Sweden Leadin'

News & Analysis
In the News Gristmill Blog Muckraker Podcast Features

Columns
Ask Umbra Victual Reality Weekly Recipes The Bottom Line From A to Green The Grist List

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Read more about: climate | news | all of these topics

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Sweden best at addressing climate change, U.S. and Saudi Arabia worst, says report

Posted at 4:56 PM on 07 Dec 2007

You might want to sit down for this: A new report from a German environmental group says that Sweden does the most to address climate change, while the U.S. and Saudi Arabia do the least. Shocking, we know. The U.S. dropped two places from its fourth-worst position last year, while Sweden stayed up top for the second year in a row.

source: Agence France-Presse

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (5 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Spawl Romps

We don't have to "address" climate change. Our technology and lifestyle are the answers to environmental problems. The very things that Grist decries are actually helping the most:

The greening of suburbia
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004059264_ ...

Low-density areas, on the other hand, lend themselves to much less expensive and more environmentally friendly ways of reducing heat. It often takes nothing more than double-paned windows to reduce the energy consumption of a two- or three-story house. Shade can bring it down even further: A nice maple can cool a two-story house, but it can't quite do the same for a 10-story apartment building.
Focusing on the suburbs has the added virtue of bringing change to where the action is. Over the past 40 years, the percentage of people opting to live in cities has held steady at 10 to 15 percent. And since 2000, more than 90 percent of all metropolitan growth -- even in a legendary new planners' paradise such as Portland, Ore. -- has taken place in the suburbs.

by jabailo at 10:13 AM on 09 Dec 2007

Canada is at the bottom of the list too

I recommend re-reading the article you've posted. Nowhere does it say suburban sprawl is actually helping anything. All that is says is the potential is there for the current state of suburbia to be altered in such a way to limit it's impact. Perhaps better than moving everyone into cities, or transporting everyone there.

In regards to the Grist article, I'd also like to mention that Canada is also amongst the worst. Our government seems committed to stalling environmental progress. I know I'm embarrassed, as are a lot of other Canadians I'm sure.

by mattcass at 10:35 PM on 09 Dec 2007

Ahh...oil sands...

We can't start addressing global warming until we've sold off all of the oil. Can we put off talking about it for a couple more years until oil reaches $120/barrel? Then we'll come up with some jargon about making oil sands carbon neutral and we'll set a goal of 25% less consumption by 2050 or something.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

by John former Marine at 9:17 AM on 10 Dec 2007

Not exactly unbiased

One reads in the report that for calculating emissions, "Since nuclear power is a risky energy source, nuclear energy is evaluated with CO2 risk equivalent per energy unit ... match(ing) the CO2 emissions of an efficient coal-fired power plant." That certainly is stacking the deck against nuclear, and to me it undermines the validity of the whole study.

But on the subject of the Swedes, they still come out on the top apparently counting their nuclear electricty. Sweden gets 53% of its electricity from nuclear power, ranking 4th in the world, compared to 19% in the US, ranked 20th. Furthermore, over the last years the public opinion as the whether to phase out nuclear has gone fromm 75% in favor to just 33% last year.

Sweden leadin' indeed!

Refs:
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/electricity_nucle ...
http://www.som.gu.se/rapporter/opinion_nucelar_power/Publ ...

by danallen at 12:55 PM on 10 Dec 2007

Suburbia the green?

Our technology and lifestyle are the answers to environmental problems.

Technology is not a sure bet to save us from ourselves. I say it is what got us into this mess on top of lifestyle choices and the choices we made because of technology and propaganda.

While there are some good points made defending suburbia it really greenwashes the problem. If the burbites didn't drive so many vehicles and so many large vehicles driven such long distances, and if they grew trees instead of removing them, if there were fewer giant heat islands of parking lots, then there is a chance to green things up a great deal. District heating and cooling, jobs much closer, much better transportation, micro electric generation, better zoning rules, and less NIMBY and greed. Maybe much less consumption in general would be the easiest thing to do.

For sure the burbs is where the focus should be since that is the fastest growing source and highest per captia source of the problem here and as mentioned the greatest payoff. I hear a few good ideas about the burbs but so far have seen almost none of these in practice. Good for the tiny handful of places that are doing it though. What I see is the same old practices done more efficiently cost wise but very little that changes the eco footprint. I asked a developer about the lack of real innovation such as small district heating systems and geothermal and he said it was pure economics. Anything that increased the cost short term no matter how much it saved long term was a deal killer. "high efficiency" labels of ~90% are cheap now but other methods such as geothermal can be ~400% efficient. The geo costs more up front but saves big time long term. Not to mention the eco costs which are much better by spending more up front.

If Joe six pack will drive an SUV 20kms to save $2 on a $20 low grade product that he'll buy again several times over the life instead of buying a $40 product that he only buys once or not buys at all guess which heating system he'll buy and guess which system the ruling governments (taxes) prefer that he buys? I'm no defender of cities but I'm really distressed at what the burbs are continuing to do in many ways. We all need to green up and stop waiting for the other guy to do it first. It doesn't hurt that much.

While we must push the leaders to do the right thing we're on the other hand asking the wrong people.

by Vikingsson at 4:07 PM on 10 Dec 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?