.
The given article is an example as to the the capacity of the the age and It's people in the moderation of the balance of the physical earth in the service and to the wishes of nations.Nations and people are currently able to survey or monitor natural events from space.More and more the average person in every nation gets the service of advanced reports of weather condtions,sea tides,sand storms and others that were once a dream to the most known naturalists such as Charles Darwin.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
STRATEGIES Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
