cannibalism and clean air

According to the "world green list", the UK is ranked fifth best for general environmentalism in the world. The US, of course, falls far behind the rest at 28.

According to the judges:

"Good governance emerges as as a critical driver of environmental performance," the report said...

..The US had the best water quality in the world, but was ranked low on energy. On individual issues, the UK scored highly on environmental health but did not score highly on greenhouse gas emissions, or air quality.

The top score in air quality was earned by Uganda.

The top scores in sustainable energy were in Uganda, Laos, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I don't know if they're still eating people in Uganda, but they do in the Democratic Republic of Congo, specifically UN representatives. The Congo is in a state of chaos, with a civil war that has taken millions of lives.

Are these environmentalists suggesting that this is the sort of good governance we should copy in the US?

[Link thanks to Norm Geras]

Posted by Mary Madigan on Wednesday January 25, 2006 at 10:46am
double-plus-ungood (www):
Now, I'd classify that as cherry picking. How did the DRC and Uganda score in overall environmental performance? The "good governance" remark was aimed at those scoring high overall in healthy environmental practices, not just air quality.
1.25.2006 12:06pm
mary (mail) (www):
cherry picking? I call it 'windbag bursting'. However, I should be concerned about the amount of methane this releases into the air.
1.25.2006 1:19pm
double-plus-ungood (www):
Put you didn't answer the point. How did DRC and Uganda score overall? If they were high, then your windbag bursting makes a good point. If they didn't, then it doesn't.
1.25.2006 2:03pm
double-plus-ungood (www):
Sigh. Make the first sentence start with "But..", not "Put..." My typing is in the crapper these days. Must be age.
1.25.2006 2:07pm
mary (mail) (www):
How did DRC and Uganda score overall?

I don't know, since the Guardian didn't publish the results and I'm too lazy to look for them. But, given the Guardian's history of cherry picking, I'd guess that they scored pretty high.
1.25.2006 2:21pm
double-plus-ungood (www):
Not sure why you think the Guardian is cherry picking when the quote you object to came from The World Economic Forum.
1.25.2006 2:33pm
double-plus-ungood (www):
I don't know, since the Guardian didn't publish the results and I'm too lazy to look for them.

Okay, I did the heavy lifting. Uganda and the Congo scored low overall, 57th and 39th, and would have probably fared far worse if their economies were in decent enough shape to support industry.

So it looks like you didn't have much of a point after all.
1.25.2006 2:44pm
mary (mail) (www):
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting, but not only does it prove my point, it proves that these 'greens' aren't just windbags, they're completely morally obtuse.

Cannibalist Congo scored 39th out of 124 countries. According to the windbag's assessment, that makes their 'governing' much better than average. It makes this civil-war torn nation only slightly worse than the USA.

Of course, the Congo would have fared far worse if the economy was functioning well enough to feed and clothe the people.

Surveys like this give environmentalism a bad name. I wonder if cannibalism brought their score up, as a form of inventive recycling. I wouldn't put it past these greens.
1.26.2006 10:46am
double-plus-ungood (www):
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting, but not only does it prove my point, it proves that these 'greens' aren't just windbags, they're completely morally obtuse.

I see. So, in your opinion, what does account for good national environmental practices if not good government? Keeping in mind that most of the top scorers on this index are not the Congo or Uganda, that is.
1.26.2006 1:57pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?