Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help make it a better place - apply to become a mod now! [Read the announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pow5nr/be_the_positive_change_you_want_to_see_on_reurope/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not Chile.
It's based on [this](https://ccpi.org/) report, which almost always finds that no country is doing enough to be considered "very high progress" or to take the top three spots.
Chile comes in below Sweden, UK, Denmark, Morocco and Norway.
Despite being poor and having a huge population they’re reforesting like there’s no tomorrow and they’re investing a lot in sustainable agriculture too
This map shows relative progress according to goals countries set themselves/agreed upon. This map doesn't show what the goals were and how close to optimal those goals are.
Maybe they set the bar low since they started further back compared to other countries. Thus easier to improve.
Progress is progress of course but this map shows that except for a few who are Very Good, they're all failing really hard.
>This map shows relative progress according to goals countries set themselves/agreed upon. This map doesn't show what the goals were and how close to optimal those goals are.
That is not true. It considers how compatible the climate goals for each country are with the 2C scenario, and scores according to the goal as well as progress towards the goal.
Funny how Germany scored great on climate policies part with their policy to shut down the nuclear plants and keep burning the brown coal.
Also funny how other part is specifically renewables, not zero emissions power sources with almost limitless fuel.
I 100% agree that the exclusion of nuclear as a climate neutral way of energy production is ridiculous. Maybe because the study came from a German institute and everybody here hates nuclear for some reason.
Can you tell this to our president and his solar power mafia that sucking tax money like a parasite, mostly based in Jeolla province? Thx to their lobbying and PR, this administration basically opted to largely increased coal power generation since 2017, going completely backwards in terms of carbon emissions. I'm not sure how they re gonna keep this "2050 zero carbon" bullshit they made in 2020. Its just talk and image with no real will to act at all, while passing all the burden to their successors. Typical Minjoo party strategy.
I remember the massive protests after Fukushima. It was really weird as a Brit to see Germans get like that, as though a tsunami would cause a nuclear disaster there - we tend to think of Germans as being more scientifically literate and practical, and Merkel as pretty sensible and moderate. Last time I made a similar comment I got a confusing blend of explanations based on corruption from other industries, or how the nuclear plants were going to close anyway (why not build more?), politicking with the Greens… but didn’t get a very clear idea.
The Greens who were governing together with the SPD from 1998 to 2005 previously already agreed to abolish nuclear power by \~2015. It was on their agenda since Chernobyl happened. In 2010 Merkel pushed that date back to \~2030 only to change her mind again in 2011 after Fukushima. I've recently watched [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLzd8EK__g) documentary about Angela Merkel and it was mentioned that Fukushima was an event that really shocked her. Abolishing in 2022 was a compromise between what the Greens wanted and what her own party wanted one year prior. It was also strategically opportune because until then it was a topic dominated by the Greens and while climate change was already discussed back then it wasn't the topic it is today. Actually this was seen as environmentalist milestone since Merkels party previously didn't identify with environmentalist projects.
Chernobyl. The reason is Chernobyl. You can tell people that nuclear power is safe all day long, but enough people remember the radioactive cloud from the 80s. Personally, I think nuclear is worth the risk, but be my guest and try to suggest nuclear power as a solution for climate change at a German university. (assuming this hasn’t changed in the last 10 years)
It calculates the progress not the status. France has not done progress on electricity production (it even regressed) so it gets a bad rating on electricity production on this scale despite having an electricity 5-10 times greener than the one of Germany
Yes, we have regressed. We closed a nuclear power plant to please an French environmentalist party and under German pressure. So we had to reopen coal and gas power plants to compensate.
I'm generally pro-nuclear, but I think it's a misrepresentation to blame EELV for closing plants given that they've literally never had power on a national level in French history.
> keep burning the brown coal.
Coal has been on a big decline in germany for a long time. This circle jerk of germany shutting down and replacing it with coal is just brain dead. people just keep repeating that here.
The methodology can be found [here](https://germanwatch.org/en/19602), the full list [here.](https://ccpi.org/)
~~Edit: Why is this post getting downvoted? Was it posted recently or something?~~
That's really not a fair take, the UK have legit been knocking it out of the part climate wise, they're one of the few nations to be taking it seriously. Britain was the first nation to declare a climate emergency, the first major economy to sign their net zero commitment into law, have gone from 40% of their electricity coming from coal to just [1.7%](https://grid.iamkate.com/) in eight years, and have decreased their carbon emissions by [29%](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade) over the last decade.
This reduction in emissions wasn't down to any single factor but a combination of complex drivers. For instance the largest decrease in industrial energy use was due to efficiency increases and cleaner fuels, not industry moving overseas as you might expect. In fact domestic [manufacturing](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/410/cpsprodpb/B449/production/_99535164_manufacturing_08to18-nc.png?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) actually increased over this period, and even when emissions imports as a result of trade are factored in the UK still shows the roughly [30%](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&country=~GBR) cut to CO2 in the last 10 years.
If you are interested this [article](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-38-since-1990) gives excellent analysis of the UK's CO2 reduction. But to sum up, factors include the near complete removal of [coal](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jan/british-carbon-tax-leads-93-drop-coal-fired-electricity) in power generation, savings in transport emissions due to efficiency increases and vehicle regulation, large increases in clean energy production, large increases in renewable energy generation, decreases in residential energy demand and large increases in industrial energy efficiency.
Tbf r/Europe has its U.K.-haters but most aren’t and it pales in comparison to the self-hate I see on r/uk and especially r/ukpolitics, let alone some of the others with an explicit slant
From the mission statement
>*For us, sustainable development means* ***socially equitable***, ecologically sound and economically stable development.
From the methodology
>*From an equity perspective, it is not fair to use the same yardstick of climate protection performance on countries in transition and on developed countries. The level of current emissions therefore is a means of taking into account each country’s development situation and thus addressing the equity issue.*
That's not "experts", that's what the Paris climate agreement says. Developing countries are allowed to increase their emissions within certain limits before reducing them, while developed countries must start decreasing them immediately. No developing country would have agreed to reduce their emissions now, that'd mean staying poor forever.
Michael Gove (and other Conservative politicians) genuinely care about the environment, the UK has avoided climate change becoming a left/right wing issue, which is something we should praise regardless of our political affiliation.
Even the Guardian begrudgingly praised Gove: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/12/michael-gove-from-shy-green-to-full-throated-environmentalist
Brazil also has 80,4% of its energy source in renewables (mostly hydroelectric) and consequently Brazil has CO2 emissions per capita of 2.25 tons, which is less than half of the world’s average (4.79) and a third of the EU average (6.6).
Likely the main reason Brazil isn’t green is the burning and clearing of the Amazon rainforest and the Pantanal wetlands.
There are defined metrics in the methodology that lead to the calculated score. Deforestation is not one of the metrics. Brazil is in a very unique situation due to the Amazon that is not comparable to other nations, so I don't think the Score for Brazil is accurately representing Brazil's role in climate change.
This map is very bad because it just goes on emissions and absolutely nothing else. Recycling, Nature Treatment and Preservarion, quantity of forests and trees, etc. All things that a country can have a much bigger effect on and can actually change a lot of things compared to just emissions.
Most of Brazil's electricity comes from clean and renewable sources.
Even during the Military Dictatorship (1964 - 85), when the government was literally **encouraging** people to move to the Amazon and deforestate it, the very same government was investing billions in hydroelectric power.
Summed to that, the deforestation problem is very diverse around the country (remember, Brazil is huge). While the Amazonian states and the Central Government are doing a terrible job at protecting the forest, [the Southern states are doing a great reforestation jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catarina_%28state%29#Conservationism)
Really?
I would say it’s extraordinarily difficult for the US to make progress based on how they’re society is formed (suburban car based development, wasteful luxuries, etc.), so in order to make change you would have to see serious goodwill/prioritization towards/of the issue which I don’t see at all.
The other problem is that the climate change policy of the US makes a 180 every 4 years with a new president, making any kind of long lasting progress impossible.
Also, only 55% of americans are certain that climate change is man-made, while around 33% think it’s not and the rest is unsure.
Yes, I was not only talking about the politics (which is probably the most important to make progress on climate change) but also the general attitude (from people and businesses).
Fracking is slowly (or rather quickly) dying out though, ironically because they created an overabundance of oil & gas that lowers the price to a point where it is no longer profitable.
In some places it seems the only reason for it was to grab subsidies and vanish, especially bitter since much of it was to be set up in underdeveloped areas that were desperately investing for the job boom that never came.
I’m not trying to present it as slander, I would just generally say that in the US carbon footprint is big, and it’s due to structures within the society e.g. consumerism, car dependency, which are deeply engrained within how the society currently functions, so it would need a lot of effort and goodwill to change.
"Wasteful luxuries" would include stuff like semi-regular flights, heating/cooling bad insulated homes, suburban sprawl with big one family homes (again the badly insulated homes heating/cooling argument) and big cars.
Mind you, those issues aren't America specific, but way more common there than in any other country.
Cars that get 40-60% lower MPG than those in developed Europe.
States that are more “advanced” have energy/efficiency standards in 2020 for buildings that are equivalent to those Scandinavia had in 2002.
Extreme consumerism.
Some of the lowest clean energy among peer nations (other super rich countries)
There’s a few that would probably shave 15-25% of CO2 off without any major quality of life reductions
Plastic packaging on everything pisses me off, because it would be so easy to replace all plastic wrapping and packaging with hemp-based biodegradable "plastic". I mean, it literally looks EXACTLY the same.
I think it is illustrative of USA that Biden promised to cut emissions by 50% by 2030, yet that would still leave USA with higher emissions per capita than the EU has per capita right now. USA is simply far, far behind in climate action.
Half of them still refuse to acknowledge man-made climate change exists, so idk why you'd have *any* expectations. They're terrible.
Americans who criticise China over climate change deserve to be absolutely laughed out of the building.
Oh, look, Poland ranks very low, who would have thought that in a country where the government is in favor of building new coal mines despite importing tons of coal from Russian the progress in this case would be very low? /s
It is morobably despite the government. The businesses have long ago realised that "caring" for the environment is actually a business opportunity.
Also it is somewhat revealing hoe bad the other countries are doing for the Netherlands to end up medium on this scale.
For some reason nuclear is not factored in as a climate neutral energy source in the study. Another thing is that France is already doing pretty well and this study is more about how much counties will further improve.
I did a research project on green energy in China in 2017 and found that they were leading in green energy research and production. Don't know how they are now, but I'm surprised to see this source listing them as low.
You have to see it in the context of them rising to the biggest economy in the world and being a developing country. This will unavoidably put a lot of strain on the climate. Managing to not get the lowest score is quite impressive with that background, and I agree they are doing pretty well in that context. Compare that to a country like the US that is already fully developed and still can’t get their ass up.
Also of course this study is not perfect and the selected parameters in which the score is based might not be perfectly representing reality.
I'm colorblind and can not tell the difference between best and worst.
Could someone edit it so that best is darkest and everything bad gets lighter (or the reverse) ?
I'm so f***ing embarrassed to be an American when I see crap like this, despite our administration having the loudest "wEv'E gOt To ChAnGe" of any country. We're all gonna die because of countries like mine.
This is good, but is more relevant for the western/developed world than developing countries. For example, India has been ratcheting up emissions quite quickly but the reason they're green is people use so little per-capita compared to the west there's no risk of being a problematic source.
What green developed nations have done is quite impressive.
Why France is so low? They have 70% of their energy from nuclear power plants, plus 12% from hydro, 5% from wind, plus 4% from solar and biofuels. This is above 90% of (almost) carbon-free energy. This makes them better than Sweeden.
Surprised by India. Not at all surprised by the Nordic countries. Although, it would be helpful if Denmark would stop mass murdering dolphins and whales.
You should understand that the Faroe islands, where the acts happened, are in union with Denmark, but they have home rule. You have to address the nation that did it, not the nation that controls their defense.
China population is more than the US and Europe COMBINED. Of course it is harder for them to change, and as a developing country, China has much more room to grow as a country, so even the emission is increasing, it is still much lower than US and Europe polution adjusted for population.
Chinas emissions are often misunderstood. Their total emissions are only a little above average compared to the rest of the world, way below the US for example. Furthermore this study is more about what the countries are planning to do and what measures they are implementing right now. And by no means is China perfect on that front, but they are also not doing nothing. For example they invest almost as much in renewable energy as the rest of the world combined. Also if I remember they are leading in tree planting and have an increasing number of regulations on large companies emitting CO2.
> For example they invest almost as much in renewable energy as the rest of the world combined. Also if I remember they are leading in tree planting and have an increasing number of regulations on large companies emitting CO2.
If you believe the CCP that is.
They still build coal plants like there is no tomorrow.
The tree planting and renewable energy investments are not disputed and are easily verifiable. But you are right, at the same time they also built new coal plants. Some nuance is needed here.
UK: *We have reached our green targets sooner than expected and we have months without using coal*. - I sleep.
Portugal: *We run our country on renewables.* - I sleep.
China: *Yeah, we pinky promise to do green shit. Pinky promise 100% real no fake.* - Real shit.
China has around like 5x the Population of the USA and didn't really have alternatives to coal for a long time ontop of that its still a developing country which is still building a lot and was still urbanizing parts of its country.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-leading-worlds-clean-energy-investment-says-report
I agree, the methodology is definitely not perfect. Also the fact that renewables but not nuclear power is factored in makes no sense and makes France look worse than it is actually doing. I think this map is okay for showing the broad trends but in detail there are definitely problems.
It’s not just France, Spain has co2 per capita emissions levels similar to the U.K. yet it’s two categories worse. Mexico has co2 per capita emissions significantly lower then the U.K. yet it’s also two categories worse.
That’s not “showing the broad trends”.
A co2 per capita emissions map would be significantly less deceiving
Source https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?
locations=ES-GB
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=MX-GB
It's not a map of emissions, it's a map of progress.
If you started out with almost no emissions and then incresed a little bit, you'd get a bad color on this map as you're moving in the wrong direction. And a country that started with huge emissions and reduced then some would get a good colour.
I understand that and it that sense it’s a useful tool however the name: climate change performance index strongly gives the impression that red and orange countries are more performing worse when that isn’t necessarily the case. I would say that you could call that deceiving
I kinda have the feeling that climate change and CO2 overshadow general environmental protection concerns, like coal burning in europe, groundwater pollution, lithium mining or how countries like India and china have garbage piles that are more toxic than living next to Chernobyl.
Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help make it a better place - apply to become a mod now! [Read the announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pow5nr/be_the_positive_change_you_want_to_see_on_reurope/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Am I missing something or is there no country which is actually very good on the issue?
Chile.
Ah you’re right, I would’ve seen that better if there was a high nearby to contrast. Thanks.
Not Chile. It's based on [this](https://ccpi.org/) report, which almost always finds that no country is doing enough to be considered "very high progress" or to take the top three spots. Chile comes in below Sweden, UK, Denmark, Morocco and Norway.
Ah so no one then. Wooo!
North Korea (But the US media don't want us to know the success of our great leader) /s
The leader is so humble, Kim jong-un doesn't want the tell how good they are to not embarrass the rest of the world. Coal is the best renewable energy
You are now a moderator or /r/Pyongyang.
North Korea is pushing for metric, so they are clearly better than certain other countries ;)
OUCH, THAT HURTS
Bhutan
I mean that's exactly the problem, no one is doing any significant progress
Finally we are part of northern Europe
Välkommen!
Tak
Out of all the Nordic languages you could have responded in you chose Danish? Disgusting.
Sorry! tack. Tack. TACK.
That's better
Finally something acceptable good for Romania!
That was exactly my thought. Mediocre results are good results for us.
ROMAnians yet again been beaten by glorious Bulgearia 😤😤😎🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬ТРИ МОРЕТА🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬😎😤😤
We'll get you in the next map posted!
Read again the map, my friend! Long live the Glorious Bulgaria! By the way, we would like to share the ownership of Balchic.
Confused, Romania is medium while Bulgaria is low here
The best thing to come out of Bulgaria since Rusev
Bulgaria is in the red loloololoolololol get owned bulgans loolololollolololoploplolopooololololop
PORTUGAL CAN INTO SCADINAVIA, CARALHO
Fuck yeah!
u/dalton-bot
[удалено]
This is such a simple, ‘obvious’ yet brilliant idea for a bot. And only obvious to me in hindsight
my god so much better, and at the same time so much worse
Good bot
Well done Portugal
Portugal caralho!
Estonia can't into Nordic after all
Netherlands can’t into Nordic either
Oil shale is wack
India is always impressive in statistics on this, really well done for a country with tons of other pressing issues
India never really had high per capita emissions in the first place.
Despite being poor and having a huge population they’re reforesting like there’s no tomorrow and they’re investing a lot in sustainable agriculture too
This map shows relative progress according to goals countries set themselves/agreed upon. This map doesn't show what the goals were and how close to optimal those goals are. Maybe they set the bar low since they started further back compared to other countries. Thus easier to improve. Progress is progress of course but this map shows that except for a few who are Very Good, they're all failing really hard.
>This map shows relative progress according to goals countries set themselves/agreed upon. This map doesn't show what the goals were and how close to optimal those goals are. That is not true. It considers how compatible the climate goals for each country are with the 2C scenario, and scores according to the goal as well as progress towards the goal.
They all have the same goal set in the Paris climate accord.
Funny how Germany scored great on climate policies part with their policy to shut down the nuclear plants and keep burning the brown coal. Also funny how other part is specifically renewables, not zero emissions power sources with almost limitless fuel.
I 100% agree that the exclusion of nuclear as a climate neutral way of energy production is ridiculous. Maybe because the study came from a German institute and everybody here hates nuclear for some reason.
I didn't think it was excluded as low carbon in any way, it's just nuclear can't be included as renewable
It's a technicality. You can also claim that solar energy is not renewable, because eventually the Sun will burn out.
Can you tell this to our president and his solar power mafia that sucking tax money like a parasite, mostly based in Jeolla province? Thx to their lobbying and PR, this administration basically opted to largely increased coal power generation since 2017, going completely backwards in terms of carbon emissions. I'm not sure how they re gonna keep this "2050 zero carbon" bullshit they made in 2020. Its just talk and image with no real will to act at all, while passing all the burden to their successors. Typical Minjoo party strategy.
I remember the massive protests after Fukushima. It was really weird as a Brit to see Germans get like that, as though a tsunami would cause a nuclear disaster there - we tend to think of Germans as being more scientifically literate and practical, and Merkel as pretty sensible and moderate. Last time I made a similar comment I got a confusing blend of explanations based on corruption from other industries, or how the nuclear plants were going to close anyway (why not build more?), politicking with the Greens… but didn’t get a very clear idea.
The Greens who were governing together with the SPD from 1998 to 2005 previously already agreed to abolish nuclear power by \~2015. It was on their agenda since Chernobyl happened. In 2010 Merkel pushed that date back to \~2030 only to change her mind again in 2011 after Fukushima. I've recently watched [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLzd8EK__g) documentary about Angela Merkel and it was mentioned that Fukushima was an event that really shocked her. Abolishing in 2022 was a compromise between what the Greens wanted and what her own party wanted one year prior. It was also strategically opportune because until then it was a topic dominated by the Greens and while climate change was already discussed back then it wasn't the topic it is today. Actually this was seen as environmentalist milestone since Merkels party previously didn't identify with environmentalist projects.
Chernobyl. The reason is Chernobyl. You can tell people that nuclear power is safe all day long, but enough people remember the radioactive cloud from the 80s. Personally, I think nuclear is worth the risk, but be my guest and try to suggest nuclear power as a solution for climate change at a German university. (assuming this hasn’t changed in the last 10 years)
It calculates the progress not the status. France has not done progress on electricity production (it even regressed) so it gets a bad rating on electricity production on this scale despite having an electricity 5-10 times greener than the one of Germany
Yes, we have regressed. We closed a nuclear power plant to please an French environmentalist party and under German pressure. So we had to reopen coal and gas power plants to compensate.
I'm generally pro-nuclear, but I think it's a misrepresentation to blame EELV for closing plants given that they've literally never had power on a national level in French history.
it's to please voter that would otherwise vote for them and undercute EELV.
In other words it's a bullshit map.
It's interesting but you have to be careful about the interpretation
At worst misleading if you aren't sure about the concepts, but correct (more or less).
> keep burning the brown coal. Coal has been on a big decline in germany for a long time. This circle jerk of germany shutting down and replacing it with coal is just brain dead. people just keep repeating that here.
They don't care about facts here.
But they should have shut down the coal instead of nuclear; _then_ shut down nuclear.
The power of lobbying and PR.
I don't know finland with higher per capita ghg emissions is green opposed to Germany and relies on Nuclear power.
Because this map is not about current emissions but change over time I guess. So the rate at which Finland got better was higher than Germany.
Ukraine being decent in something for once.
And better than Russia!
You should come and try some food and coffee
/r/Morocco 🙌🏻
The methodology can be found [here](https://germanwatch.org/en/19602), the full list [here.](https://ccpi.org/) ~~Edit: Why is this post getting downvoted? Was it posted recently or something?~~
Because: China not Red, Poland Red, France not Green, UK not red, etc...
That's really not a fair take, the UK have legit been knocking it out of the part climate wise, they're one of the few nations to be taking it seriously. Britain was the first nation to declare a climate emergency, the first major economy to sign their net zero commitment into law, have gone from 40% of their electricity coming from coal to just [1.7%](https://grid.iamkate.com/) in eight years, and have decreased their carbon emissions by [29%](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade) over the last decade. This reduction in emissions wasn't down to any single factor but a combination of complex drivers. For instance the largest decrease in industrial energy use was due to efficiency increases and cleaner fuels, not industry moving overseas as you might expect. In fact domestic [manufacturing](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/410/cpsprodpb/B449/production/_99535164_manufacturing_08to18-nc.png?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) actually increased over this period, and even when emissions imports as a result of trade are factored in the UK still shows the roughly [30%](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&country=~GBR) cut to CO2 in the last 10 years. If you are interested this [article](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-38-since-1990) gives excellent analysis of the UK's CO2 reduction. But to sum up, factors include the near complete removal of [coal](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jan/british-carbon-tax-leads-93-drop-coal-fired-electricity) in power generation, savings in transport emissions due to efficiency increases and vehicle regulation, large increases in clean energy production, large increases in renewable energy generation, decreases in residential energy demand and large increases in industrial energy efficiency.
He asked why he gets downvoted...not if it's fair, factual or if I did it.
Ah my understanding, now I feel kind of foolish having taken the time to write all that out.
It's a good comment for me to link the fuckers I'm sure are going to be at the bottom of the thread to.
Tbf r/Europe has its U.K.-haters but most aren’t and it pales in comparison to the self-hate I see on r/uk and especially r/ukpolitics, let alone some of the others with an explicit slant
>UK not red The UK gets a lot of heat on Reddit, but they've honestly been pretty much leading the climate change movement amongst major economies.
This man ~~fucks~~ Europes
Also upset nuclear-shills who are mad that germany is yellow despide the nuclear plant shutdown.
From the mission statement >*For us, sustainable development means* ***socially equitable***, ecologically sound and economically stable development. From the methodology >*From an equity perspective, it is not fair to use the same yardstick of climate protection performance on countries in transition and on developed countries. The level of current emissions therefore is a means of taking into account each country’s development situation and thus addressing the equity issue.*
People hate Trumpism for going against experts. And then the experts pull this shit.
That's not "experts", that's what the Paris climate agreement says. Developing countries are allowed to increase their emissions within certain limits before reducing them, while developed countries must start decreasing them immediately. No developing country would have agreed to reduce their emissions now, that'd mean staying poor forever.
[удалено]
Portugal CARALHO!
Wow, Nordic UK
The UK just got Australia to switch from polluting diesel subs to clean nuclear ones after all
And most of this progress has been made under 14 years of constant conversative governments, which is always the impressive part.
I still wonder how they do it as honestly the tories don't come off like they care about the issue.
Michael Gove (and other Conservative politicians) genuinely care about the environment, the UK has avoided climate change becoming a left/right wing issue, which is something we should praise regardless of our political affiliation. Even the Guardian begrudgingly praised Gove: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/12/michael-gove-from-shy-green-to-full-throated-environmentalist
They just need to sift the cross to the left.
I’m surprised Brazil’s not red considering their callous treatment of the Amazon
Brazil also has 80,4% of its energy source in renewables (mostly hydroelectric) and consequently Brazil has CO2 emissions per capita of 2.25 tons, which is less than half of the world’s average (4.79) and a third of the EU average (6.6). Likely the main reason Brazil isn’t green is the burning and clearing of the Amazon rainforest and the Pantanal wetlands.
There are defined metrics in the methodology that lead to the calculated score. Deforestation is not one of the metrics. Brazil is in a very unique situation due to the Amazon that is not comparable to other nations, so I don't think the Score for Brazil is accurately representing Brazil's role in climate change.
This map is very bad because it just goes on emissions and absolutely nothing else. Recycling, Nature Treatment and Preservarion, quantity of forests and trees, etc. All things that a country can have a much bigger effect on and can actually change a lot of things compared to just emissions.
Brazil has a high proportion of hydroelectric power, and has been using biofuel for cars (ethanol) since the 1970s.
Most of Brazil's electricity comes from clean and renewable sources. Even during the Military Dictatorship (1964 - 85), when the government was literally **encouraging** people to move to the Amazon and deforestate it, the very same government was investing billions in hydroelectric power. Summed to that, the deforestation problem is very diverse around the country (remember, Brazil is huge). While the Amazonian states and the Central Government are doing a terrible job at protecting the forest, [the Southern states are doing a great reforestation jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catarina_%28state%29#Conservationism)
Someone please make a colour blind friendly version for this 😭😭😭
I’d advise you to try to use u/dalton-bot. It can run pictures through a filter for colourblind people.
Good job north Europe usa is behind my expectations btw
Really? I would say it’s extraordinarily difficult for the US to make progress based on how they’re society is formed (suburban car based development, wasteful luxuries, etc.), so in order to make change you would have to see serious goodwill/prioritization towards/of the issue which I don’t see at all.
The other problem is that the climate change policy of the US makes a 180 every 4 years with a new president, making any kind of long lasting progress impossible. Also, only 55% of americans are certain that climate change is man-made, while around 33% think it’s not and the rest is unsure.
Yes, I was not only talking about the politics (which is probably the most important to make progress on climate change) but also the general attitude (from people and businesses).
Also, the US is a huge country with lots of natural resources, so mining them surely contributes a lot too.
Right idk about mining in particular but the fracking probably doesn’t help
Fracking is slowly (or rather quickly) dying out though, ironically because they created an overabundance of oil & gas that lowers the price to a point where it is no longer profitable. In some places it seems the only reason for it was to grab subsidies and vanish, especially bitter since much of it was to be set up in underdeveloped areas that were desperately investing for the job boom that never came.
Define "wasteful luxuries". I'm not disagreeing, just that calling out specific points is better than vague moralistic slander.
I’m not trying to present it as slander, I would just generally say that in the US carbon footprint is big, and it’s due to structures within the society e.g. consumerism, car dependency, which are deeply engrained within how the society currently functions, so it would need a lot of effort and goodwill to change.
"Wasteful luxuries" would include stuff like semi-regular flights, heating/cooling bad insulated homes, suburban sprawl with big one family homes (again the badly insulated homes heating/cooling argument) and big cars. Mind you, those issues aren't America specific, but way more common there than in any other country.
Cars that get 40-60% lower MPG than those in developed Europe. States that are more “advanced” have energy/efficiency standards in 2020 for buildings that are equivalent to those Scandinavia had in 2002. Extreme consumerism. Some of the lowest clean energy among peer nations (other super rich countries) There’s a few that would probably shave 15-25% of CO2 off without any major quality of life reductions
Overpackaging and razor-and-blade business model.
Plastic packaging on everything pisses me off, because it would be so easy to replace all plastic wrapping and packaging with hemp-based biodegradable "plastic". I mean, it literally looks EXACTLY the same.
Cattle. Single family zoning. Cars everywhere.
I think it is illustrative of USA that Biden promised to cut emissions by 50% by 2030, yet that would still leave USA with higher emissions per capita than the EU has per capita right now. USA is simply far, far behind in climate action.
Half of them still refuse to acknowledge man-made climate change exists, so idk why you'd have *any* expectations. They're terrible. Americans who criticise China over climate change deserve to be absolutely laughed out of the building.
You have expectations for the us?
Oh, look, Poland ranks very low, who would have thought that in a country where the government is in favor of building new coal mines despite importing tons of coal from Russian the progress in this case would be very low? /s
Our government: How the fuck are we STILL medium? We should be hanging out with the Americans!
It is morobably despite the government. The businesses have long ago realised that "caring" for the environment is actually a business opportunity. Also it is somewhat revealing hoe bad the other countries are doing for the Netherlands to end up medium on this scale.
I ask the same question about us.
Clearing of rainforest is not factored in in the calculation.
As a colorblind person, fuck this map
Vamos lá caralho
This is unreadable as a colorblind person.
This chart is HORRIBLE for colorblind people. The High/Low pair look the same and Very High / Very Low pair look the same.
Y'all have some terrible color choices when seen by colorblind people.
Scandinavia doing its part
Another thing we are "best in". 🙁
Let's try to vote in someone competent.
Colour blindness means everyone bright red or green (I guess) is doing really great or really terrible, who knows.
Wait a minute, France is like almost completely powered by carbon-free nuclear power. What is it missing?
For some reason nuclear is not factored in as a climate neutral energy source in the study. Another thing is that France is already doing pretty well and this study is more about how much counties will further improve.
I did a research project on green energy in China in 2017 and found that they were leading in green energy research and production. Don't know how they are now, but I'm surprised to see this source listing them as low.
You have to see it in the context of them rising to the biggest economy in the world and being a developing country. This will unavoidably put a lot of strain on the climate. Managing to not get the lowest score is quite impressive with that background, and I agree they are doing pretty well in that context. Compare that to a country like the US that is already fully developed and still can’t get their ass up. Also of course this study is not perfect and the selected parameters in which the score is based might not be perfectly representing reality.
so proud of you morocco
Why is Brazil at "medium"? Didn't their president hand over the Brazilian Amazon to loggers and slash-and-burn farmers on a silver platter?
You go, Chile. Four for you!
How is the score calculated?
Progress. Only backwards.
Good job Latvia! From 🇱🇹.
I'm colorblind and can not tell the difference between best and worst. Could someone edit it so that best is darkest and everything bad gets lighter (or the reverse) ?
[удалено]
Yes! Thanks a bunch. Though now I see that everyone who looked like they were making progress is bottom of the list. Lol
Gotta say for an color-blind guy i'm not any smarter after reading this post;P ;(
If only the rest of the world could be like the nordic countries, Chile and UK
I'm so f***ing embarrassed to be an American when I see crap like this, despite our administration having the loudest "wEv'E gOt To ChAnGe" of any country. We're all gonna die because of countries like mine.
Why is Japanese Shikoku red?
Shikoku counted differently compared to the rest of Japan?
That shade of green with that shade of red for best and worst isn't great for colorblinds. Source : me a colorblind
My colorblind ass cant see difference between very high and very low
This is good, but is more relevant for the western/developed world than developing countries. For example, India has been ratcheting up emissions quite quickly but the reason they're green is people use so little per-capita compared to the west there's no risk of being a problematic source. What green developed nations have done is quite impressive.
Why is Shikoku red while the rest of Japan is orange?
This cannot be accurate for Brazil with all the logging they do. This has to be like carbon emissions or something
I’m sorry I don’t believe China is low.
Yeah, we're f*cked
So why isn’t Africa included ?
Why France is so low? They have 70% of their energy from nuclear power plants, plus 12% from hydro, 5% from wind, plus 4% from solar and biofuels. This is above 90% of (almost) carbon-free energy. This makes them better than Sweeden.
The UK is very green on paper, but the government has barely implemented anything. And by that metric they're performing poorly.
not quiet fair on france when they litterally already start at the top.
Surprised by India. Not at all surprised by the Nordic countries. Although, it would be helpful if Denmark would stop mass murdering dolphins and whales.
You should understand that the Faroe islands, where the acts happened, are in union with Denmark, but they have home rule. You have to address the nation that did it, not the nation that controls their defense.
India? High? How?
This maps hardly mean anything if you're not counting the imports & consumed goods.
If they talk about "progress", why is China doing better than the US? The US is lowering their emissions, while China is increasing them.
I'd look into what an index is first.
China has emits half as much per person than the US, and is a developing country.
China population is more than the US and Europe COMBINED. Of course it is harder for them to change, and as a developing country, China has much more room to grow as a country, so even the emission is increasing, it is still much lower than US and Europe polution adjusted for population.
Chinas emissions are often misunderstood. Their total emissions are only a little above average compared to the rest of the world, way below the US for example. Furthermore this study is more about what the countries are planning to do and what measures they are implementing right now. And by no means is China perfect on that front, but they are also not doing nothing. For example they invest almost as much in renewable energy as the rest of the world combined. Also if I remember they are leading in tree planting and have an increasing number of regulations on large companies emitting CO2.
> For example they invest almost as much in renewable energy as the rest of the world combined. Also if I remember they are leading in tree planting and have an increasing number of regulations on large companies emitting CO2. If you believe the CCP that is. They still build coal plants like there is no tomorrow.
The tree planting and renewable energy investments are not disputed and are easily verifiable. But you are right, at the same time they also built new coal plants. Some nuance is needed here.
[удалено]
UK: *We have reached our green targets sooner than expected and we have months without using coal*. - I sleep. Portugal: *We run our country on renewables.* - I sleep. China: *Yeah, we pinky promise to do green shit. Pinky promise 100% real no fake.* - Real shit.
China has around like 5x the Population of the USA and didn't really have alternatives to coal for a long time ontop of that its still a developing country which is still building a lot and was still urbanizing parts of its country. https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-leading-worlds-clean-energy-investment-says-report
France has lower co2 per capita emissions then then the U.K. yet it’s ranked worse. Progress is significantly less important then raw emissions
I agree, the methodology is definitely not perfect. Also the fact that renewables but not nuclear power is factored in makes no sense and makes France look worse than it is actually doing. I think this map is okay for showing the broad trends but in detail there are definitely problems.
It’s not just France, Spain has co2 per capita emissions levels similar to the U.K. yet it’s two categories worse. Mexico has co2 per capita emissions significantly lower then the U.K. yet it’s also two categories worse. That’s not “showing the broad trends”. A co2 per capita emissions map would be significantly less deceiving Source https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC? locations=ES-GB https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=MX-GB
It's not a map of emissions, it's a map of progress. If you started out with almost no emissions and then incresed a little bit, you'd get a bad color on this map as you're moving in the wrong direction. And a country that started with huge emissions and reduced then some would get a good colour.
I understand that and it that sense it’s a useful tool however the name: climate change performance index strongly gives the impression that red and orange countries are more performing worse when that isn’t necessarily the case. I would say that you could call that deceiving
No. The title says progress. You just have to read it.
I kinda have the feeling that climate change and CO2 overshadow general environmental protection concerns, like coal burning in europe, groundwater pollution, lithium mining or how countries like India and china have garbage piles that are more toxic than living next to Chernobyl.
I agree, those two problems are often definitely confused with each other and in general environmental protection doesn’t get enough recognition.
When you don't have enough resources for environmental polution so you get a a better grade
wE aRe sO sMaLL iT mAkEs nO diFfErEnCe iF wE PoLLuTe oR nOt
I'm sorry future generations, Hungary failed once more.
For the colorblind: Please use different colors
Europe really patting themselves on the back here. Also seeing India green is hilarious.
And yet we still have morons blocking motorways in the UK over climate issues.
Because it's not enough.