Follow this blog:
RSS

Study: U.S. ranks among the top environmental offenders

By | May 6, 2010, 3:45 AM PDT

The United States ranks as the second-worst country for negative environmental impact, according to new research out of an Australian university. Topping the list as the worst offender: Brazil.

The rankings, published in the journal PLoS ONE, are based on natural forest loss, habitat conversion, marine captures, fertilizer use, water pollution, carbon emissions and species threat. The researchers avoided human health or economic indicators, measuring only environmental impact.

The team was led by scientists at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute, who worked in collaboration with the National University of Singapore and Princeton University.

“The environmental crises currently gripping the planet are the corollary of excessive human consumption of natural resources,” said Corey Bradshaw, the institute’s director of ecological modeling. “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 ten countries with the worst environmental impact, according to the study, are:

  1. Brazil
  2. United States
  3. China
  4. Indonesia
  5. Japan
  6. Mexico
  7. India
  8. Russia
  9. Australia
  10. Peru

Most integral to a country’s environmental impact — more so than human population size and governance quality — was its gross national income, the study said. “Total wealth was the most important explanatory variable,” Bradshaw said. “The richer a country, the greater its average environmental impact.”

And although wealthier countries have better access to clean technology and more “green” awareness, the researchers found no evidence to support the theory that environmental degradation levels off or declines past a certain wealth threshold.

When the researchers ranked countries by environmental performance relative to resource availability, the list included:

  1. Singapore
  2. Korea
  3. Qatar
  4. Kuwait
  5. Japan
  6. Thailand
  7. Bahrain
  8. Malaysia
  9. Philippines
  10. The Netherlands

The bottom line, researchers said: “The global community not only has to encourage better environmental performance in less-developed countries, especially those in Asia. There is also a requirement to focus on the development of environmentally friendly practices in wealthier countries.”

Image: Forest cover being removed for cattle pasturage and development in Florida / Randolph Femmer, National Biological Information Infrastructure

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

About Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Christina Hernandez Sherwood is a contributing writer for SmartPlanet.

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Contributing Writer

Christina Hernandez Sherwood has written for the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Diverse: Issues in Higher Education and Columbia Journalism Review. She holds degrees from the University of Delaware and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. She is based in New Jersey.

Follow her on Twitter.

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

In the unlikely event that Christina has a professional or financial relationship with a company she writes about, it will be prominently disclosed.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
5
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Study: U.S. ranks among the top environmental offenders
Don't exhale anyone. And for heavens sake, don't fart. You'll run us past Brazil.
Posted by jwlthe4th
6th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Study: U.S. ranks among the top environmental offenders
Piggy Oil Companies:
I do not think oil companies clean up the oil because they care about the environment. I think they just want the oil back! If our economy gets any worse, we are just going to look at an oil spill as an opportunity for cheaper gas. We will all drive down with our tanks and clean it up ourselves. However, to add insult to injury, the oil companies only have to spend up to 75 million for the clean up. Which I am sure they will just make it back by charging us more at the pump. Leaving them with zero accountability. Let me guess, the American Tax Payer has to pay anything that goes over 75 million? THAT?S CALLED A BAIL OUT! Apparently, the oil companies are also too big to fail. I think there should be a law that says that oil companies have to give American?s free gas that is equivalent to whatever they spilt. Now that sounds more fair to me! However, they instead make a 10 BILLION DOLLAR profit. When gas went up in the 90s, President Clinton responded ?It looks like someone is playing politics.? Who knows, maybe that was the day that a law being passed that stipulated they had to pay more than 75 million. Maybe they rose the gas rates to remind the President that they have the power to create and economic crisis, with one stroke of a pen. HOW DARE THESE OIL PIGGIES HOLD OUR PRESIDENTS AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY HOSTAGE WITH THREATS OF ECONOMIC SABOTAGE!

Piggy Banks:
But there is a bigger spill on the horizon my friend. This spill is going to effect every coast line in America. It is called the GREAT FORECLOSURE SPILL! It will also keep bubbling and bubbling and bubbling foreclosures. It is still going to happen, even though the American Tax Payer funded TARP with a potential 581 BILLION DOLLARS as BAIL OUT money to the piggy banks. I mean if the government is in the lending business, why not have just loaned it to the American homeowner directly? I mean these piggy banks caused the whole mortgage crisis in the first place. TARP gave one bank $45 BILLION DOLLARS! Now that bank is potentially ?playing politics? with the modification process. While dealing with the piggy banks, President Obama and Bush had the same look of fear on their face as President Clinton did with the oil companies.
HOW DARE THESE PIGGY BANKS HOLD OUR PRESIDENTS AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY HOSTAGE WITH THREATS OF ECONOMIC SABOTAGE!


I dedicate to both the Piggy Oil Companies and Piggy Banks the following song by George Harrision and John Lennon. Appropriately titled ?Piggies? I invite you to listen to it on youtube as you read the words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTmeHM-Hojg&feature=related

Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.

In their ties with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

I AM FIGHTING BACK!

You can read my story or show your support in your comments at: Unitedlawgroup.com
under the John Wright vs. Bank of America Lawsuit

Sincerely,
Johns-wright@hotmail.com
Posted by wright4ulg
7th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Study: U.S. ranks among the top environmental offenders
wright4ulg

BP has already sent 100 million dollars to the four affected states so that they can get started. I don't know where you came up with 75 million...
Posted by milonfz
7th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Absolute vs. relative
It's important to note that the US came out number two only in terms of absolute environmental impact, not in terms of its impact relative to its wealth and population. In the later category, the US did not place in the 20 worst offenders.

Also, Ms. Hernandez spent most of her article playing up the absolute environmental impact, not the relative environmental impact. The title of her article is "U.S. ranks among the top environmental offenders", while the title of the paper it was reporting on is "Evaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countries" (emphasis mine). Yes, it's true that in absolute terms the US is one of the world's largest users of natural resources, but it's also true that the US produces 24% of the world's output. Given that, you'd hardly expect the US to be one of the least environmental offenders in absolute terms even in a perfect world. Ms. Hernandez' simplistic approach glosses over many of the more complex relationships that were the point of the original paper.

It's also worth looking at the measures of environmental impact that the paper used:

- The US was ranked as the greatest producer of CO2. Of course, this matters only if global warming is man-made.

- The US was ranked first in fertilizer use. But that's because the US is the world's leading agricultural producer and exporter. No attempt is made to determine how efficiently the fertilizer is used, or how much of it escapes into the environment. In the US fertilizer is a major cost of agricultural production and farmers are actually very careful in its application. It doesn't pay to let much of it get into irrigation runoff, for example. In India, however, massive amounts of government-subsidized urea are dumped onto the land and causes real problems.

- The US scored the second highest in water pollution. This was based strictly on "biochemical oxygen demand" (BOD), or the amount of oxygen taken up by bacteria digesting organic matter. It's used as a proxy to measure sewage and other types of organic pollution. It doesn't measure toxic metals and other inorganic compounds, organics such as pesticides which bacteria don't readily consume, and other dangerous pollutants. I'm not even sure how the US scored so high on the BOD measure; I couldn't find the cited World Bank data to determine just how this was measured. Water quality in the US has improved enormously in the last 50 years or so, and it's nothing like the water quality in China which has extremely serious pollution problems.

- The US was ranked third in marine capture, i.e., the absolute tonnage of marine fish captured each year. The US is blessed with large coastlines and prolific fisheries, but nothing in this study tries to compare the tonnage taken against what the fisheries produce each year. This data also depends on accurate reporting by countries, and yet there is a lot of cheating going on by countries which take whales and other marine creatures illegally (which the paper admits). Countries without significant coastlines got a zero, which naturally reduces their overall impact score.

- The US ranked as the ninth worst in the threatened species measurement (birds, amphibians, and mammals only). But of course, you can't know how threatened a species is or even if it exists without extensive study. Countries such as the US with strong environmental regulations have been the subject of a great deal of study, while less developed countries have not. This is a problem with this metric that even the paper admitted.
Posted by zackers
8th May 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Shouldn't Have Been A Surprise
Upon considering all of the laws and organizations addressing the issues along with the other externalities in consumption and corporate conduct both domestic and abroad this should not have been a surprise.
Posted by donnydo77@...
17th May 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!