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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.