While on my recent motorcycle trip to Europe my Norwegian friend gave me a copy of The Economist World fact book for 2007. Had I been given this book before the trip I don't think I would have believed much of the data presented in it. However after having seem so much of Europe the data this book presents, for the most part, was congruent with my own physical perceptions. The most startling bit overall is how well the US compares environmentally to the other countries of Western Europe. I had thought, been taught, and exposed to information that made Western Europe appear to be leaps and bounds ahead of the US in terms of environmental performance. Within two weeks of being in Europe; having to wash the diesel soot from my stinging eyes and discolored neck on a daily basis as I rode through France; I really began to question how much more environmentally friendly Western Europe really is to the US.
On a side, I think it is atrocious that BMW, Mercedes, Renault, etc produce and sell in large quantities, diesel powered cars costing upwards of $30,000 that under any type of hard acceleration discharge a plume of black soot and smoke similar to that of a semi-truck. These cars are all over France and Germany, as my burnt eyes can attest to. I can accept (even though I dislike), the little old Fiat Puntos and Renault Cleos puffing out dirty diesel fumes. Poor people still need to be able to get around, but a new $40,000 BMW!!! I don't want to hear about how strict the new EU emissions standards are. However when diesel fuel costs around 20% less than petrol can one really blame people for buying diesel cars. In Europe's defense, some countries (like Holland) Put a separate tax on diesel vehicles that petrol cars are exempt from. However if one simply drives about 12,000 miles a year this tax is offset by cheaper fuel prices, which gives the perverse incentive to people to buy a dirtier car if they drive a lot.
Okay back to the point. The following data and rankings I got directly from The Economist magazine, who itself sourced its data from reputable sources such as, the WHO, World Bank, World Water Council, Center for International Earth Science Information, UNDP, World Resource Institute, and many others. Due to these factors I would argue that the data is fairly reliable and should be taken without an undue amount of skepticism.
On the other hand all subjective analysis of that data was solely carried out by me, Matthew Elke, and as those who know me will attest, all conclusions made by me should be taken with a full and complete dose of skepticism and doubt :)
However, while riding through Europe this summer I got to see much of that Continent{s land scape, and compare my perceptions of the state of the environment to that of the USA. After 3 months and nearly 30,000 km of riding, I think I had developed a decent overall view of the general physical state of the European environment. Having visited all but 6 US states and have ridden or driven the roads of all those states, many multiple times, I have also gotten a decent feel for the condition of United States. All that being said...
US Environmental Rankings:
The Economist formulated an Environmental Performance Index which gives a score of 0-100 to a country and is based on 6 policy categories (environmental health; air quality; water resources; biodiversity and habitat; productive natural resources; sustainable energy). The US scored a 78.5 placing it 28th in the world. The surprising thing is not the US placement but how close the US was to other countries I had thought to be more environmentally friendly. The Netherlands was only one place better at 27 with a score of 78.7. Spain at 23 scored a 79.2, Germany at 22 scored a 79.4, and Italy at 21 scored only a 79.8. The country with the highest score was New Zealand with a score of 88.0. Now I do not know how these policy categories were evaluated or weighted, but I think this index does show that the US may be much closer to Western Europe in terms of environmental performance than is generally perceived. While Western Europe may have an edge on the US in air quality and sustainable energy, it appears to be poorer when it comes to biodiversity and habitat. It has been my observation that the biggest wild animal one is likely to see in much of Western Europe is a rat, and many forests look like large geometrically designed tree gardens. On a side note, 8 of the 10 lowest scorers come from sub Saharan Africa.
Furthermore in terms of Environmental Health the US ranks tied for 12th globally; with Switzerland of all countries, both receiving a score of 98.3. This score again ranging from 0-100 is based on: child mortality; indoor air pollution; drinking water; sanitation; urban air particulates. In fact the US ranks ahead of Austria at 15, Portugal at 17, the Netherlands at 20, Spain at 21, Belgium at 22, Greece at 24, and Italy at 26. Sweden is ranked 1st at 99.4 and France is second at 99.2. The average score of France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and The Netherlands, 5 of the 6 original EU members, is 97.4 (Luxembourg was not ranked on the list and its small size would skew results anyway). Averaging the scores of each EU country as the union stands today, would yield a much lower average score (including countries such as Poland or Hungary). Averaging individual country scores is not the same as the average for the union itself, as different countries carry a different weight on the overall score, however these scores do show that the US and Western Europe are very similar in terms of environmental health based on this metric.
On a side note again, all of the 10 lowest scoring countries for environmental health come from Sub-Saharan Africa.
Energy Ranking:
Largest Energy Consumption per Head (kg of oil equivalent, 2003)
1. UAE - 9,707
2. Kuwait - 9,566
3. Trinidad & Tobago - 8,553
4. Canada - 8,240
5. United States - 7,843
6. Finland - 7,204
7. Sweden - 5,754
8. Belgium - 5,701
9. Australia - 5,668
10. Saudi Arabia - 5,607
The most shocking thing from this list is that Canadians use more energy per person than Americans do, 5% more. Arguments that I have heard to this fact is that Canada is really cold and a lot of energy is needed for domestic heating. However Norway and South Korea also have very cold winters and they only use 62% and 53% respectively, of what Canada uses. Another argument is that all of Canada's natural resource extraction and processing, whether that be mining or petro chemical, requires a lot of energy. While it is true that Canada uses a lot of energy in resource extraction, much more per person than say France or Germany, I don't think this is a justification for extremely high levels of energy use. Australia too has huge mining and natural resource industries and on a per person basis they use 31% less energy than Canadians. The US is often chastised for its energy and resource consumption but who is the more guilty party here in terms of environmental degradation, the drug dealer or the drug user. In terms of heroine or cocaine use, the law and public opinion is far harsher on the drug dealer than the often time viewed victim that is the drug user (Yes oils natural gas, Metals and minerals are the drugs of modern society, we are addicted to them). I am not trying to paint the US as a victim of its its own unjust conspicuous consumption, but to predominately blame the US for consuming the natural resources exploited by other countries assuages much of the responsibility from these countries for the environmental consequences these countries indirectly produce. (Canada ranks in the top 10 in the production of copper, lead, zinc, nickel, aluminum, oil, and natural gas, while Australia ranks in the top 5 in the production copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and aluminum)
Finland, Sweden, and Belgium consume on a per-capita basis 92%, 75%, 73% respectively of what the US consumes, which is much closer than what i would have suspected. While the US's appetite for energy is prodigious it compares more favorably to the rest of the world than I thought. Furthermore, and I have no idea whether these things are much of a contributing factor, I wonder if the US's technological superiority over the rest of the world, or at least its ability to turn technological advances into produced items either exclusively or before anybody else, has a factor in the country's energy consumption (ie. aerospace, computers, telecommunications, aviation, military development). That would be something I would be curious about.
Energy per-capita vs Energy per human capacity
I have never been happy with using per capita energy consumption as a way to evaluate a country's energy use, and then make moral judgments on that countries consumption. Why should one country, which has let itself become overpopulated, and therefore out of necessity have to reduce its overall consumption of resources and find alternative efficient ways of reducing its waste, be viewed as a better steward of the world than a country that has not let its population reach such heights. Why should a country be praised for finding alternative efficient ways of reducing its waste, when it has no other viable option because it doesn't have any space left to put that waste.
For example Germany is roughly the same size as the state of California, 357,868 sq km vs 410,000 sq km, or 87%. However Germany has 2.25 times the number of people (82.5m vs 36.5m). Now this comparison is relatively simplistic as it does not take into account arable land, available water, sea access, etc, but it does show that Germany is forced, by demographics and planning, to be more efficient in almost everything it does. If this admittedly crude comparison is extrapolated out to the Euro area as whole compared to the entire USA, a similar relationship is observed. The 12 countries that make up the "Euro zone" (France, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Austria, Finland, Ireland.. Slovenia had not added the Euro at the time of the data was compiled) comprise 2,497,000 sq km, with a population of 306.7 million. By Contrast the USA comprises a land area of 9,372,610 sq km and a population of 297.0 million people. therefore, even though the Euro zone has only 26.6% of the land area the US has it actually has 3.2% more people within its boundaries. Now not all land is created equal, so if we compare the amount of arable land in the Euro zone to that in the US we get, 649,220 sq km vs 1,780,796 sq km (again this is a very crude comparison). With essentially equivalent populations the US has 2.7 times more land which is fit to grow food to sustain human life. If the US increased its population 2.7 times, total energy consumption would obviously increase, but I suspect there would be a huge decrease in per capita consumption as the demographics and structure of society would change, probably becoming more like the Euro zone.
Another interesting comparison between the Euro zone and the US is in regards to energy imports. The Euro zone imports 64% of its energy while the US only imports 28% of its energy. One could argue that the Euro zone, having over taxed and overused the energy resources within it boundaries, its member countries have to exploit the developing world more in order to meet their energy needs (This is one of the prime arguments as to why Europe is not more condemning of authoritarian regimes in countries with the resources it needs, ie. Uzbekistan, Iraq, Iran, parts of Sub Saharan Africa, Russia). The high level of energy importation is also likely one of factors contributing to high energy costs in Euro zone (As are taxes but that is another issue). In fact for all the energy the US consumes, the Euro zone, with essentially the same population, actually imports 19% more total energy annually (to the Euro zone's credit, on a per capita basis they use little more than half the energy of the US). Now this says nothing for the sources of that energy, which is generally cleaner in Europe than in the US.
The most surprising data set:
Highest car ownership: (# cars per 1,000 people)
The US ranks 12th in the world when it comes to per capita car ownership, that's right 12th
1. New Zealand - 619
2. Luxembourg - 574
3. Canada - 564
4. Iceland - 557
5. Italy - 547
6. Germany - 546
7. Switzerland - 521
8. Malta - 518
9. Austria - 500
10. France - 492
11. Belgium - 473
12. United States - 468
13. Sweden - 458
14. Spain - 455
15. Slovenia - 445
12 out the top 15 in terms of car ownership come from Western Europe or Scandinavia. And while car ownership is not a measure of environmental friendliness is does indicate that Europe is nearly as much of a car culture as the US. Being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic on the autobahn outside Munich, and on the toll highway near Lyon, among other places, really sent this home for me. In Europe's defense many of there cars tend to be smaller, more fuel efficient and driven shorter distances, but that is partly a function of demographics and population density.
http://mattelke.blogspot.com/2007/10/usa-environmental-rankings.htmlI have long maintained that we in the United States need to celebrate the things we're doing RIGHT environmentally as well as continuing to work towards further improvements in our environmental quality.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
