NZ 15th of 163 for environmental protection
Yale University has published its 2009 environmental protection index.
NZ is in 15th place, with a score of 73.4. Iceland is top at 93.5.
Sierra Leone is bottom at 163 with 32.1
The overall ranking is made up of 15 categories. NZ’s score per category is:
- Environmental Health 10th=
- Ecosystem Vitality 79th=
- Environmental Burden of Disease 21st=
- Air Pollution (effects on human) 3rd=
- Water (effects on human) 1st=
- Water (effects on ecosystem) 11th=
- Air Pollution (effects on ecosystems) 50th=
- Biodiversity and habitat 71st
- Forestry 1st=
- Fisheries 47th
- Agriculture 7th
- Climate Change 135th
- Environmental Burden of Disease 21st=
- Urban Particulates 1st=
- Indoor Air Pollution 1st=
- Access to Sanitation 1st=
- Access to Drinking Water 1st=
- Water Quality 2nd
- Water Scarcity 1st=
- Water Stress 54th
- Nitrous Oxide Emissions 123rd=
- Sulphur Dioxide Emissions 96th
- Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 106th=
- Ozone Exceedance 1st=
- Biome Protection 69th
- Critical Habitat Protection 14th
- Marine Protected Areas 69th
- Growing Stock Not Rated
- Forest Cover 1st=
- Marine Tropic Index 1st=
- Trawling Intensity 63rd
- Pesticide Regulation 1st=
- Agricultural Subsidies 109th=
- Agricultural Water Intensity 1st=
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions per capita 149th
- Industrial Carbon Intensity 66th
- Electricity Carbon Intensity 37th
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: environment
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:23 pm
“12. Climate Change 135th”
It seems we are reasonably secular after all.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:27 pm
“Agricultural Subsidies 109th=”
How is it that agricultural subsidies are somehow judged as “good” for the environment, when in reality, they are subsidising inefficient use of environmental resources?
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Another reason to hate those fucking boy racers. And dentists.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Look forward to government policies directed toward closing the gap with Australia (8th)
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:34 pm
What was that about lies damn lies and statistics??
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
MikeE, that’s what I was trying to figure out. It doesn’t appear that they think ag subsidies are a good thing…I think. Presenting this block in the metadata document:
http://epi.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0050/indicator_metadata_epi2010v2-1.pdf
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Then surely we would be up the top, considering the lack of subsidies?
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
This report must be written by some lefty statistics wonks, when they grow up they will find the error in their ways. n/o 33 Agricultural Subsidies 109th=
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
yes MikeE, we should be near the top for agriculture. Some of our ranks are clearly economy driven. Being a big fish exporter is bad for the trawling ranking. Presumably countries where cod has been decimated and the fishing fleets are not operational, will be doing better.
Biodiversity is really just a hangover from historical clearances and invasive species.
Marine reserves are a bit trickier, but I recall an SCB meeting where one person presented a review that showed that a marine reserve made things worse in about half the cases. So just measuring the area of marine reserves is a less than reliable way of measuring the health and robustness of marine ecosystems.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Indoor Air Pollution 1st=
Obviously they didnt take readings from typical damp NZ homes with mould spores and dust mites everywhere.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:59 pm
DPF: NZ scored 90.7, not 73.4 that was Morocco’s score
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Because i’ve got too much time on my hands i can tell you that according to NZ’s individual country profile we’re 97.3% of the way to the ‘target’ on agricultural subsidies…so doing well. Still not sure how they rank everybody though.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Check comments before writing.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:04 pm
anonymouse, that’s the score for environmental health (just one of many categories), not for environmental protection.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Government sponsored Research (Forst & Morst or whatever is dishing the dosh) is often classified as a sector subsidy which is why we have never ranked as having zero subsidies. I think in the past also tax write-offs for development expenditure was also classed as a subsidy by those who couldn’t believe that we didn’t prop up our Ag sector the same as they did.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Ah. Thanks david.
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Brian – How many dentists use nitrous oxide nowadays? Modern sedaton and painkilling drugs together with precision made syringe needles has rendered nitrous oxide pretty well obsolete.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:49 pm
When the scam about AGW is proven to be a scam NZ will move considerably on thie index.
February 4th, 2010 at 2:13 am
If you look at the list for ag subsidies, there are a lot of countries with 100%. The only developed countries above us that I can see are Israel, the UAE, and Kuwait.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Given that Panama is rated higher than NZ on fishing in this index and they are a flag of convenience country for IUU (that’s pirate fishing), you’ve got to wonder about the index and all the other assessments. Also NZ is the only country in the world that has ZERO subsidies for fishing.