ENVIRONMENT

Green-Listed

Yale University's newest ranking of the world's greenest countries offers a few surprises—and some useful lessons for business leaders.

By Barrett Sheridan | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 23, 2008 | Updated: 9:31  a.m. ET Jan 23, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Harlequinade @ 01/24/2008 2:10:38 PM

    Why aren't people looking into batteries? How is Solar and Wind going to change the world into a greener place without the ability to harness and store the power until we need it? The research money needs to be pumped into making smaller batteries with the ability to store more power! Forget Biofuel! All the sun in the world would not make the nights light up and the cars go if we can't store that energy!

  • Posted By: kamalimd @ 01/23/2008 11:04:51 PM

    I agree with you, wind and solar aren't effective....YET.... Solar will one day, I doubt if wind ever will. It seems they can'y be profitable without tremendous government subsidies.

    I also agree that "biofuel" is a crock. Let's take food we eat, and now use it for fuel. Seems like a disaster waiting to happen. The only "biofuel" that looks promising is using the leftover vegetable oil, orshortening from fast food restaurants and turning it into fuel. Since it is basically turning trash into something productive. Besides that, I don't see how people can rationalize using food for fuel.

  • Posted By: kamalimd @ 01/23/2008 2:09:48 PM

    This clearly shows you can go to an Ivy League school and still learn nothing.

    Please explain how the US is not dead last. We are the worlds #1 consumer of oil, the #1 consumer of water, the #1 consumer of power and not from clean sources, we burn 97% coal for our power.

    We've been using oil and coal for the last 100 years. Nothing has changed for as green as "forward-thinking" as we think we are..

    We are also the #1 producer of CO2.

    We are also the only nation that did not ratify the Kyoto protocol.

    With the exception of California which has started to take drastic steps in improving energy efficiency and the politicians their showing their willingness to fight the automakers without the help of Federal Government I don't see how on God's Green Earth (sic) the US is not dead last.


    • Posted By: slowhand @ 01/23/2008 6:09:24 PM

      You might want to do a little more research on the Kyoto protocol...many countries were not invited, or were given "immunity" for lack of a better word (I believe China was one of those). Many European countries were allowed to "buy" credits from other countries...Also, many of them were closing down old Soviet bloc inefficient power plants...in the last decade, we measure favorably with them...of course we're the #1 producer of CO2, do you know of any other country with the same combination of population, technology, land area, and standard of living? Man-made greenhouse gas makes up what, less than 5% of the total, and we're not even sure Kyoto would, if enacted by all countries, even affect that 5%...I'm in favor of finding better, cleaner fuels, and also of using niche energy sources in the right market (solar in AZ, for example), and I recycle...let's focus on real environmental and pollution issues, not a warming that has ebbed and flowed for thousands of years, regardless of us...

  • Posted By: ccharles @ 01/23/2008 4:43:53 PM

    This index is extremely biased toward wealthier counties. It measures carbon produced per KwH rather than per capita. It credits using "renewables" (such as ethanol) in spite of data that show the carbon cost of growing, refining and transporting "biofules" is as high as for fosil fuels. It rates various criteria against GDP rather than per capita. It gives credit for drinking water quality and indoor air quality, even though these have little impact on the natural environment. It misplaces impacts of consumtion that occur beyond the border (such as forest destroyed in Brazil to produce beef that is consumed in the U.S.).

    This index ignores the production of hazardous nuclear waste. It ignores a number of other pollutants , such as heavy metals. It penalizes countries for agricultural subsidies.

  • Posted By: t9900 @ 01/23/2008 2:31:13 PM

    Wind and solar, while good in theory, are not that effective. Ethanol isn't either. You can't keep people from driving less or consuming less. I certainly won't. The government is too ineffective to come up with alternative clean fuels. We need to use Nuclear, coal, and oil to keep us going until the energy industry finds something better. I hope all you envirnmentalists and anti-capitalists don't get your hopes up becuase the big bad evil oil companies are the ones who are going to find a new clean source of fuel and will control it. I do hope America does not fall into line with these green countries. Our economy is to unstable as it is to suddenly turn green. You really need to think of the economy when talking about turning green. For example road construction will be hurting if we go green. Tar or asphalt or whatever it is needs to be kept hot in the trucks. This is done with exhaust. Environmental laws prevent that from happening meaning they would need to find more expensive ways to warm the trucks. If you work in a cubical or for the media it would be hard to understand.

  • Posted By: phiomalibumalibu @ 01/23/2008 1:53:47 PM

    Solar power is the one thing we can all begin to use in america. Take a look at sunlighttech.com
    and get great incentives on installing large and small solar systems. We can get off foriegn oil also by
    driving less or using alternative fuels (see trafficorganic.com) and working from home. I think also we need to continue to recycle daily and stop consuming so much!

  • Posted By: Houlbelat @ 01/23/2008 11:41:43 AM

    Although I completely agree with climate fears and efforts being made to tackle it but, I also feel that the fears are somewhat lopsided. We know that, the entire reserve of earth's fossil fuels, both existing and consumed, if burned at once, could only equal 40 minutes supply of energy intercepted by Earth from Sun! So, it is a very small insignificant man-made spark of fire which can hardly be expected to really make a material change in ages of climate pattern designed by the Nature. On another comparison scale, the entire estimated deposits of all fossil fuels on earth can be piled-up in a volume of just 4 cu..mile!

  • Posted By: Houlbelat @ 01/23/2008 11:38:59 AM

    Although I completely agree with climate fears and efforts being made to tackle it but, I also feel that the fears are somewhat lopsided. We know that, the entire reserve of earth's fossil fuels, both existing and consumed, if burned at once, could only equal 40 minutes supply of energy intercepted by Earth from Sun! So, it is a very small insignificant man-made spark of fire which can hardly be expected to really make a material change in ages of climate pattern designed by the Nature. On another comparison scale, the entire estimated deposits of all fossil fuels on earth can be piled-up in a volume of just 4 sq.mile!

  • Posted By: tdn0024 @ 01/23/2008 10:48:26 AM

    Is carbon really an issue?

    If so, this table is likely a joke.

    The US at 39th? If the carbon issue is real, then we've got to be about dead last. Our per capita carbon generation is way, way up there.

    But, these things come and go.

    Countries are high on the list for a lot of nuclear. And why aren't we? 1970's liberals (envirnomentalists!)

    I am sympathetic to environmentalists objectives. Most environmentalists, including at Yale, are as capable of assisting end environmental problems as communists were of ending poverty.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse