這是美國新聞週刊國際版July 7-14,2008的專題,內容引用Yale大學的年度調查,報導全球各國最佳與最差的環境紀錄。封面以四個國家作指標,最好的是瑞士,第二名為德國,美國第三,中國最後一名。這個調查表涵蓋了149個國家,瑞士第1名,德國第13名,日本21名,馬來西亞26名,美國名列39名,台灣名列第40名,南韓51名,中國第105名。(以下的圖檔點圖可以放大成原圖。圖檔掃瞄自NewsweeK 國際版July 7-14, 2008; Copyright: Newsweeks)



Newsweek以顏色標出不同等級的綠色程度。





詳細排名與週刊摘要報導請點繼續閱讀。


(Overall EPI Rankings, Copyright Yale)


Environmental Performance Index – Rankings & Scores
1 Switzerland 95.5
2 Sweden 93.1
3 Norway 93.1
4 Finland 91.4
5 Costa Rica 90.5
6 Austria 89.4
7 New Zealand 88.9
8 Latvia 88.8
9 Colombia 88.3
10 France 87.8
11 Iceland 87.6
12 Canada 86.6
13 Germany 86.3
14 United Kingdom 86.3
15 Slovenia 86.3
16 Lithuania 86.2
17 Slovakia 86.0
18 Portugal 85.8
19 Estonia 85.2
20 Croatia 84.6
21 Japan 84.5
22 Ecuador 84.4
23 Hungary 84.2
24 Italy 84.2
25 Denmark 84.0
26 Malaysia 84.0
27 Albania 84.0
28 Russia 83.9
29 Chile 83.4
30 Spain 83.1
31 Luxembourg 83.1
32 Panama 83.1
33 Dominican Republic 83.0
34 Ireland 82.7
35 Brazil 82.7
36 Uruguay 82.3
37 Georgia 82.2
38 Argentina 81.8
39 United States 81.0
40 Taiwan 80.8
41 Cuba 80.7
42 Poland 80.5
43 Belarus 80.5
44 Greece 80.2
45 Venezuela 80.0
46 Australia 79.8
47 Mexico 79.8
48 Bosnia & Herzegovina 79.7
49 Israel 79.6
50 Sri Lanka 79.5
51 South Korea 79.4
52 Cyprus 79.2
53 Thailand 79.2
54 Jamaica 79.1
55 Netherlands 78.7
56 Bulgaria 78.5
57 Belgium 78.4
58 Mauritius 78.1
59 Tunisia 78.1
60 Peru 78.1
61 Philippines 77.9
62 Armenia 77.8
63 Paraguay 77.7
64 Gabon 77.3
65 El Salvador 77.2
66 Algeria 77.0
67 Iran 76.9
68 Czech Republic 76.8
69 Guatemala 76.7
70 Jordan 76.5
71 Egypt 76.3
72 Turkey 75.9
73 Honduras 75.4
74 Macedonia 75.1
75 Ukraine 74.1
76 Viet Nam 73.9
77 Nicaragua 73.4
78 Saudi Arabia 72.8
79 Tajikistan 72.3
80 Azerbaijan 72.2
81 Nepal 72.1
82 Morocco 72.1
83 Romania 71.9
84 Belize 71.7
85 Turkmenistan 71.3
86 Ghana 70.8
87 Moldova 70.7
88 Namibia 70.6
89 Trinidad & Tobago 70.4
90 Lebanon 70.3
91 Oman 70.3
92 Fiji 69.7
93 Congo 69.7
94 Kyrgyzstan 69.6
95 Zimbabwe 69.3
96 Kenya 69.0
97 South Africa 69.0
98 Botswana 68.7
99 Syria 68.2
100 Mongolia 68.1
101 Laos 66.3
102 Indonesia 66.2
103 Côte d’Ivoire 65.2
104 Myanmar 65.1
105 China 65.1
106 Uzbekistan 65.0
107 Kazakhstan 65.0
108 Guyana 64.8
109 Papua New Guinea 64.8
110 Bolivia 64.7
111 Kuwait 64.5
112 United Arab Emirates 64.0
113 Tanzania 63.9
114 Cameroon 63.8
115 Senegal 62.8
116 Togo 62.3
117 Uganda 61.6
118 Swaziland 61.3
119 Haiti 60.7
120 India 60.3
121 Malawi 59.9
122 Eritrea 59.4
123 Ethiopia 58.8
124 Pakistan 58.7
125 Bangladesh 58.0
126 Nigeria 56.2
127 Benin 56.1
128 Central Afr. Rep. 56.0
129 Sudan 55.5
130 Zambia 55.1
131 Rwanda 54.9
132 Burundi 54.7
133 Madagascar 54.6
134 Mozambique 53.9
135 Iraq 53.9
136 Cambodia 53.8
137 Solomon Islands 52.3
138 Guinea 51.3
139 Djibouti 50.5
140 Guinea-Bissau 49.7
141 Yemen 49.7
142 Dem. Rep. Congo 47.3
143 Chad 45.9
144 Burkina Faso 44.3
145 Mali 44.3
146 Mauritania 44.2
147 Sierra Leone 40.0
148 Angola 39.5
149 Niger 39.1
The EPI has been made possible in part by generous support from The Samuel Family Foundation, The Coca-Cola
Foundation, and the Betsy and Jesse Fink Foundation.


Newsweek Website Summary
original: http://www.shvoong.com/social-sciences/economics/1825570-http-www-newsweek-com-id/
Summary by : B N Goyal 

Jointly produced by Yale's Center for Law & Environmental Policy and Columbia's Center for International Earth Science Information Network, EPI aims to be a comprehensive assessment of the world's environmental challenges and how individual countries are responding to them. 

It was Franklin Roosvelt who felt concerned about how to track imminent environmental disasters.He  asked economist Simon Kuznets to come up with a broad, standardized accounting system, now known as the gross national product, the universal measure of national economic performance. 

Though the EPI is still nowhere near as accurate a measure of national performance as GNP, still,  it is the best measure we have of how nations are faring in the battle to save the environment, and the findings are striking.

China
in particular has long argued that it is too poor to afford the Western luxury of environmental awareness. The EPI exposes this claim to be bogus. China ranks last among 15 nations in its income group (the fifth decile), behind Vietnam. The EPI exposes this claim to be bogus. China ranks last 

The United States is  remarkably similar to Chinas.The United States scores poorly among countries in its income class (the top 10 percent), ranking third from the bottom. The U.S. score in emissions per capita, which Yale puts at 56, far below the peer-group average of 74.

While the most-developed countries tend to create the healthiest environments for people, the less developed tend to be healthier for plants and animals. Wealthy nations can afford cleaner technologies, but development takes a toll on the environment. Less developed countries often lack both dirty industries and clean drinking water. Spain gets high marks for sanitation; Tanzania scores well on biodiversity and habitat.

An individual country's ranking reflects to some degree the advantages or accidents of circumstance. Scandinavian countries and Switzerland have stable governments with money to spend on protecting the environment. Many sub-Saharan African nations are governed by corrupt, unstable regimes too broke to sustain even themselves. 

Yet a theme in the study is how any nation can better itself through good governance
.Germany tends to outperform even its European peer. It does better in regulating pesticides and managing agricultural use of water. It also excels at controlling carbon emissions and maintaining high water quality and low levels of soot in its cities. France, too, ranks very high y- No. 10 overall and second in its income group (the second decile)—due largely to its long and careful devotion to nuclear power. Belgium and the Netherlands, which share much in terms of population and geography with their neighbors, suffer from neglect of the environment—particularly in protecting native habitats.

India
 is in many respects a poor country. Millions of its citizens lack adequate sanitation and clean drinking water, energy supply is spotty even in cities and the burning of biomass—wood and dung—is widespread, with deleterious effects on human health (lung disease) and the environment (soot and carbon emissions). On the other hand, rapid growth has brought air pollution and other ills, which will only get worse as citizens trade in scooters for automobiles.

Niger scores a mere 6 out the EPI's 100-point scale, which makes it the most inhospitable country on the planet for man or beast, as well as the poorest. Its sanitation is poor, its drinking water is full of nasty microbes and its citizens contract lung diseases from cooking fires. Tanzania, with a rank of 113, lands just ahead of the far-richer United Arab Emirates. Tanzania also ranks first among those nations in the poorest 10 percent. The reason has to do partly with the country's biological inheritance—it includes much of the wildlife-rich Serengeti Plain—but also a stable government that has guided development and controlled poaching and pollution.

Although Israel doesn't score well compared with countries in its wealth class, it looks much better compared with desert nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, which have more severe water problems.

In some cases, the Yale and Columbia researchers had to do some creative analysis. To assess how well countries are protecting biodiversity, they overlaid a map of national parks and other wildlife areas with satellite images showing how much development had encroached upon these regions.  

Among the best industrial countries were Malaysia, the United Kingdom and all of Eastern Europe (a legacy of the Soviet nuclear program). Among the worst offenders were Japan, South Korea, Brazil, the United States, Italy and Paraguay.

Where the data are thin, one reason is simple: embarrassment. Some countries simply lie or make up the facts. This was common practice among Soviet apparatchiks who, year after year, somehow always seemed to reach the industrial and environmental goals set forth by the Kremlin.

Brazil high rank—34th—is deceptive. It  is a vast land blessed with an abundance of water, which yields energy relatively cheaply with no carbon emissions.

One clear conclusion from the  project is the need for better data. Acquiring high-quality data, especially in the developing world, is difficult. If we're going to avoid squandering our natural resources, the quicker we begin to rely more on facts and less on assumptions, the better.

mattel 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()