Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Watch a City-Sized Glacier Collapse
- Around the World, A 'Billion Rise' to Fight Violence Against Women and Girls
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
Popular content
Today's Top News
Anti-Poverty Index Scores US Last on Environment Policies
United Nations - Despite its enormous wealth and phenomenal growth in technological inventions, the United States remains far behind other industrialized countries in trying to help poor nations embark on the path of development, a new study by an independent think tank concludes.
The United States ranks last of 21 rich countries on the environment component of this year's Commitment to Development Index (CDI), according to the Center for Global Development (CGD), a Washington, DC-based research and policy organization.
The Index, produced annually by the Center, ranks high-income industrialized countries on how well their polices and actions support poor countries' efforts to build prosperity, good governance, and security.
As explained by the Center's researchers, the scoring adjusts for size, leveling the playing field for large and small countries. The environment component is just one of seven policy areas that comprise the CDI. The other components include aid, trade, investment, migration, security, and technology.
The Index shows Norway on the top among the industrialized nations in the area of environment in development, followed by Ireland, Finland, and Britain. In the industrialized world, Spain has benched as "the second worst" on the environment, preceded by Australia and Canada.
When all seven categories are considered, the Netherlands comes in first on the 2007 CDI on the strength of its ample aid-giving, falling greenhouse gas emissions, and support for investment in developing countries. Close behind are three more big aid donors: Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are among those tying for fifth. The United States comes in fourteenth, and Japan places last again this year.
"Overall standings in the Index were little changed from last year, because countries' policies and practices towards development tend to change slowly," said research fellow David Roodman, who is the report's lead author.
Comparing the U.S. policy on the environment component to other rich countries, Roodman described it as a disaster, saying: "The U.S. can do much better. It has the money, technology, and entrepreneurial flare to be a global environmental leader."
The United States comes in last due partly to extremely high greenhouse gas emissions per capita (over 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per person) and the lowest gasoline taxes of all 21 countries in the Index. The United States also loses points for its refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty, the most significant global effort to deal with climate change.
"There is a growing body of evidence that developing countries will suffer first and worst from climate change," said CGD president Nancy Birdsall. "Americans aren't accustomed to being the bad guys. I hope by next year the U.S. will have moved up in these rankings."
A recent study by William Cline, a senior fellow at CGD, concludes that developing countries will suffer an average 10- to 25-percent decline in agricultural productivity by the 2080s if the current emissions trend continues the way it is.
By contrast, rich countries, which typically have lower average temperatures, will experience a "much milder" or "even positive" effect of climate change, according to Cline. His colleague David Wheeler, who was involved in another recent research project on the subject, agrees. Wheeler predicts that sea level rise as a result of global warming would force 90 million people out of their homes, many of them in the river deltas of Bangladesh, Egypt, and Vietnam.
Because of the potentially far-reaching affects of climate change on poor countries, policies in this area account for the 60 percent of total score in the CDI environment component. Biodiversity accounts for 30 percent while fisheries constitute the remaining 10 percent.
The report also examines many other aspects of development commitments, such as migration. The section on migration looks at how receptive a country is to accepting migrants for work or study.
It ranks Austria first for accepting the most migrants relative to its size, with Switzerland not far behind. In the report, at the bottom is Japan, whose population of unskilled workers from developing countries actually shrank during the 1990s.
The United States, a nation founded by immigrants, scores a surprisingly mediocre 4.7. (Scores range from 1.3 to 10.4 on the migration component.) "For its size, its inflow of legal immigrants and refugees is actually low compared to many European nations," said Roodman.
The report also questions the notion that pro-migration policies in wealthy countries lead to brain drain from poorer nations. Researchers say that in Africa, for example, a multitude of factors cause doctors and nurses to leave countries, and negative health outcomes, like infant mortality, should not be blamed on migration policies abroad.
"Far more ails African clinics and hospitals than a lack of personnel," said CGD research fellow Michael Clemens. "Personnel shortages themselves result from many forces untouched by international migrations policies, such as low pay and poor working conditions."
The publication of the index is a significant marker for developed countries. "Both the Netherlands and Finland now use our index as an official measure of development performance," CGD's Roodman said.
© 2007 One World
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
10 Comments so far
Show AllLet's see:
The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway make up the top four, with Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are all fighting for 5th place, with the US at 14th. No surprise there of course, for anyone who gives a crap about things like this. (sarcasm) What might be a surprise however - to the "let the market fix it" folks - is that every single one of the top 4 nations are social democracies, though each very different versions in their own right.
The reality is, these countries think along the lines of equality of condition as their ultimate ideal, as opposed to equality of opportunity, which is a damn farce, and happens to be the theory that has been propagandized to the American sheeple since for way too long.
GLOBAL WARMING REMISS
It is remarkable that it takes studies such as this to alert many to the impending dangers from global warming, which has been obvious to anyone who had made even minor efforts to be informed. The evidence linking carbon pollution to warming is as close to certain as science can be. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists, and chronicled in the press for years.
The dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data used by this administration to conceal and derail corrective measures for this threat and other vital environmental reforms has also been apparent. Contrary to their assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our opposition Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution.
Often overlooked is the fact that the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were not an issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution and related environmental measures can only worsen if we allow these destructive environmental policies of this reckless and unlearned president to continue.
"Comparing the U.S. policy on the environment component to other rich countries, Roodman described it as a disaster...." If Bu$hCo had a conscience they would simply 'resign', for such a dreadfully malevolent impact on the rest of humanity. Of course, since they are psychopathic war criminals [i.e. there is no conscience]; so don't hold your breath...
Great post, leobixby, you're right on the money (no pun intended).
The movement towards unfettered free market agendas over the past 35 years has changed the face of America dramatically. While the Keynesian approaches have been dismantled, and replaced by Friedmanism, our safety nets are increasingly being shredded and discarded. As we are forced (or "shocked", as Naomi Klein's wonderful book, The Shock Doctrine, explains) into increasingly more privatization, from formally publicly-performed functions (i.e., disaster response and raising armies), The United States will certainly fall further down the list.
Haider Rizvi's article certainly says something for mixed economies, doesn't it?
Countries like Norway, Denmark,and Netherlands have a very different outlook on the role of government. It helps that they have been spared the role of being Leader Of The Free World, which we have appropriated as our thankless burden. So while our military/corporate hegemony metasticizes globally, we objectify people and nature for our personal use, abuse, exploitation, and/or destruction. But the future of this strategy is short; a sustainable cycle of prosperity requires giving as well as taking.
The U.S also ranks last as far as helping their own poor and our government should be ashamed. The U.S. and Bush and his cronies and the Republicans haven't the decency to provide afordable medical insurance for our children or for the elderly and poor. This administration is by far the stingiest ever to take hold of our so called land of the free. Let Bush and his compadres go the emergency room when they are ill and see how they like it. Selfishness and ignorance define these narrow minded leaders and like Bush, have destroyed the many envionmental laws that liberals have spent years working for clean air, pure water, and preservation of our forests.
Leobixby is right, "What might be a surprise however - to the "let the market fix it" folks - is that every single one of the top 4 nations are social democracies." What many progressives in the USA fail to address is that those successful social democracies have strict immigration policies. This is an inconvenient fact that many of my fellow progressives are irresponsibly silent about. The exploding US immigrant population is social and environmental suicide. But gee on second thought, maybe 300 billion people in the USA isn't enough for the environmentalists. Maybe 400 billion is better.
rrivera,
I think you need to take a tour of London, Copenhagen or even Dublin before you write that the top-rated nations don't have large immigrant populations.
Ahhh dialogue. Yes! It first starts with educating ourselves. Ecofuture, click here: http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/books_us.html
We progressives can promote either environmental sustainability, or the pseudo-intellectualism of multiculturalism. I'll let individuals reach their own conclusions.
SHAME on the US OLIGARCHY!!
"The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
ONE is the campaign to make poverty history:
http://one.org/
——————–