NZ 15th of 163 for environmental protection

February 3rd, 2010 at 2:10 pm by David Farrar

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:

  1. Environmental Health 10th=
  2. Ecosystem Vitality 79th=
  3. Environmental Burden of Disease 21st=
  4. Air Pollution (effects on human) 3rd=
  5. Water (effects on human) 1st=
  6. Water (effects on ecosystem) 11th=
  7. Air Pollution (effects on ecosystems) 50th=
  8. Biodiversity and habitat 71st
  9. Forestry 1st=
  10. Fisheries 47th
  11. Agriculture 7th
  12. Climate Change 135th
  13. Environmental Burden of Disease 21st=
  14. Urban Particulates 1st=
  15. Indoor Air Pollution 1st=
  16. Access to Sanitation 1st=
  17. Access to Drinking Water 1st=
  18. Water Quality 2nd
  19. Water Scarcity 1st=
  20. Water Stress 54th
  21. Nitrous Oxide Emissions 123rd=
  22. Sulphur Dioxide Emissions 96th
  23. Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 106th=
  24. Ozone Exceedance 1st=
  25. Biome Protection 69th
  26. Critical Habitat Protection 14th
  27. Marine Protected Areas 69th
  28. Growing Stock Not Rated
  29. Forest Cover 1st=
  30. Marine Tropic Index 1st=
  31. Trawling Intensity 63rd
  32. Pesticide Regulation 1st=
  33. Agricultural Subsidies 109th=
  34. Agricultural Water Intensity 1st=
  35. Greenhouse Gas Emissions per capita 149th
  36. Industrial Carbon Intensity 66th
  37. Electricity Carbon Intensity 37th
Tags:

20 Responses to “NZ 15th of 163 for environmental protection”

  1. Rich Prick (1,319 comments) says:

    “12. Climate Change 135th”

    It seems we are reasonably secular after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    “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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    21. Nitrous Oxide Emissions 123rd=

    Another reason to hate those fucking boy racers. And dentists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sam (493 comments) says:

    Look forward to government policies directed toward closing the gap with Australia (8th) ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. lastmanstanding (1,154 comments) says:

    What was that about lies damn lies and statistics??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    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:

    Objective / Policy: Ecosystem Vitality / Agriculture Code: AGSUB Description: This indicator seeks to assess the magnitude of subsidies in order to assess the degree of environmental pressure they exert. The NRA is defined as the price of their product in the domestic market (plus any direct output subsidy) less its price at the border, expressed as a percentage of the border price (adjusting for transport costs and quality differences).

    Rationale: According to a report by the OECD (2004), public subsidies for agricultural protection and agrochemical inputs exacerbate environmental pressures through the intensification of chemical use, the expansion of land into sensitive areas, and overexploitation of resources.

    http://epi.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0050/indicator_metadata_epi2010v2-1.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    Then surely we would be up the top, considering the lack of subsidies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Doug (405 comments) says:

    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=

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Chthoniid (1,966 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. mavxp (490 comments) says:

    Indoor Air Pollution 1st=

    Obviously they didnt take readings from typical damp NZ homes with mould spores and dust mites everywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. anonymouse (651 comments) says:

    DPF: NZ scored 90.7, not 73.4 that was Morocco’s score

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    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=

    Check comments before writing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Tim Ellis (253 comments) says:

    anonymouse, that’s the score for environmental health (just one of many categories), not for environmental protection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. david (2,482 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Ah. Thanks david.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. peterwn (2,933 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Chuck Bird (4,402 comments) says:

    When the scam about AGW is proven to be a scam NZ will move considerably on thie index.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. swan (651 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. MXCMXC (1 comment) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.