Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Nihil

(13,508 posts)
3. And 3 are in the Middle East, 2/2 of the North American continent, ...
Wed May 16, 2012, 04:21 AM
May 2012

The correlation is with wealth & standard of living, not geography or energy source.

The problem with Denmark is probably due to the large amounts of natural gas
it burns rather than their public transport system. There again, given it was from
a biodiversity report, maybe the large (mainly monoculture) agricultural segment
did the damage to their ratings?

I'm also a little surprised about the fact that the UK didn't appear even on their
(through-linked) top 25 consumers as I would really have thought that we'd be far
worse than Norway, Sweden or France in terms of the more obvious criteria ...


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Report: Global biodiversi...»Reply #3