Sweden currently has the edge here in the race to be green as we see it due to a modest ecological footprint relative to its advanced state of industrialization and high standard of living. Sweden has miniscule reliance on fossil fuels for electric power, less than 5% overall. Nuclear energy and hydropower each provide about half of electric generating capacity. Sweden currently has about 40% renewable energy overall and is targeting 50% by 2020. It plans to add wind capacity and replace existing nuclear reactors with new ones, which we are uncertain about.

Norway is one of the world's top five exporters of oil and gas and they continue to believe in the efficacy of underground carbon sequestration. We do not. Our position is very evident from many comments made herein at this website that the opportunity costs and environmental risks are unacceptable. Furthermore, Norway has made questionable carbon-intensive fossil fuel investments. However, Norway did succeed in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 2.2% in 2008 which is good performance. The goal of the government is to be 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to have zero net carbon releases by 2030. Norway is considering banning new purely-gasoline-powered automobiles starting in 2015.

Norway has clearly been a worldwide leader on the environmental front especially in slowing deforestation and forest ecosystem degradation. Norway has funded and helped several countries develop plans for a greener future and they expend effort to have same act faster which is always refreshing to hear. Some 99% of their domestic energy for electricity comes from hydro power. Norway plans on developing significant wind power mostly for export. Norwegian industry are pioneering various demonstration efforts such as wind power being used to produce hydrogen so fuel cell energy can be tapped when the wind dies. Norway has a hydrogen highway, too.

Germany is currently ranked second worldwide in installed wind power capacity and should finish 2009 in second place in solar energy use after the US. Germany has developed renewable energy sources for about 15% of its needs already, and are aiming to boost that percentage appreciably to 30% by 2020, perhaps to 45% by 2030 and to 95% by 2050 which is very commendable and hopeful for the future. We hope they can inspire others to follow their lead. However, erecting vast offshore wind generation capacity as planned in just a few years time will be a big challenge. Fossil fuel use in Germany was cut by nearly 6% in 2007 and carbon dioxide emissions by 2.4%. Further, Germany is aiming to reduce CO2 emissions 36% by 2020. Germany has seen a tremendous contribution from rooftop solar installations. We'd very much like to visit Marburg.

However, we wonder what's going on in places like Grevenbroich and throughout the Rhine Valley for that matter? We are not really going to construct more coal-fired power stations are we? Coal still drives almost half of electricity generating capacity which is unacceptable. We think the days of pollution freebies are over, so Germany, the EU or any other jurisdiction should not encourage building of any new coal plants nor the hand-out of free carbon emissions permits to utilities or anyone else. The idea to mix coal with plant biomass is at best a stop-gap measure. The main problem that should be monitored is Germany remains too reliant on dirty brown lignite for power which must be ratcheted back or eliminated. There has been a move to greater use of bituminous coal rather than brown coal. Even though Germany is still in-line with its Kyoto commitments, hideous amounts of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide belch from coal-burning power stations. The plan apparently in the EU generally is for this unsavory situation to continue until at least 2020. Its very conceivable Germany could be downgraded by us as they test our confidence limit with an ongoing commitment to coal especially in light of the fact Germany is historically the third highest per capita generator of climate warming pollution. We use tubas to trumpet an emphatic no to the idea of approving "capture ready" coal-fired power plants.

Switzerland and Austria have predominant service sectors that generate relatively few pollutants. As such, their energy use per unit of output is comparable to that of Germany. Approximately two-thirds of electric power derives from hydro sources in both these countries. Switzerland's per capita carbon footprint remains too luxurious. Transportation and space heating emissions are too high. Perhaps there are too many log fireplaces burning. Austria still has too many coal and oil-fuelled power plants and industrial complexes. There are an overabundance of piggish trucks on the roads heading to this or that country in Europe. We think Austrians have the mindset to become very eco-conscious. We anticipate they will further reduce conspicuous consumption, the demands on their country's ecosystems and cut back on waste being generated. Tiny Liechtenstein is a story similar to Austria and Switzerland and their emissions have been heading down.

We now know that methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased globally since sometime during 2006. This news is very unwelcome and potentially alarming as methane is about 23 times as powerful a heat-trapping gas as carbon dioxide. Further, so far scientists do not appear to have a comprehensive answer as to why methane is again on the increase. The problem in Argentina is that somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of Argentina's total greenhouse gas emissions come from methane produced by livestock, especially cows. Argentina has about 50 million grazing ungulates and is a huge beef producer. Their cattle eat a lot of grass but that diet, as do the usual other cow diets observed across many countries, unfortunately generates a huge amount of methane belching.

We believe the development paths to date of these four countries are very worthy of encouragement, patronage and support from all of us. We are big believers in environmental levies on the perpetrators of pollution. If we want the cost efficiencies associated with marketplace dynamics, our politicians have to have the backbone to stand up to one and all to let them know there is no other way than adopting cost accounting and financial analysis that includes external environmental costs. Otherwise, decision making will not be based on full cost accounting and the invisible hand of markets will not operate as intended. So, while we are pushing the GET as described later on this webpage, we are for anything that can help solve environmental problems before they become unmanageable. In principle, we support efforts in these areas of the world to pay for, and invest in, protection and conservation of nature. We need to preserve those rainforests.

Its entirely  possible for countries such as these to skip facets of their smokestack economic development and proceed directly to green chemistry, clean technologies, low-carbon power and eco-tourism. People are already working on advancing carbon trading type solutions for these places. Preservation of rainforests and biological diversity is critically important in each of these countries. Happily, so far ecosystems are largely intact and the population has not been overwhelming mother nature.

 Hydropower is well-developed so use of fossil fuels is relatively modest. Most people live in a limited number of large metro urban areas such as Brazzaville, Republic of Congo or Libreville, Gabon. Brazzaville has choking air pollution from old vehicles and inefficient industries. Also, the water is mostly undrinkable and dysentery remains a major cause of illness and untimely death. There is entrenched fighting and dislocation in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo which creates the conditions for localized pollution and deforestation from illegal or careless harvesting of natural resources. But it appears these activities have so far caused relatively modest environmental impacts relative to ecological carrying capacity.

Guyana is another country where very promising conservation activity is expected to occur in a significant way. Guyanese are cooperating with other countries such as Norway to pioneer schemes to reduce deforestation and forest degradation in their country. Suriname has significant tropical rainforest and biodiversity that, for the most part, remains in tact. They rely on hydropower for three-quarters of their electricity production.

Nevertheless, its not all kisses and roses in these places either. For example, in Fiji, the Qawa and Labwa rivers need to be cleaned up and industry straightened-out about exactly what they put into those rivers. They must realize people eat the fish and drink the water from there so why pollute it so much? Historically, Fiji has allowed very-high-sulphur-diesel fuel grades to be burned. They should reduce sulphur levels allowed in the atmosphere to far below the current 500 parts per million.

In Seychelles, half the land area is protected as they have been environmentally friendly for a long time already. They plan to keep developers from being overzealous. Rightfully, increased domestic food production should be a higher priority than having more tourist spots. Comoros can improve its balance of payments and get off current heavy reliance on fossil fuels for power by developing geothermal energy from volcanoes.    

Paraguay exports huge amounts of electric power. It has had a moratorium on deforestation such that the vast majority of illegal logging has already been curtailed. We are less enamored with Bolivia due mostly to our skepticism and uncertainty regarding their state economic development plans in the Amazon Basin and elsewhere. But, for now, their environmental record appears to be good enough with respect to the ability of Bolivia's natural areas to remain vital despite various human activities. However, we wonder and worry that as the government gets increasingly involved mucking around in more and more segments, gray days are very possibly in the future for Bolivia. Better to let private enterprises operate and have regulators, government and police monitor and ride herd on them to ensure they perform and do not unduly degrade the environment in the course of doing business there. For example, in the development of lithium carbonate resources, processing of it could potentially lead to unacceptable emissions of noxious chemicals like sulphur dioxide. Bolivia also has significant untapped gas reserves. These reserves may be needed because the outlook for hydropower is not so rosey. Bolivia already has big water scarcity problems arising from disappearance of more than three-quarters of key glaciers. Vast glaciers and snowpack areas in existence since before the last Ice Age over 10,000 years ago have melted away.

In Nepal, routine slash-and-burn blazes in bone-dry conditions have inadvertently spread and raging wildfires have devastated mid-altitude and high elevation forests. Nepal has already documented increased carbon emissions from its soil and longer-living, more prolific insects and bacteria due to incremental increase in temperature affecting their valleys, plains and other arable land at lower elevations. Particulate levels soar in Kathmandu most of the time.

The poor people of these countries may now keep one eye on the food bowl, the other on swollen glacial lakes at risk of bursting in the Himalayas or plateau areas somewhere upstream. Deforestation from overuse of wood as a fuel and the apparent lack of any alternative for so many people could mean the current pattern of degradation, mass wasting and soil erosion will be difficult to stop. Predicaments like the aforementioned could end disastrously for many people in these countries if floods result. Not only from flash flooding, there are problems with contamination of the water supply so potable water is hard to come by.

These three economies are still at the beginning stages of development which often means installations and powered-infrastructure are inefficient, outdated. Infrastructure is limited especially in rural, remote and high-elevation areas. These days, lack of industrialization should be perceived as an opportunity: the conception now is to skip smokestack infrastructure and industrial development and proceed directly to low-carbon economic development. Conserve the ecosystems that remain before its too late.

Fortunately, these three countries are magnets for tourists, in particular, more adventurous or eco-conscious ones. So with some external help, they have half-a-chance to bypass reliance on gross, inefficient, polluting industrialization and fossil fuel use in favor of mostly-clean power and a heavily services-oriented structure and way of life.

Maldives now has an ambitious plan to be carbon-neutral in about a decade. Solar and wind power are slated to replace widespread reliance on fossil fuels. Maldives has experienced depletion of freshwater aquifers as supply is utilized and saltwater incursions continue to transgress inland. Vast tracts of land at elevations less than two meters above sea level leaves residents here in a precarious position.

As we have noted on this webpage, Kiribati is in big danger from global rise of sea level and, as a corollary, having their lagoon latrines flushed for them by the incursion of saltwater. The authorities of Kiribati are currently looking for some kind of escape hatch for their people and we can fully understand that viewpoint. Similarly, Tuvalu is in big trouble due to threat of submergence of their coral atolls which have pretty meager elevation relative to current sea level. The submergence risk meter is also reading perilously-high in the long term view for Tonga. 

The vast majority of land in The Bahamas is at an elevation less than two meters above sea level so the risk of inundation is quite worrisome here. As well, Antigua and Barbuda is mostly low lying area. Dominica is very vulnerable to flash floods and hurricanes. However, they do have significant highland areas where people can put into effect a minimalist solution to storm surges by seeking refuge there if need be.

Mauritius and Solomon Islands have many degraded coral reefs or ones that have already met their demise.

The 2004 Boxing Day tsunami had a devastating impact on Sri Lanka. It was not related to global warming, rather to an earthquake subsea. Renewable energy sources comprise only about 4% of energy use, however, they aim for a 10% share by 2017. Sri Lanka has various problems with industrial effluents, sewage and groundwater contamination. Kidney ailments have become widespread. Dengue and rat fever, hepatitis and more abound near various garbage dumps. In Sedawatte near Colombo, a public hygiene disaster scene hangs like an albatross around the necks of residents.

Jamaica's emissions have been somewhat high on a per capita basis relative to other island economies and deforestation has run amok. So far, Jamaica has only about 6% of electricity arising from renewable energy sources but it will likely increase markedly in the years to come with the advent of waste-to-energy plants and biodiesel projects. We strongly suggest Jamaican industry do not use coal to fuel their operations.

Solar water heating is widespread in Barbados already. St. Kitts - Nevis have plans to construct partially-collapsible wind farms that can withstand hurricanes. Wind energy is to power 40% of their electrical grid. This should dramatically-cut overall use of dirty diesel fuel. St. Lucia and Grenada should stop listening to eco-risk-taking fossil fuel madcaps pushing high-carbon, syrupy stuff like charcoal, oil, etc. Instead, start banana briquette businesses to help fuel your own economic future and reduce emissions, too! Then trumpet what you did to the world because we think tourists will adore you for it.

Ditto for the rest here including Lithuania where more than three-quarters of electric power is based on nuclear energy. Monaco imports its electricity from France and Andorra from France and Spain so we also include them here. We recognize they are on a path to become carbon-neutral. As nuclear technology improves, there exists the possibility of reusing nuclear fuel and waste such that the amount of nuclear waste material that ultimately remains as a byproduct of nuclear power generation decreases markedly and becomes less hazardous to handle, store, dispose of and reintegrate into the Earth's environment.

In Finland, about one-fifth of electric power comes from hydro sources and about 40% from fossil fuels. One-third of power comes from nuclear plants. In Belgium, they are driven some 60% by nuclear energy.

We need absolute reductions and big ones from the most egregious polluters and we need it soon. Being 8% below 1990 levels by 2020 is too weak-kneed an objective especially if you are the fifth biggest greenhouse gas emitter on Earth and have population density on the high-side. A 2% improvement in commitment spread over about 10 years? We don't think so. Very soon now we all have to reduce expected greenhouse gases by at least that amount each and every year until at least 2050 or Mother Earth will be on her knees. Relying on corporate volunteering to solve global climate change is woefully inadequate and, we believe, is apt to end disastrously if pursued as general policy. We like how Japan are quantifying industrial pollution targets for various sectors but we need teeth in implementation not dipsey-doodling around. Japan produces little fossil fuels and places a hearty tax on use of fossil fuel even though they remain approximately 60% dependent on fossil fuels for electric power.

We very much look forward to seeing eco-rigs off Japan's coast! Being situated along the Pacific Rim of Fire, Japan has more than 100 active volcanoes. Belatedly, various Japanese entities are beginning to become serious about developing Japan's geothermal power sources. Japan needs to ramp up utilization of renewable energy beyond 15% by 2019. Japan currently generates about 10% of its electricity needs from renewable sources and relies on nuclear power for about 30% of total electrical output. It now has a solar energy feed-in tariff scheme to promote small-scale returns of power to the electrical grid. No diesel-burning vehicles are allowed in Tokyo, period. Of course, Japan is known around the world for its pioneering hybrid gas-electric and fuel cell automobiles. There already are some hydrogen highways in Japan so fuel cell cars are on the road there. We also have millions of e-bikes on the streets of Japan.

Belize and Panama have challenges resulting from more rapid development and tourism. Then there is the Panama Canal and all the sulfate aerosols associated with ship traffic burning bunker fuel. Nicaragua's water is suspect and you are discouraged from drinking water from, or swimming in, Lake Managua any time soon. The consequences would not be pretty - you would be at considerable risk of coming away with malaria, dengue fever or some sort of diarrheal disease.

San Jose has serious air pollution including ozone, particulates and even the potential neurotoxin, manganese. We think the key to cutting greenhouse gas emissions here is to motivate Costa Ricans to use bicycles, hybrid electric bikes, mass transportation and fuel efficient vehicles. Hydropower accounts for some 80% of electricity generation and further development of geothermal energy from hot volcanic sources is planned. We understand Costa Ricans have grandiose plans to become carbon-neutral by 2021. Costa Rica has been something of a pioneer in recognizing the monetary value of ecosystem services. For a relatively small country, there are lots of tourists jetting in and out which is problematic for emissions totals attributable to Costa Rica. Costa Ricans do have mechanisms for incoming tourists to reduce their guilt by paying for preservation of their rainforests about $5 per ton of estimated carbon emissions generated from travelling. We recognize that people in Costa Rica plant millions of plants, shrubs and trees every year and incentivize protection of forests. However, they still need to dissuade many poachers and encroachers. Overly rapid real estate and plantation development in Costa Rica is said to have created conditions that led to elimination of about one half the monkeys in the country. Widespread application of agricultural chemicals needs to be curtailed.

Sao Tome and Principe has had few resources but the possibility of sudden change for the better is very real due to its position in Gulf of Guinea vis-a-vis offshore oil prospects. Assuming they are not manhandled by the rough and tumble oil business, they have a chance to develop nicely similar to Angola and Equatorial Guinea but lagging them in time.

Let's set aside our tendency to cut down the next tree for wood as fuel. Instead, we encourage these countries to seriously-entertain widespread use of sun-dried banana briquettes made from compressed banana peels, banana leaves, banana stems and sawdust. This banana-based fuel apparently burns cleanly, slowly and evenly so it's suitable for cooking and space heating. Contact Nottingham University engineers in UK about it because they could very well be onto something very promising in this regard. Sometimes all there is left to fear about change is change itself because the new and better way is right there before you.

About one quarter of Rwanda's people do not have access to water that is safe to drink, however, programs are apparently in place to help most of the population solve this dilemma by 2012. Drought has also affected Lesotho and Swaziland. Where there is a shortage of useable water, a food shortage may soon follow. Swaziland is in an especially vulnerable position. The incidence of malaria has been high. Hopefully, we will not have an epidemic of cholera spreading in from Zimbabwe. Swaziland's carbon footprint is near zero per capita and Lesotho's is very modest indeed.

Ghana has lost a lot of valuable habitat such that only one-quarter of tropical forest lands remain. Tap water, or lack thereof, has even become a big issue even in Accra. Vast regions of Ghana's Volta Delta are vulnerable to marine incursion as the ocean rises by about two centimeters each year. Further, places like Ghana and Ivory Coast have become e-waste dumps, places where youth rub mercury in their hands to ready some electronic junk for burning to extract a fleck of gold. They have unhealthy exposure to cadmium, lead, flame retardants and other noxious chemicals, metals and airborne combustion by-products only to gain a little copper or iron for sale. The hacking, slashing and cutting of vegetation historically in Cote d'Ivoire has left only some miserable fraction of the plant kingdom that once existed. Let's hope that next we don't have river blindness spreading anew in Ivory Coast.

The people of Mauritania, Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Togo and Liberia consume very little energy so contribute negligibly to global warming. In Mauritania, their deforestation presents one of the grimmest settings in all of Africa. Sandstorms, high winds and drought episodes are often acute, driving people in desperation to cut down more trees, exacerbating the situation. Cape Verde suffers from prolonged drought episodes, seasonal dust storms, soil erosion, deforestation and a serious lack of potable water.  

In The Gambia, a riparian society, water-borne diseases and ailments have been especially prevalent. In Guinea-Bissau, people watch out for the water contact disease, schistosomiasis among others. The Gambia, mostly a flood plain of the Gambia River, and Guinea-Bissau, a coastal plain area where the lowlands stretch far inland, have more than just deforestation, overfishing and overgrazing to worry about. The most ominous situation they face may well be the Atlantic Ocean submergence threat that lingers. Your address is only as valuable now as the height above global sea level you are perched at in cities like Banjul, The Gambia, Bissau, Guinea-Bissau and Nouakchott, Mauritania which is already prone to flooding. Incidences of flash flooding affect sanitation and agricultural productivity directly and lead to spreading of various diseases. Guinea is likewise in deep blue trouble due to the formidable impact of global warming. Its low-lying coastal plain includes the major city, Conakry, right on the coast. Togo and Benin are very reliant on river water quality, too. They also need to watch out for poachers.

In Liberia, only about one third of the population has access to water fit to drink or cook with. The vast majority of people here still lack access to basic washroom facilities or attempt to share a public toilet with literally thousands of other people. Moreover, their numbers are going up and up. Population pressure compounds their challenges and ability to keep expanding the infrastructure and public services they now have. Liberia has recently faced a horrifying infestation of caterpillars meaning the useable water supply deteriorated further due to contamination from caterpillar ends and bacteria.

Given that it takes up to 1000 mass units of water to produce one mass unit of food, can more hunger be that far removed for the people of these countries? There has not been enough rainfall or water available in Ethiopia. Ethiopia apparently now has some 3 million people on the brink of malnutrition and 100,000 already severely malnourished, many of them helpless children. Clearly, help is very much needed in these places, not for people to look the other way.

The fertility rate in Mali is apparently over 7 and in Ethiopia has reached 5.0 children per woman. Clearly, bearing children is at an unsustainable level, as a dramatic overtaxing of natural resources results. Burkina Faso also appears to have too-high birth rates. With all this happening, you can hardly expect to add a 3% population growth rate in many of these areas and come away with any conclusion other than that some new macro-scale crisis will emerge before long. Foul air from vehicles often adds to the challenges of surviving in places like Bamako, Mali and Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

In Eritrea, deforestation, desertification and soil erosion is serious enough that it could end up like Sudan if they are not careful. As the specter of climate alteration unfolds and heat and water stresses are insidiously and relentlessly ratcheted up, the pastoralist way of life is increasingly coming under assault ecologically. In response, shepherds move their herds here and there ever-faster in search of viable water, shade and grazing areas.

An estimated 2 billion or more people worldwide are not able to use water for personal hygiene. The people of these seven countries are among about three-quarters of a billion in more than 40 countries worldwide who suffer from inadequate sanitation, a public health problem whose solution is often compounded by shortages of fresh water. As time goes by and global warming contributes to increased deforestation, drought, desertification, soil erosion and salt content on land and in water, all else being equal, water management shortcomings and human health afflictions in this region are expected to worsen. In general in these nation states, much water is contaminated through lack of latrines and introduction of raw sewage into the waterways eventually causing transmission of numerous water-borne diseases. Many major cities are among the most unsanitary locations on Earth. The vast majority of diseases including cholera, typhoid and diarrhea-related ones arise due to poor sanitation. Life expectancy is reduced and infant and child mortality and morbidity are very prevalent especially in Niger, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone and Central African Republic. Malaria abounds, for example, in Sierra Leone, one of the least developed countries on Earth. Freetown is yet another West African city teetering on the brink of inundation as they face their next extreme weather event and storm surge. Hope is re-emerging for almost-all people of Sierra Leone as they obtain access to electricity for the first time.

Both these countries are underdeveloped. We think a future with Congolese-type sustainable forest ecosystems should be pursued whereby natural resource extractors and harvesters are held in abeyance to a significant extent in exchange for an external stream of payments and inducements. The focus should be on further development of cottage industries and ecotourism.

Italy's plan to increase its coal reliance to about one-third of the country's needs, more than double what it is now, is a marked regression that is all-but-certain to deliver further avoidable pummeling to mother ship Earth. There are also serious garbage processing problems in southern Italy emanating from both domestic and foreign sources of waste. Milan is reputed to be the most polluted city in Europe; deadly micrometer-sized particulate matter has escalated to concentrations that are very high by EU standards. However, the outlook is not all bleak. Solar energy capacity in Italy during 2008 ramped-up faster than virtually every other country spurred on by government subsidies that encourage solar power. Italy is now considered to be a prime candidate in the short run to have solar power reach grid parity with fossil fuels including gas which is now widely used for electric power generation. This will include both photovoltaic and concentrating solar thermal energy. Italy has had a modicum of geothermal power for a long time. They are also setting the stage for development of significant wind and biomass sources of renewable energy. All these promising initiatives should speed the decline not expansion of carbon-intensive fuels in Italy.

Netherlands now has a plan to go from less than 5% renewable sources of energy to 20% by 2020 which is good news. The country's land area is about one-quarter below sea level already so its likely the population will force greening especially from those who live in the vulnerable port city of Rotterdam.