Summary: Thanks to Ari Berman of The Nation for pointing to Yale's Environmental Sustainability Ratings for 146 Countries (part of Yale's Environmental Performance Measurement Project). He notes:
"Out of 146 countries, the US ranks 45th in environmental sustainability, sandwiched between Armenia and Myanmar, and behind such nations as Botswana (34), Bhutan (39), Congo (39) and even Russia (33), that bastion of eco-consciousness. The findings, part of a join project by Yale and Columbia Universities, are based on myriad factors, including air and water quality, biodiversity, acid rain, overfishing and environmental cooperation with neighbors. While the US does surpass Israel (62) and Great Britain (66), lagging twenty spots behind the Central African Republic (25) should be cause for alarm."
I wasn't sure what to make of Mr. Berman's criticism. I needed to confirm that the US had earned the criticism from this reference point, with this instrument. (Quite different from using this publication as an excuse to criticize a country one is convinced [by other means] is guilty. Second, if true, I wanted to know if results allowed constructive action. For these reasons, I decided to dig into the report itself. Here is the introduction:
The Environmental Performance Measurement Projectaims to shift environmental decision-making to firmer analytic foundations using environmental indicators and statistics. In collaboration with the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University, and the World Economic Forum, the project produces a periodically updated Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). The ESI is a composite index tracking a diverse set of socioeconomic, environmental, and institutional indicators that characterize and influence environmental sustainability at the national scale. An Environmental Performance Index focusing on assessing key environmental policy outcomes using trend analysis and performance targets is under development.
----------------------------------
The Country
Profiles are in one of the appendices (click here
for the full pdf file.).
What can be estimated from the scores and subscores is the degree there should be concern and, ultimately, corrective action. High ranking and high score - lesser concern. Subscores for each country allow determination of which parts of public and corporate action should be emphasized in order to achieve or maintain both a working and healthy relationship with the natural environment. Variables have been defined and developed so that they can guide intranational efforts at enhancement. Inter-national comparisons are possible because of the neutrality and precision of the terms and how they must be assessed. These variables can guide efforts to fix systems and processes that are broken. In the words of the full report,
"In seeking to provide a policy-relevant gauge of national environmental conditions and their likely trajectory over the next several decades the ESI centers on the state of environmental systems, both natural and managed. It also measures stresses on those systems, including natural resource depletion and pollution rates, becaause the magnitude of such stsresses serve as a useful indicator of the pressure on the underlying systems. The ESI further measures impacts and responses and human vulnerability to environmental change. In addition, the ESI tracks a society's capacity to cope with environmental stresses and each country's contribution to global stewardship."(from
These five measures, which together are a consolidated representation of the 76 variables , are :
- The Environmental Systems Themselves (--an estimation of strength of environmental subsystems themselves, i.e.,air quality, biodiversity, land, water quality and water quantity-- this is therefore not a responsibility so much as a measure of what there is to protect or "how much is left in the tank") .
- Efforts to Reduce Environmental Stresses (air pollution, stresses on ecosystems, stresses caused by population and its by products, pressures caused by waste disposal and the production activities--(e.g.,land tillage-->run-off) water stress and natural resource management]
- Reducing Human Vulnerability to Environmental Pressures (i.e.,toxic environments, food production and water needs,and reduction of environmentally related natural disaster vulnerability)
- Work with Social and Institutional Capacities [Environmental Governance, Eco-Efficiency,Private Sector Responsiveness and Ecologically Appropriate Science and Technology]
- Global Stewardship [Acting as an international collaborator on issues, examples being greenhouse gas (e.g.,carbon dioxide) emissions and the reduction of transboundary environmental pressures (e.g., export of sulfur dioxide-->acid rain), which must be dealt with by several nations, jointly.
-
Canada's natural
resources show themselves to be in excellent shape as do its actions to
reduce human vulnerability and maintain/develop social and
institutional capacity. Like the US , below, it shows itself to be
weaker when it comes to actually reducing stresses or participating in
interational efforts to do so.
-
Like Canada and the US Iceland shows creditable strength in the areas of environmental systems, reduction of human vulnerability and social and institutional capacity building/maintenance. It's participation in international preservation efforts and accords are to its great credit (and probably provides strong, indirect, evidence of what can't be done when major industrial sector's perceive a threat to profitability.).
- Like Iceland Japan has given strong
leadership and support
for global stewardship. It has done relatively little to reduce actual
environmentalo stresses but shows strength in reduction of human
vulnerability and great strength when it comes to social systems and
capacity building. It's resource strengths are relatively low, evidence
of the literally thousands of years of civilized occupation of the
island masses which constitute the environment of Japan.
- Mexico is not amongst the richest nations.
Its GDP per capita is just above halfthe
lowest GDP/capita of the richest quintile of nations. Note that, if it
is compared to it's fellow quintile members it is only slightly less
than average. Not an excuse for inertia-- but it helps level the
playing field when making comparisons. Mexico's strength is its efforts
to reduce human vulnerability to environmental catastrophe.
- Like Finland and Sweden, Iceland as well, the sustainability
index profile of Norway
is exemplary. It appears that natural resource strengths of Artic
Circle countries (which also include the more geographically complex
United
States[ via Alaska], Canada, and Russia) remain strong, in part,
because population pressures have never been high enough to
significantly emptly ecological stocks. Amongst the Artic Circle
countries, however, Finland is tops overall, particularly because of
its strong efforts to reduce actual ecological stresses.
- The
Netherlands
are near the US in ranking, slightly higher (41), in fact. Where the US
has better ecological stocks and has been more effective in reducing
ecological stresses, it cannot compete with the Global Stewardship
efforts of The Netherlands.
- In my citizen-stakeholder view, the US must do better; it
starts
with strong set of natural systems and has creditable subsystems for
Reducing Human Vulnerability and Social and
Institutional Capacity work, but has shown itself to be weak
in both Reducing [Actual] Environmental Stress and
in Global Stewardship (i.e.,
international collaboration on ecological protection/repair ).
President Bush's resistance to international accords is an obvious
example of insufficient participation. (It has been argued in other
venues* that the US owes considerable (i.e.,both enthusiastic and above
average amount , not the lackluster level shown here) support to world
ecosystem repair. This obligation follows from its continuing
immoderate and inadequately compensated depletion of the resources of
world countries.)
- *This report, as much as I've reviewed of it, has been scrupulously neutral. In other words, a well crafted analysis of that which all agree are important variables will allow the action-oriented planner, activist or politician to interpret for her- or himself Draft 2: 2/1/2005
I've selected seven nations more or less randomly from among wealthy country profiles (top quintile of all nations, having more than $14,000 per year per person). (Mexico is the sole exception). I've attached the provided country profiles and a few comments for each.
