Ranking the worst ‘eco-offenders’ – a new and balanced view
ByTrying to rank which countries are most negatively impacting the environment isn’t an easy formula to arrive upon. The size and population of each nation coupled with the overall economic status of each country makes gauging the overall detriment per nation a difficult task. In a new report published by the University of Adelaide’s Environmental Institute they have have factored in a net score per each country but also a proportional ranking system which evaluates the impact of smaller less populous nations in a more equitable fashion. As you may anticipate in the initial poll Brazil and the United States rank in the top two positions as relates to overall negative environmental impact. The most fascinating part of this report is that the data doesn’t simply look at consumption and factory/vehicle based emissions but evaluates the impact of changing land use and deforestation, marine impact and more. In total seven different measurements of environmental impact created the twin rankings – the first compiles the impact as compared with the resources of a nation and the second looking at the total impact on a global basis.
Global map displays global rankings for both reports
The measurements do far more than focus on consumption as mentioned and include these seven unique gauges. Assessing the loss of natural forest, habitat conversion ratio when unspoiled land is changed for commercial or agricultural use. Overall impact of fisheries and marine farming of any sort. Use of fertilizer and water pollution both coastal and on inland waterways. Overall carbon emissions from homes, businesses, vehicles and other sources and environmental impact to other species. Study leader Corey Bradshaw summises:
“The environmental crises currently gripping the planet are the corollary of excessive human consumption of natural resources. There is considerable and mounting evidence that elevated degradation and loss of habitats and species are compromising ecosystems that sustain the quality of life for billions of people worldwide.”
The rankings are quite fascinating, especially the first which for nations with limited resources of their own shows that a ‘ledger’ type of rating shows many nations with high levels of pollution and consumption are not able to offset due to size and/or limited natural land left to be used efficiently.
The list of proportional environmental impact – the worst 10 (out of 179 measured)
1. Singapore
2. Korea
3. Qatar
4. Kuwait
5. Japan
6. Thailand
7. Bahrain
8. Malaysia
9. Philippines
10. The Netherlands
The more ‘traditional’ list shows the worst 10 in absolute terms (out of 171 measured)
1. Brazil
2. USA
3. China
4. Indonesia
5. Japan
6. Mexico
7. India
8. Russia
9. Australia
10. Peru
The university expressed that the ratings are very comprehensive and focused exclusively on environmental impact rather than looking at an index that includes health or economic based statistics. As you’ll have noticed the first list includes some of the wealthiest nations on earth drawing a very visible parallel between consumption and damage to the planet. Bradshaw expanded upon this and dismissed the theory that wealthier nations spend excess funds on working to counteract some of the issues they themselves create:
“We correlated rankings against three socio-economic variables (human population size, gross national income and governance quality) and found that total wealth was the most important explanatory variable — the richer a country, the greater its average environmental impact. There’s a theory that as wealth increases, nations have more access to clean technology and become more environmentally aware so that the environmental impact starts to decline. This wasn’t supported,”
The overall findings of the study are published on the science journal website Plos One – there you will find all of the ranking data, interpretation and graphs. It’s valuable information that should be more widely shared.
