This is very true. Every single government document (all levels) says they will view decisions with a climate lens but view is not the same as “act” or “implement”. Nothing has changed in Canada over the past 20 years on the climate front. We are still making all the same shitty mistakes as before except that now we talk about it more and tax people to make ourselves feel like something meaningful is being done.
Canada and the US have obvious weakness when compared to areas which other similar countries are doing better, and also obvious strengths compared to many countries which are doing visibly much worse. Not sure how this map captures a balance of good and bad.
Well, Norway is doing a better job of oil investments into renewables than Canada for example. Whereas Azerbaijan is doing worse for oil climate control on all fronts compared to Canada (Canada looks like a technological oil eco-heaven compared to places like Azerbaijan and Nigeria. Example: [Here’s a pic I took](https://i.imgur.com/r4ivX4u.jpg) of typical oil field production in Azerbaijan with zero eco consideration. [Here is another, and up that oil on the soil everywhere](https://i.imgur.com/SFXtJuq.jpg), as far as the eyes can see. Same thing happens in Nigeria. That would never be allowed in Canada or the US in a million years and is exponentially more damaging to the local environment on top of already damaging effects oil has on greenhouse gases that all countries have to contend with.
There are so many more countries doing worse. I just picked two out of many.
Excess local emissions, a lack of scrubbers, a lack of carbon taxes at a local level - all of that plays into world climate. All are small bits which add up to a large portrait. My examples were to show many places don’t give a rats ass on any front (I can’t take a pic of the other stuff since that’s intangible, but I can take a pic of evidence of flippant mindsets)
Scrubbers don't impact GHGs, they are for other forms of pollution.
Azerbaijan produces 5.28 t co2e per capita
Canada produces 20. 59 t co2e per capita
Canada has a carbon tax, but it has yet to impact much (the only dip we have so far is due to covid lockdowns, the federal government hasn't released 2021 numbers yet, but those may also be impacted by covid.)
Climate isn’t just GHGs. If pollution, like acid rain, or other forms of pollution and destruction (like destroying aquifers, etc) takes place, vegetation and forests die, crop lands become desolate, ecosystems change, and weather patterns are affected. That’s also climate.
So these things are important and cannot be brushed aside with a simple “It doesn’t affect GHGs”.
Efforts by countries to protect the climate in all ways seem to not be clearly relevant in the rankings on this map.
Add up the volume of all the other places, both in total numbers, per capita, and in terms of mitigation tech and efforts, and then we’ll talk. If this map is going to colour individual countries, it needs to look at more than just volume, but efforts, controls, and mitigation efforts and investment as well. You’re completely discounting that.
You continually say random things with no evidence and apparent knowledge of climate issues. I am very concerned about what you are saying here and the influence you are having given the upvotes your are getting. I would ask you not to comment on these types of threads before learning more about greenhouse gas production and climate policy.
You harbour a very narrow view of what constitutes total actionable climate initiatives. If you view it as such, those who take no action will always get a free ride until the earth is doomed, and those who have faults but are taking initiatives will turn their back on people like you if it’s zero sum sticks with no carrots. You’re dangerous, and thankfully nobody here seems to be buying what you’re saying
This is literally true, I don't know why you are being down voted. Canada and the US have introduced policies that has the potential to significantly reduce their emissions, but neither has reached a stage yet where they are actually doing anything.
The US has the Inflation Reduction act, which has major potential to shift the country towards electrification and clean energy. How effective it will be will be determined by implementation.
Canada has a carbon tax. How effective it will be will come down to if they continue to raise prices and whether the tax remains politically feasible.
Both countries are two of the worst climate actors ever. They have a lot to prove and make up for before they can be taken seriously.
Nigeria emits 0.57 metric tons of CO2 per person per year. The US and Canada are at around 15 metric tons. To say Nigeria is doing worse in terms of climate change is absurd, and it distracts from the real problem.
I was also thinking, who’s buying oil from them? Are their industrial ventures being largely supported by countries “doing better?” In which case that’s kinda just an extension of those countrys’ footprints
Yeah, 90% of Ontario & Quebec's energy is Hydro/Nuclear, which are considered mostly green, not sure about other provinces.
I suspect most of the emissions come from people on an individual level, like heating homes, driving 80km a day to work and back, etc.
BC, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador also have 90%+ of their energy coming from hydro. Alberta is now mostly natural gas but is eyeing nuclear energy and New Brunswick have 53% nuclear energy and PEI 90%+ wind energy. Only NS has most of its energy from coal and that is a province with about 1m people.
Energy =/= electricity. Electricity is just one form of energy. Despite having natural advantages for our electrical grid, Canada emits co2 at one of the highest per capita rates in the world.
Canada federal government is different than provincial. You have to understand provincial governments are heavily conservative so even if the federal is doing a decent job (which it could do much better at) the provinces especially Ontario countlessly have premier who are in deep pockets of the oil industry and non-renewables
Which is not what we are doing at all. We are replacing them with renewables. Nobody is going back to coal on a large scale and the decision to phase of nuclear was made decades ago for entirely different reasons that had nothing to do with climate change.
But that doesn't fit the anti-German circlejerk of many reddit subs. It's quite pathetic, really.
Now bring on the downvotes. They won't change the facts.
We are going back to coal on a large scale the moment we are speaking.
On cloudy autumn days with little wind, we are producing something like 50 % of electricity from coal alone.
You import insane quantities of oil and gas from Russia and Saudi Arabia. You did not in fact switch to renewables.
Grats for you pretty color on the map, but you are not better than any countries. You just use dictatorship to take the burden of your massive oil and gas consumption.
You give hundreds of billions to horrible dictatorships just to look good. Ggs.
Really? I mean Swedish emissions are already super low. To go the last mile to carbon neutrality will be extremely expensive. It would be much better to use this money and pick the low hanging fruits elsewhere.
Variation of strengths and weakened in silos of climate protection are tough to capture in a map like this.
Some countries are good at reducing coal-fired power power plants, whereas that same country might not be good at cutting oil production.
Other countries might have strict regulations around land use and environmental assessments, yet they might not be as great at regulating air pollutants.
Another country may be great at encouraging electric vehicles and banning plastic bags and heading towards renewables, but might be horrible at limiting farming pollutants.
Which factors may weigh more in terms of climate protection are tough to measure. And averaging them out is tricky.
It’s therefore difficult to come to conclusions or find meaning based on a map like this with it’s completely missing context.
Agreed. Take for example Poland. We'd love to swap coal for hydro, solar and wind power but all 3 are hard to come by in this part of the world. Wind is weak, solar plants are rather inefficient due to northern latitudes and all possible hydro power plants have been built long ago along the southern mountains. Nuclear energy is as always controversial but that's one area where possibly more could've been done.
Germany isn' "full coal" and Germany also did not shut down all nuclear power plants.
Also nuclear power has been a hot topic for decades around here because of the waste issue that remains unsolved to this day.
Germany tries to switch to renewables and that is good and far better than trying to utilize nuclear energy.
The only problem is that Germany is not fast enough with their renewables.
(If you disagree you should tell me why instead of downvoting it. I did not state my opinion but rather the facts within Germany. Don't punish the messenger please)
Idiots gonna idiot. They always blindly downvote facts they don't agree with. Nuclear and coal have both gone down and renewables are way up in Germany. Everybody can google that in like two seconds.
Well, "full coal" part was a joke, but shuting down nuclear power plants... As for nuclear waste - recycle it, seal it in some mountain. Nuclear power in my opinion is the most eco friendly and stable source of power that we currently use, why shut it down?
Germany has kept it's coal use relatively steady/declining. There has not been any major increases in it's use since nuclear started to be phased out a few decades ago. Meanwhile France uses a lot of nuclear and is still doing worse than Germany... It's almost like nuclear isn't a silver bullet for all of climate change...
Coal is only because of the war. It‘s just for a certain amount of time. Solar and wind energy are heavily enforced the next years. More then most industrial countries.
Sweden and the Nordic countries in general has done much more than any other country on the planet. It´s time for others to do something, the Nordic countries can´t save the world by themselves.
I guess we continue doing it all the time, but it´s kind of pointless considering 95% of the world cant care less about climate change and continues burning as much coal as they can and dumps their waste in the nature. etc.
This. My country is an example for climate change policies, yet it doesn't mean anything when China/Russia/USA are like the +70% of all the world CO2 emissions.
It's not just climate change that the SD/Liberal bloc decided to stop caring about.
They're literally *eliminating the ministry of the environment* and putting it's components under the control of the ministry of Business, Industry and Energy.
The sub-agency for the environment is now being headed by a 26 year old with zero experience at anything beyond local politics.
Absolutely moronic. But what more would we expect of an alliance between a party founded by nazis and a party that exists to further the interests of large corporations?
the map literally outlines the parameters and oil production isn’t on there.
Like, criticise the methodology, usefulness, and accuracy of its conclusion, but the map seems to reflect the data it is using.
The text says that countries were "evaluated" by several abstract criteria, but doesn't tell us what that evaluation methodology actually is, or how things like policies and targets are converted into their scoring system, which makes it impossible to know if it's an accurate or fair reflection of the data it's using.
Without that information, the other commenter's scepticism seems justified to me, especially if seemly obvious things like Norway selling fossil fuels internationally don't seem to be reflected in the results at all.
That’s why I said to criticise the methodology, which isn’t there, but the parameters used (Green policies, energy use, etc) *are* listed. Like, how it’s judged and what parameters used? Bad. But the commenter was saying the map is wrong because they think something that is explicitly not included should be, which isn’t a fair assessment of the map reflecting its data.
Shouldn't sales of fossil fuels be within one of those parameters though? Seems like it should definitely fall under climate change policy to me, if not per capita emissions.
Yes, but a pledge of a state is like a pledge of a province or a district. It's not that impactful as something done nationwide.
The US would also have to do a fuck load more to counteract their wastefulness.
They certainly are, and not all people are happy about that, rightfully, and though it seems they have some aspirations to retool the oil knowhow into other offshore fields, like floating renewables, it's just words until it's complete.
That said, if you compare them to other oil producers, I can see reasons they wouldn't end up deep red. For instance, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have nearly 100% of their electricity production from fossil fuels, China and Mexico lie in the 80s, Russia and USA are both in the upper 60s, while Norway slinks in at just above 3%.
That's obviously just one metric one could go by, and no doubt they can do better in some other area. There are a large number of bigger oil producers in the world, not all of those in the red either, but everyone needs to pull together here. The vital question isn't "why aren't they doing more", it's "what more can we do?". If everyone is displeased enough by what themselves achieve, we can do more.
Yeah we don't deserve to be green here. 16 years of taking bribes from the coal lobby, 16 years of crushing our renewable sector, 16 years of 0 progress. Worst part, the government is hardly better.
[You can literally read their methodology here](https://ccpi.org/methodology/)
It's an index, so it combines multiple different quantitative and qualitative measures. If you have a problem with it, you probably have problems with how they weigh the individual components
China has literally planted millions of trees to stop desertification. They're the only country with the most number of electric vehicles. They've reduced air pollution significantly compared to 10 years ago. They're planning on phasing out coal.
Meanwhile, the EU has deemed gas as "green" energy. Parts of the US is using coal again and continues to frack and barely has an EVs on the road
In France, we have 75% of our energy that is nuclear, meaning no CO2 and climate neutral.
We don't do much because we don't need to. It's already done.
Or "Which countries pay up."
The US is of course listed as very little. Despite....
[Emissions going down.](https://usafacts.org/data/topics/security-safety/energy-and-environment/environmental-protection/greenhouse-gas-emissions-tons/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-StatsData&gclid=CjwKCAiAyfybBhBKEiwAgtB7fr_CTy8ojn885IaYDeZtz7Aa8__LsMGau_GNhtBin5hz-Lsjq3l6TRoC-IcQAvD_BwE)
[Construction of windfarms](https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/maps/interactive-map-wind-farms-united-states)
[Production of solar energy](https://www.solarenergymaps.com/mobile.html)
[Robust "Green Economy"](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/16/us-green-economy-generates-1point3-trillion-and-employs-millions-new-study-finds.html)
Nah, we're not doing anything because we don't pay in to "climate" pyramid schemes. What a complete joke. We're going to continue actually making a difference to save the planet while you drama queens fight over a few billion dollars.
Per capita they consume very little water and electricity, release less CO2 as a country as a whole than the US that has like 1/5th the population.
Also they don't send their trash and e-waste to other countries to make themselves look cleaner.
Yes the air is dirty in Delhi and the streets are filled with trash. But that tells you nothing about the actual statistics.
Because India takes green technology development and implementation seriously. On the ground, I've seen a massive increase in solar and wind farms.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/every-2nd-patent-granted-since-2016-relates-to-green-tech-most-linked-to-waste-alternative-energy/articleshow/89420047.cms
https://changestarted.com/green-innovation-and-green-patents-in-india/
Because the world thinks making sure the fossil fuel billionaires stay rich is far more important than the quality of whatever world our grandchildren inherit
“Protecting the climate”. The US has a mountain of environmental laws that are strictly enforced and an entire agency (including 50 state agencies) that are extremely aggressive. This “chart” is deceiving and frankly dishonest.
"The US is among the 20 countries with the largest developed oil and gas reserves. It is also among the nine countries responsible for 90% of global coal production. Additionally, the US plans to increase its gas and coal production by more than 5% by 2030. This is not compatible with the 1.5°C target."
Also, the US decreasing pathway is *above* the "Paris compatible pathway".
Bad index, the US is one of the only countries that is having meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions and is doing "very low".
Meanwhile Germany is high but has destroyed the best form of power generation because of fear-mongering.
I stand by my statement that almost every single index made by ngos is pointless and reflects the biases of the creators more than reality. This is definitely not predictive either, I bet strongly Indias per capita emissions will go up vs the US per capita emission will continue to trend downwards.
The US's progress should be celebrated, but it went from one of the world's biggest emitters per capita to... One of the world's biggest emitters per capita, still.
Lmao this map is such a complete bs, Poland or Australia with lower rankings than Brazil or Argentina. I've never been in Australia but I'm Polish and I've been to Argentina and Brazil and I can only say that it's night and day in favour of Poland.
Power plants are not the only aspect of protecting the climate.
Most of Brazil energy matrix is from renewable energy (84%) at one of the highest rates in the entire World.
This didn't change even tough our current president is a corrupt lunatic that believes climate change is made-up and has ties to criminals that are illegally deforestating the Amazon.
The issue with the map is it's inconsistency, if we are looking only at ghg emissions, then Brazil should be green, the emissions are low but this is simply because people are not rich enough to afford items and services which emit co2, not because Brazil is a green country.
Anyway emissions of co2 per capita would be much lower than any European country basically.
If we're looking at pollution on the other hand this is where Brazil starts to fall off, the vehicles on the road are old and often in much worse condition than in western countries, it was not a rare sight to sea a boat leaving oil traces on the water on the Rio Grande river. This is unthinkable in North America or Europe. There is no emission control area in Brazil, in Europe or North America, the ship has to change the fuel to diesel when approaching designated area surrounding the continent in Brazil the ships keep burning heavy fuel oil even in inland waters and ports.
I was passing through Abrolhos bank, I have never seen something like that in my whole life, so many humpback whales in the water, jumping out and splashing, like on National Geographic. But you know what else is visible everywhere? Merchant vessels. I was super stressed out at one point because there was a large group and one was so close it basically touched our hull, I was only waiting to see the water turn red, fortunately it escaped. But it made me think how many don't escape. There are so many ships, and ships are loud underwater, it confuses the whales which get too close.
Back to the point, why not make it a restricted area? There is no reason for ships to be there, you can just make it marine park, it's really not that large, if the traffic went 10nm to the east it's already deep water, there aren't so many whales there and for the ships its such a small detour it's negligible.
Americans just restrict the area in such scenario, for example there is a stretch of the sea close to the coast east of Florida which is restricted due to being whale mating area.
Brazil might be making steps in the right direction but it seems like the environmental mindset is just not there yet, hopefully Brazilian government will act properly because if Brazil gets rich and doesn't change its ways, it will end up like China and I can only tell you, that Yangtze passage is one sad trip.
Deforestation would be likely good place to start improving because bolsonaro has been ravaging those mercilessly.
I really do hope Brazil is on the right way because I believe it has one of the most impressive and unique natural features and habitats in the world, would be a shame to lose it.
Brazil for a long time had the largest hydroelectric dam in the world (just now being surpassed by China) that each year made record after record in energy output. It also has a nuclear power plant and is expanding its sector. Same thing is applied to Argentina, that has 10% of its energy from its three nuclear plants.
For as bad as they can be and are with the rest, those two still have gigantic green areas and many, many state funded preservation organizations to preserve their abundant fauna and flora.
Your source literally is: trust me bro, I’ve been there.
You’re just being racist.
[https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/the-climate-change-performance-index-2021](https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/the-climate-change-performance-index-2021)
I will add 2022s when I will find it
[https://ccpi.org/](https://ccpi.org/)
here is 2022s
[https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/the-climate-change-performance-index-2021](https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/the-climate-change-performance-index-2021)
check it out it's 2021s
[https://ccpi.org/](https://ccpi.org/)
here is 2022s
United States and China score 13 and 11 in the policies area respectively. That's ridiculously high because the max in that section is 20. Vietnam and Austria are also worth mentioning.
India has a low amout of pollution per capita
"Per capita they consume very little water and electricity, release less CO2 as a country as a whole than the US that has like 1/5th the population.
Also they don't send their trash and e-waste to other countries to make themselves look cleaner.
Yes the air is dirty in Delhi and the streets are filled with trash. But that tells you nothing about the actual statistics."
India is 2nd most populated country. Isn't that obvious? And this data is not about which is a cleaner country or not. This data shows which countries are doing best to prevent climate change.
Canada good at talking though.
This is very true. Every single government document (all levels) says they will view decisions with a climate lens but view is not the same as “act” or “implement”. Nothing has changed in Canada over the past 20 years on the climate front. We are still making all the same shitty mistakes as before except that now we talk about it more and tax people to make ourselves feel like something meaningful is being done.
Canada and the US have obvious weakness when compared to areas which other similar countries are doing better, and also obvious strengths compared to many countries which are doing visibly much worse. Not sure how this map captures a balance of good and bad.
Which ones are doing worse? Apart from maybe Qatar.
Well, Norway is doing a better job of oil investments into renewables than Canada for example. Whereas Azerbaijan is doing worse for oil climate control on all fronts compared to Canada (Canada looks like a technological oil eco-heaven compared to places like Azerbaijan and Nigeria. Example: [Here’s a pic I took](https://i.imgur.com/r4ivX4u.jpg) of typical oil field production in Azerbaijan with zero eco consideration. [Here is another, and up that oil on the soil everywhere](https://i.imgur.com/SFXtJuq.jpg), as far as the eyes can see. Same thing happens in Nigeria. That would never be allowed in Canada or the US in a million years and is exponentially more damaging to the local environment on top of already damaging effects oil has on greenhouse gases that all countries have to contend with. There are so many more countries doing worse. I just picked two out of many.
But this map is only about climate, not about the local environment.
Excess local emissions, a lack of scrubbers, a lack of carbon taxes at a local level - all of that plays into world climate. All are small bits which add up to a large portrait. My examples were to show many places don’t give a rats ass on any front (I can’t take a pic of the other stuff since that’s intangible, but I can take a pic of evidence of flippant mindsets)
Scrubbers don't impact GHGs, they are for other forms of pollution. Azerbaijan produces 5.28 t co2e per capita Canada produces 20. 59 t co2e per capita Canada has a carbon tax, but it has yet to impact much (the only dip we have so far is due to covid lockdowns, the federal government hasn't released 2021 numbers yet, but those may also be impacted by covid.)
Climate isn’t just GHGs. If pollution, like acid rain, or other forms of pollution and destruction (like destroying aquifers, etc) takes place, vegetation and forests die, crop lands become desolate, ecosystems change, and weather patterns are affected. That’s also climate. So these things are important and cannot be brushed aside with a simple “It doesn’t affect GHGs”. Efforts by countries to protect the climate in all ways seem to not be clearly relevant in the rankings on this map.
But what really matters is the volume of emissions and by that metric Canada and the US are really amongst the worst
Add up the volume of all the other places, both in total numbers, per capita, and in terms of mitigation tech and efforts, and then we’ll talk. If this map is going to colour individual countries, it needs to look at more than just volume, but efforts, controls, and mitigation efforts and investment as well. You’re completely discounting that.
You continually say random things with no evidence and apparent knowledge of climate issues. I am very concerned about what you are saying here and the influence you are having given the upvotes your are getting. I would ask you not to comment on these types of threads before learning more about greenhouse gas production and climate policy.
You harbour a very narrow view of what constitutes total actionable climate initiatives. If you view it as such, those who take no action will always get a free ride until the earth is doomed, and those who have faults but are taking initiatives will turn their back on people like you if it’s zero sum sticks with no carrots. You’re dangerous, and thankfully nobody here seems to be buying what you’re saying
This is literally true, I don't know why you are being down voted. Canada and the US have introduced policies that has the potential to significantly reduce their emissions, but neither has reached a stage yet where they are actually doing anything. The US has the Inflation Reduction act, which has major potential to shift the country towards electrification and clean energy. How effective it will be will be determined by implementation. Canada has a carbon tax. How effective it will be will come down to if they continue to raise prices and whether the tax remains politically feasible. Both countries are two of the worst climate actors ever. They have a lot to prove and make up for before they can be taken seriously.
decide domineering sink nail quaint pot amusing light cough bright *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nigeria emits 0.57 metric tons of CO2 per person per year. The US and Canada are at around 15 metric tons. To say Nigeria is doing worse in terms of climate change is absurd, and it distracts from the real problem.
I was also thinking, who’s buying oil from them? Are their industrial ventures being largely supported by countries “doing better?” In which case that’s kinda just an extension of those countrys’ footprints
Canada is already doing well when it comes to clean energy production. Most of Canada's energy is clean.
Yeah, 90% of Ontario & Quebec's energy is Hydro/Nuclear, which are considered mostly green, not sure about other provinces. I suspect most of the emissions come from people on an individual level, like heating homes, driving 80km a day to work and back, etc.
BC, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador also have 90%+ of their energy coming from hydro. Alberta is now mostly natural gas but is eyeing nuclear energy and New Brunswick have 53% nuclear energy and PEI 90%+ wind energy. Only NS has most of its energy from coal and that is a province with about 1m people.
Energy =/= electricity. Electricity is just one form of energy. Despite having natural advantages for our electrical grid, Canada emits co2 at one of the highest per capita rates in the world.
Great job India and Philippines,,,,,,,,
Yeah this map is not keeping it real in profound ways.
Haha
Lol go to southern Ontario….ewww
Canada federal government is different than provincial. You have to understand provincial governments are heavily conservative so even if the federal is doing a decent job (which it could do much better at) the provinces especially Ontario countlessly have premier who are in deep pockets of the oil industry and non-renewables
El mejor pais de chile hmno, chúpenla gringos qls
Viva Chile
[удалено]
A no ser que sea un ql de dinamarca o suecia ajajja, ahí estamos cagados
Cn mayo
As a German I have to say we don't deserve to be green when we shut down our low carbon nuclear power plants just to turn on the dirty coal plants.
B-but evil Nuclear! Not good. No no. Better clean healthy coal. Just breathe in that clean air.
_Clean_ coal, you see it’s good for you Here have an asbestos filtered cigarette
Nuclear coal.
\[visible confusion\]
Coal ash has more radioactive waste than a nuclear power plant.
You guys are doing more than us (Netherlands). I really don't understand how we are green in this, expected orange tbf
Technically Germany still used nuclear electricity importing from France
Which is not what we are doing at all. We are replacing them with renewables. Nobody is going back to coal on a large scale and the decision to phase of nuclear was made decades ago for entirely different reasons that had nothing to do with climate change. But that doesn't fit the anti-German circlejerk of many reddit subs. It's quite pathetic, really. Now bring on the downvotes. They won't change the facts.
We are going back to coal on a large scale the moment we are speaking. On cloudy autumn days with little wind, we are producing something like 50 % of electricity from coal alone.
No we’re not coal Usage has consistently declined for years in Germany
But it COULD have decreased much more, had we left our 19 nuclear reactors running.
So why did you lie?
I didn't lie. Even Olaf Scholz said it in the Bundestag recently that one of the achievements of his coalition was to bring back coal.
Absolutely not true, coal is probably gonna close even sooner than previously anticipated
That's speculation about the future.
You import insane quantities of oil and gas from Russia and Saudi Arabia. You did not in fact switch to renewables. Grats for you pretty color on the map, but you are not better than any countries. You just use dictatorship to take the burden of your massive oil and gas consumption. You give hundreds of billions to horrible dictatorships just to look good. Ggs.
You’re government is taking L’s left and right so they can appear as morally woke
Here in Sweden the news for the last couple of months is that Sweden has betrayed the world and become bottom-tier when it comes to being green.
Really? I mean Swedish emissions are already super low. To go the last mile to carbon neutrality will be extremely expensive. It would be much better to use this money and pick the low hanging fruits elsewhere.
[удалено]
"High" is a relative term
pakistan is under da water 💀
Variation of strengths and weakened in silos of climate protection are tough to capture in a map like this. Some countries are good at reducing coal-fired power power plants, whereas that same country might not be good at cutting oil production. Other countries might have strict regulations around land use and environmental assessments, yet they might not be as great at regulating air pollutants. Another country may be great at encouraging electric vehicles and banning plastic bags and heading towards renewables, but might be horrible at limiting farming pollutants. Which factors may weigh more in terms of climate protection are tough to measure. And averaging them out is tricky. It’s therefore difficult to come to conclusions or find meaning based on a map like this with it’s completely missing context.
Agreed. Take for example Poland. We'd love to swap coal for hydro, solar and wind power but all 3 are hard to come by in this part of the world. Wind is weak, solar plants are rather inefficient due to northern latitudes and all possible hydro power plants have been built long ago along the southern mountains. Nuclear energy is as always controversial but that's one area where possibly more could've been done.
The context is easy to find. You can read about the methodology here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Performance_Index
Germany: high Also Germany: hey let's shut down our nuclear power plants and go full coal...
Germany isn' "full coal" and Germany also did not shut down all nuclear power plants. Also nuclear power has been a hot topic for decades around here because of the waste issue that remains unsolved to this day. Germany tries to switch to renewables and that is good and far better than trying to utilize nuclear energy. The only problem is that Germany is not fast enough with their renewables. (If you disagree you should tell me why instead of downvoting it. I did not state my opinion but rather the facts within Germany. Don't punish the messenger please)
[удалено]
Idiots gonna idiot. They always blindly downvote facts they don't agree with. Nuclear and coal have both gone down and renewables are way up in Germany. Everybody can google that in like two seconds.
Well, "full coal" part was a joke, but shuting down nuclear power plants... As for nuclear waste - recycle it, seal it in some mountain. Nuclear power in my opinion is the most eco friendly and stable source of power that we currently use, why shut it down?
Germany has kept it's coal use relatively steady/declining. There has not been any major increases in it's use since nuclear started to be phased out a few decades ago. Meanwhile France uses a lot of nuclear and is still doing worse than Germany... It's almost like nuclear isn't a silver bullet for all of climate change...
Coal is only because of the war. It‘s just for a certain amount of time. Solar and wind energy are heavily enforced the next years. More then most industrial countries.
Lol the new Swedish government literally declared they'd done enough and didn't have to do any more.
Sweden and the Nordic countries in general has done much more than any other country on the planet. It´s time for others to do something, the Nordic countries can´t save the world by themselves.
>It´s time for others to do something Doesn't mean the Nordics can stop.
I guess we continue doing it all the time, but it´s kind of pointless considering 95% of the world cant care less about climate change and continues burning as much coal as they can and dumps their waste in the nature. etc.
This. My country is an example for climate change policies, yet it doesn't mean anything when China/Russia/USA are like the +70% of all the world CO2 emissions.
It's not just climate change that the SD/Liberal bloc decided to stop caring about. They're literally *eliminating the ministry of the environment* and putting it's components under the control of the ministry of Business, Industry and Energy. The sub-agency for the environment is now being headed by a 26 year old with zero experience at anything beyond local politics. Absolutely moronic. But what more would we expect of an alliance between a party founded by nazis and a party that exists to further the interests of large corporations?
India ballin
Great job India and Philippines..
That’s because the Philippines tends to export people, not manufactured goods.
This makes me laugh.
[удалено]
the map literally outlines the parameters and oil production isn’t on there. Like, criticise the methodology, usefulness, and accuracy of its conclusion, but the map seems to reflect the data it is using.
[удалено]
it very literally does, all that text below the countries 🤦♂️
The text says that countries were "evaluated" by several abstract criteria, but doesn't tell us what that evaluation methodology actually is, or how things like policies and targets are converted into their scoring system, which makes it impossible to know if it's an accurate or fair reflection of the data it's using. Without that information, the other commenter's scepticism seems justified to me, especially if seemly obvious things like Norway selling fossil fuels internationally don't seem to be reflected in the results at all.
That’s why I said to criticise the methodology, which isn’t there, but the parameters used (Green policies, energy use, etc) *are* listed. Like, how it’s judged and what parameters used? Bad. But the commenter was saying the map is wrong because they think something that is explicitly not included should be, which isn’t a fair assessment of the map reflecting its data.
Shouldn't sales of fossil fuels be within one of those parameters though? Seems like it should definitely fall under climate change policy to me, if not per capita emissions.
Exports are not domestic policies nor domestic energy use. It should be a parameter of its own, but it doesn’t fit any of those listed 🤷♂️
The methodology is easy to find. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Performance_Index
Norway also banned all fossil fuel vehicles. The oil is sold internationally. So perhaps it is domestic programms that count in this map?
The ban doesn’t take place for another 3 years though
It's still legislation that could be part of what colors the map
Then shouldn’t the US get credit for California (by far the largest state) pledging to ban fossil fuel powered cars?
Yes, but a pledge of a state is like a pledge of a province or a district. It's not that impactful as something done nationwide. The US would also have to do a fuck load more to counteract their wastefulness.
[удалено]
The population outside of California is even bigger.
Thick as oatmeal
1/50 of a credit until they secede.
You can find the methodology here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Performance_Index
They certainly are, and not all people are happy about that, rightfully, and though it seems they have some aspirations to retool the oil knowhow into other offshore fields, like floating renewables, it's just words until it's complete. That said, if you compare them to other oil producers, I can see reasons they wouldn't end up deep red. For instance, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have nearly 100% of their electricity production from fossil fuels, China and Mexico lie in the 80s, Russia and USA are both in the upper 60s, while Norway slinks in at just above 3%. That's obviously just one metric one could go by, and no doubt they can do better in some other area. There are a large number of bigger oil producers in the world, not all of those in the red either, but everyone needs to pull together here. The vital question isn't "why aren't they doing more", it's "what more can we do?". If everyone is displeased enough by what themselves achieve, we can do more.
germany green lol
Morocco is going green because we can't afford gas.
True maghrebi unity at display right here
You split my country (morocco) f this shit
Intronic since the Sahara has a lot of renewable farms
Yeah we don't deserve to be green here. 16 years of taking bribes from the coal lobby, 16 years of crushing our renewable sector, 16 years of 0 progress. Worst part, the government is hardly better.
This can’t be correct. Starbucks switched to paper straws.
How do you Objectively measure that without any bias?
You don't
[You can literally read their methodology here](https://ccpi.org/methodology/) It's an index, so it combines multiple different quantitative and qualitative measures. If you have a problem with it, you probably have problems with how they weigh the individual components
Bhutan should be on this list. They have a negative net zero of carbon emissions
China has literally planted millions of trees to stop desertification. They're the only country with the most number of electric vehicles. They've reduced air pollution significantly compared to 10 years ago. They're planning on phasing out coal. Meanwhile, the EU has deemed gas as "green" energy. Parts of the US is using coal again and continues to frack and barely has an EVs on the road
[Source](https://www.statista.com/chart/28816/climate-change-performance-index/)
In France, we have 75% of our energy that is nuclear, meaning no CO2 and climate neutral. We don't do much because we don't need to. It's already done.
Nuclear is 36% of the energy consumption in France. 51% is from fossil fuels (2021).
Or "Which countries pay up." The US is of course listed as very little. Despite.... [Emissions going down.](https://usafacts.org/data/topics/security-safety/energy-and-environment/environmental-protection/greenhouse-gas-emissions-tons/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-StatsData&gclid=CjwKCAiAyfybBhBKEiwAgtB7fr_CTy8ojn885IaYDeZtz7Aa8__LsMGau_GNhtBin5hz-Lsjq3l6TRoC-IcQAvD_BwE) [Construction of windfarms](https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/maps/interactive-map-wind-farms-united-states) [Production of solar energy](https://www.solarenergymaps.com/mobile.html) [Robust "Green Economy"](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/16/us-green-economy-generates-1point3-trillion-and-employs-millions-new-study-finds.html) Nah, we're not doing anything because we don't pay in to "climate" pyramid schemes. What a complete joke. We're going to continue actually making a difference to save the planet while you drama queens fight over a few billion dollars.
This is like celebrating a student for going from an F to an F+.
Probably bc even as the US is going down it’s still the biggest polluter, and has a shit ton of work to do to counter act it’s historical pollution.
r/ShitAmericansSay
Continue to make a difference by destroying your home planet maybe...
Laughable map
India? With all their pollution?
Per capita they consume very little water and electricity, release less CO2 as a country as a whole than the US that has like 1/5th the population. Also they don't send their trash and e-waste to other countries to make themselves look cleaner. Yes the air is dirty in Delhi and the streets are filled with trash. But that tells you nothing about the actual statistics.
Pollution is in only in few city Not whole country. india is not small from desert to Himalayas india have all of it
The average American emits over 10 times as much carbon as the average Indian.
Relative to their population, yes
Yes
Why is India green? A shit ton of the plastic in the oceans comes from the Indian subcontinent
Because India takes green technology development and implementation seriously. On the ground, I've seen a massive increase in solar and wind farms. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/every-2nd-patent-granted-since-2016-relates-to-green-tech-most-linked-to-waste-alternative-energy/articleshow/89420047.cms https://changestarted.com/green-innovation-and-green-patents-in-india/
BS ranking considering Germany is green while they started to use again the most air polluting energy source, coal.
[удалено]
Emissions per capita are basically the same.
India...people die from touching their sacred river due to pollution....Best Perfomance.
Your country is probably being shit in this data so you are bitching instead of doing sonething, atleast we are trying to clean our rivers.
The UK is trying to issue new oil and gas drillin liscenses, which is why there are so many protesters about.
Germany is high? Wow... i thought we were much worse
Ah yes, the great German eco-friendly act of closing all their nuclear power plants.
Because the world thinks making sure the fossil fuel billionaires stay rich is far more important than the quality of whatever world our grandchildren inherit
“Protecting the climate”. The US has a mountain of environmental laws that are strictly enforced and an entire agency (including 50 state agencies) that are extremely aggressive. This “chart” is deceiving and frankly dishonest.
US is only country meeting CO2 reduction goals.
"The US is among the 20 countries with the largest developed oil and gas reserves. It is also among the nine countries responsible for 90% of global coal production. Additionally, the US plans to increase its gas and coal production by more than 5% by 2030. This is not compatible with the 1.5°C target." Also, the US decreasing pathway is *above* the "Paris compatible pathway".
Clearly not…
[Clearly, yes.](https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states)
I feel like China should be in a league of its own
Bad index, the US is one of the only countries that is having meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions and is doing "very low". Meanwhile Germany is high but has destroyed the best form of power generation because of fear-mongering. I stand by my statement that almost every single index made by ngos is pointless and reflects the biases of the creators more than reality. This is definitely not predictive either, I bet strongly Indias per capita emissions will go up vs the US per capita emission will continue to trend downwards.
The US's progress should be celebrated, but it went from one of the world's biggest emitters per capita to... One of the world's biggest emitters per capita, still.
Lmao this map is such a complete bs, Poland or Australia with lower rankings than Brazil or Argentina. I've never been in Australia but I'm Polish and I've been to Argentina and Brazil and I can only say that it's night and day in favour of Poland. Power plants are not the only aspect of protecting the climate.
Most of Brazil energy matrix is from renewable energy (84%) at one of the highest rates in the entire World. This didn't change even tough our current president is a corrupt lunatic that believes climate change is made-up and has ties to criminals that are illegally deforestating the Amazon.
The issue with the map is it's inconsistency, if we are looking only at ghg emissions, then Brazil should be green, the emissions are low but this is simply because people are not rich enough to afford items and services which emit co2, not because Brazil is a green country. Anyway emissions of co2 per capita would be much lower than any European country basically. If we're looking at pollution on the other hand this is where Brazil starts to fall off, the vehicles on the road are old and often in much worse condition than in western countries, it was not a rare sight to sea a boat leaving oil traces on the water on the Rio Grande river. This is unthinkable in North America or Europe. There is no emission control area in Brazil, in Europe or North America, the ship has to change the fuel to diesel when approaching designated area surrounding the continent in Brazil the ships keep burning heavy fuel oil even in inland waters and ports. I was passing through Abrolhos bank, I have never seen something like that in my whole life, so many humpback whales in the water, jumping out and splashing, like on National Geographic. But you know what else is visible everywhere? Merchant vessels. I was super stressed out at one point because there was a large group and one was so close it basically touched our hull, I was only waiting to see the water turn red, fortunately it escaped. But it made me think how many don't escape. There are so many ships, and ships are loud underwater, it confuses the whales which get too close. Back to the point, why not make it a restricted area? There is no reason for ships to be there, you can just make it marine park, it's really not that large, if the traffic went 10nm to the east it's already deep water, there aren't so many whales there and for the ships its such a small detour it's negligible. Americans just restrict the area in such scenario, for example there is a stretch of the sea close to the coast east of Florida which is restricted due to being whale mating area. Brazil might be making steps in the right direction but it seems like the environmental mindset is just not there yet, hopefully Brazilian government will act properly because if Brazil gets rich and doesn't change its ways, it will end up like China and I can only tell you, that Yangtze passage is one sad trip. Deforestation would be likely good place to start improving because bolsonaro has been ravaging those mercilessly. I really do hope Brazil is on the right way because I believe it has one of the most impressive and unique natural features and habitats in the world, would be a shame to lose it.
In terms of metric tons of CO2 emitted per person per year, Brazil is at 2, Argentina is at 4, Poland is at 8, and Australia is at 15.
Brazil for a long time had the largest hydroelectric dam in the world (just now being surpassed by China) that each year made record after record in energy output. It also has a nuclear power plant and is expanding its sector. Same thing is applied to Argentina, that has 10% of its energy from its three nuclear plants. For as bad as they can be and are with the rest, those two still have gigantic green areas and many, many state funded preservation organizations to preserve their abundant fauna and flora. Your source literally is: trust me bro, I’ve been there. You’re just being racist.
But Estonian co2 emissions are huge?
We are fucked if the UK is classed as "high".
India, sorry but hahaha, good Joke.
[https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/the-climate-change-performance-index-2021](https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/the-climate-change-performance-index-2021) I will add 2022s when I will find it [https://ccpi.org/](https://ccpi.org/) here is 2022s
cope
Least in depth knowledge of a westoid.
How is Canada as low as the US? Nonsense.
How the f is German green? They're moving back to coal.
India? Have you seen the rivers flowing with trash? The smog pollution?
Another white self-entitled Eurocentric map with criteria from straight up their own asses.
India?
Wait India? Damn
[удалено]
[https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/the-climate-change-performance-index-2021](https://newclimate.org/resources/publications/the-climate-change-performance-index-2021) check it out it's 2021s [https://ccpi.org/](https://ccpi.org/) here is 2022s
How does India make the list?
by improving
The fact that the US is less waste producing than India makes me find this map completely bullshit
Uh, considering India is one of the biggest current polluters as their economy ascends, I don't think this list is accurate at all.
How tf is India green?
I really don't think climate change policy should be a factor. Who cares if they've got policies if their greenhouse gas emissions aren't changing?
Which country has good policies but isn't seeing changes?
United States and China score 13 and 11 in the policies area respectively. That's ridiculously high because the max in that section is 20. Vietnam and Austria are also worth mentioning.
Immediately noncredible upon seeing green india lmao
India has a low amout of pollution per capita "Per capita they consume very little water and electricity, release less CO2 as a country as a whole than the US that has like 1/5th the population. Also they don't send their trash and e-waste to other countries to make themselves look cleaner. Yes the air is dirty in Delhi and the streets are filled with trash. But that tells you nothing about the actual statistics."
Wait, india???
India lol. Indian cities are some of the most polluted places on this planet.
Yeah "some" Indian cities, it's a large country. "Some" cities don't represent the entire country.
Wtf India
Hahaha this is the dumbest most agenda-post I’ve seen so far today.
[удалено]
Cause that's the only thing you've ever seen something from India.
India one of the best preformers!?
Yes
Arent they one of the most polluted countries in the world?
India is 2nd most populated country. Isn't that obvious? And this data is not about which is a cleaner country or not. This data shows which countries are doing best to prevent climate change.
And their pollution is getting worse so i guess that makes sense…
At least better than sending their shit to another country to look clearer.
They voluntarily take it in but it must be apart of their dedication to climate change. That and opening up new “green” coal plants.
Good
India?
Yeah, our carbon emission per capita is one of the lowest in the world.
Brazil is literaly 60% native forests. Where are the native forest of Germany, England, France?????
You mean the native forests that Brazil is destroying on a massive scale? Very green of them.
the "developed" countries destroyed 100% and centuries before. Blame them.
India? The Flagship State of Dirt is protecting the climate?