Where in the World?

Brazilians and Indians are the greenest, says survey

Posted at 12:29 PM on 08 May 2008

Brazilians and Indians are the most eco-friendly folks in the world, and Canadians and Americans are the least, according to a new survey done by the National Geographic Society. Consumers in 14 countries, representing more than half of the world's population and about three-quarters of its energy use, were ranked on their sustainability in the areas of housing, transportation, food, and consumer goods. Brazil and India tied for the win with a score of 60 on the sustainable-consumption scale, followed by China, Mexico, Hungary, Russia, a tie between Great Britain and Germany and Australia, Spain, Japan, France, Canada, and the United States. Brazilians bested the housing category; Chinese topped transportation, and Indians were first-class in food. The U.S. was lowest or second-lowest in all four categories. The society admits that the high scores of developing countries are likely a product of necessity rather than choice; it plans to conduct the survey annually and watch trends over time.

sources: National Geographic News, McClatchy Newspapers, The Economic Times, ScienceDaily
straight to the Greendex: Consumer Choice and the Environment - a Worldwide Tracking Survey

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (9 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.

U.S. fails on sustainablitiy

Although the U.S. is at a disadvantage being a developed country, being near the bottom is a disgrace. It is understandable that one of the most developed nations would score lower given the abundance of mass transportation, restaurants and energy consumption, but the U.S. also has the technology to make changes. The U.S. should take notice of the survey and also the results in future years. The U.S. has the ability, both economically and knowledge, to make the necessary changes. However, it will be difficult for the U.S. population to make a substantial cultural change. Until the population grasps a less materialistic lifestyle, the sustainability movement will continue to struggle.

by awkline at 1:45 PM on 08 May 2008

India

I have spent many months in India and I find this survey hard to believe and the only reason they must score well is that the population is so poor.

Many parts of India are the most polluted place I have seen on earth. The rivers that run through major towns and cities are so polluted they are often BLACK and smell so badly that you have to cover your nose. As they pour into the ocean there is no life for miles at the river mouth.

India is an amazing and unique country, and I highly recommend a trip, but to call India 'Green' is absolutely laughable.

by Blueplanet at 2:23 AM on 09 May 2008

Sustainably fair

What I like about this survey is its pragmatism. The countries that can clearly afford to do better environmentally - including the United States of America - have received lower grades than those that really can't without exacerbating poverty.

No doubt "Blueplanet" is correct about "many parts of India." But consider that a popular solution to the problem of locally concentrated pollution - one often applied in the USA - is simply to disperse the pollution over a wider area. I remember that in the early days, the "solution" to local air pollution was simply to build taller chimneys. This cleared the inner-city smog a little, but added mercury to previously unpolluted lakes and streams.

Appearances can deceive, and local improvement may be achieved at the cost of global degradation.

This is not to say that "Blueplanet" doesn't have a point. Consider where India's polluted rivers are most likely to be found. Would you look for them in the neighborhoods of the poorest urbanites, probably including people of the lowest caste? Yup, I'd look there first, too. If dispersal is the Scylla of false solutions to global problems, then concentration is the Charybdis. Just ask the people who live on the Mississippi Delta. Or near Yucca Mountain.

by JakobFabian01 at 5:28 AM on 09 May 2008

Meaningless Survey

This survey didn't even take into account the most important factor, human population density. India would have ranked dead last in that category.

by Wolverine at 2:53 PM on 09 May 2008

it is what it is

Per capita consumption is an important issue to hightlight, especially for this country. Dont try to make the survey more than what it is.

by greenfire8 at 6:56 PM on 10 May 2008

Why Survey Is Meaningless

All groups of people who practice agriculture are doing great harm to the Earth. A much more meaningful survey would have been to compare hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists, primitive agriculturalists to modern ones, industrial humans to pre-industrial ones, modern industrial/post-industrial humans to older industrial ones, and each group to every other group.

No large country is even close to being eco-friendly, and it's an insult to the Earth to claim so.

by Wolverine at 10:33 PM on 11 May 2008

the survey is not meaningless

The survey is about consumption. It is not about population and it is not about technology. The survey is what it is. This is not the first time affluence is correlated to environmental impact.

To say that both countries are the greeniest is an overstatement, though.

How much of imports come from the first three places (India, Brazil, China) to this country? So, think about it: consumption does make a huge mess across the globe and it is an important factor in defining who is greener! Buyng their stuff paying awfully cheap prices (far below the environmental and social cost) is what makes those countries poor and polluted, besides their governance, I presume.

by fsoares67 at 6:06 AM on 13 May 2008

India

Despite its dreadful record with water and air pollution, India will tend to score high in any environmental survey because of its vegetarianism and an traditionally environment friendly culture, that has survived despite the stresses of consumerism and endemic poverty. While population is a drag, the biggest culprit is the anachronistically socialist government, which owns the forest land and almost all water resources, but effectively does not allow participation by people in afforestation or water management.

At the same time, the bloated and inept bureaucracy is busy thoroughly mismanaging the numerous environmental schemes, if not actually siphoning off resources ostensibly meant for environmental improvement, including reduction of river pollution.

by whitehimalaya at 1:02 AM on 14 May 2008

I'll bet they didn't survey Somalia

It's got to be one of the best...........

Of course, life expectancy is around 45 years....... and most people live in utter and abject poverty, totally dependent on those evil Americans for their food supply, but hey, they don't have many carbon emissions. On the other hand, they burn everything in site for fuel, as it's the only fuel they have access to.

Victory in Pattani

by MAD MAC at 10:06 AM on 05 Jun 2008

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?