Maldives has vast tracts of land at elevations less than two meters above sea level leaves residents here in a precarious position. Maldives has experienced depletion of freshwater aquifers as supply is utilized and saltwater incursions continue to transgress inland.

Maldives now has an ambitious plan to be carbon-neutral in about a decade, by 2020. Solar and wind power are slated to replace widespread reliance on fossil fuels. Maldives has a per-diem type green tax to levy on tourists. We think the tax is a good idea but it should have been heavily-weighted as an entry-exit tax as opposed to a daily tax to encourage longer stays and less-frequent flying in-and-out. Such a scheme would act more resolutely to reduce emissions whilst hopefully increasing gross income.

Tuvalu's goal is for a wholesale transition from dirty diesel-fuelled turbines to instead invoke solar and wind power for the entire electric grid by 2020.

Tuvalu is in big trouble due to threat of submergence of their coral atolls which have pretty meager elevation relative to current sea level, mostly less than one meter. Saltwater ingress is already degrading the land. There is no point more than five meters above sea level in either Kiribati or Tuvalu. So Kiribati is also 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.

The submergence risk meter is also reading perilously-high in the long term view for Tonga, Marshall Islands, Nauru and low elevation coral atoll islands of the Federated States of Micronesia. Due partly to their small size, its easier to lead a relatively fast changeover from dependence on fossil fuels. For example, Tonga is targeting that 50% of their energy come from renewable sources before 2013.

So we think Icelanders still need to increase conservation and efficiency efforts. We realize the authorities have been actively-engaged for many years in transforming Iceland to be a carbon-neutral country. Their long-term outlook was to eliminate fossil fuel use completely by 2050 and to transition sooner rather than later to electric, hybrid and fuel-cell powered vehicles. Being 50% below 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2050 is their current officially-stated goal. 

Iceland had the first hydrogen fueling station and is pushing use of hydrogen, fuel cell and electric vehicles. It's somewhat dubious to use renewable energy-generated electric power to produce hydrogen then to convert the hydrogen back to electricity to power electric vehicles and charge batteries. Iceland is developing a significant eco-tourism industry including geyser, fish and whale watching. Some of their whale watching boats run on hydrogen.

While Spain's greenhouse gas emissions increased markedly in the generation up to 2005, there has been a rather dramatic turnaround since then. Spain has been a leader in implementing both wind and solar power generation and is still the number three wind power overall but will likely drop to 4th place by some time in 2010 due to the emergence of China. However, Spain expects to reach nearly one-quarter of energy overall from renewable sources by 2020 including one-quarter of its electrical load from renewable energy before 2011. Half of the latter will come from wind installations. Spain now has at least 50 concentrated solar power projects slated to be up-and-running by 2015 making it a world leading nation in solar thermal energy production. Solar photovoltaic power is anticipated to reach grid parity with legacy fossil fuels sometime during the next year or so. Further, Spain has achieved a net gain of more than five million hectares of forest land over the past generation. This in a world where deforestation globally has reached the point of being an unmitigated ecological disaster for us all.

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. Forestry is a big industry that has apparently been well-managed for sustainability. Sweden harnesses biomass energy and repurposes waste like no other place we know of. In some cities including Stockholm and Malmo, organic waste is vacuum-pumped into a network of pipelines then fermented in enormous fermentation tanks. Biogas is later siphoned off and used to fuel vehicles. Process heat is also salvaged.

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. Sweden already has significant offshore wind power in place and it plans to add considerably wind capacity. They also plan to replace existing nuclear reactors with new ones. Public transit uses a lot of biogas.

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. People from this country are also responsible for the first mostly fuel cell-powered ship at sea.

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. 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 have greenhouse gas emissions below their 1990 levels by 30%, and contingently by 40%, by 2020. They also aim to have zero net carbon releases by 2030. However, these objectives rely on utilizing carbon markets to purchase carbon credits. Norway was at one point considering banning new purely-gasoline-powered automobiles starting in 2015.

Mauritius and Solomon Islands have many degraded coral reefs or ones that have already met their demise. Solar water heating is widespread in Barbados already. St. Kitts and 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. Vincent and the Grenadines has hydropower for about one-third of electricity generation but more can be done to lessen fossil fuel dependence. 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.

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. Nevertheless, some of its islands are expected to disappear some time this century in the wake of the anticipated rise of global sea level.

Guatemala, Costa Rica, Belize, Panama, Dominican Republic: These settings are generally vulnerable to extreme weather events. Historically there has been excessive deforestation and erosion in Central America arising from stripping, clearing, hacking, slashing, burning, plundering and/or mismanagement of natural resources and protective ecosystems. Happily, these countries have placed significant areas under protection, more than one-quarter the total land area. Conservation area in Guatemala and Costa Rica is about one-third and Belize nearly half. These measures hopefully will instill in the general population an ethic of conservation and living within the bounds imposed by the natural world.

Belize, Costa Rica 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. Belize and Costa Rica at least have some coral reefs that are not that badly degraded yet.

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. We understand Costa Ricans have grandiose plans to become carbon-neutral by 2021. To help become a zero net emitter of carbon, they have a scheme for a solar-powered mass transit system. Hydropower accounts for some 80% of electricity generation and further development of geothermal energy from hot volcanic sources is planned. 

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. Eerily, their entire east coast appears to be eaten away by the Caribbean Sea; the coastline is as smooth and regular as the crescent of our Moon.

We recognize that people in Costa Rica plant millions of plants, shrubs and trees every year and incentivize protection of forests. About one-quarter of the country is protected as national parks. Biodiversity of species is well-preserved. 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 also needs to be curtailed.

Pollution in the major Yague River of Dominican Republic has reached gross levels. Its been used somewhat like an open sewer. Dominican Republic may be representative of countries where coral reefs are deteriorating rapidly in the Caribbean. Along with that goes the vitality of every industry that depends on the reef ecosystem such as the commercial fishery, beachfront retail and real estate and tourism generally. Agricultural productivity could be impaired up to 25% according to one local source. Of course, coral reefs are like mangrove swamps in providing a natural barrier to protect the coast from the full brunt of tidal surges or the storm surges and gale force winds associated with hurricanes. Dominican Republic is also prone to cross-border raids from Haiti by people trying to stay afloat economically by cutting down trees to produce charcoal.

France is a significant market for both wind and solar power now, too. At this juncture, we do not know how to fully-assess their reliance on nuclear energy. In France, nuclear plants account for about 80% of contributions to the power grid, hydropower for about 15%. Certainly, the nuclear waste problem has not gone away nor have the particular risks associated with nuclear power plants, fuel processing, reprocessing and enrichment, use of prodigious amounts of coolants and the potential for contamination and radiation.

There is uncertainty concerning how to appraise Japan's leaning towards further development of nuclear energy. Fourth generation nuclear technology and small reactors may well be part of the solution. Their intermediate-term plans seem to push nuclear energy to about 40% of all electricity generation by 2017.

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. We understand Japan is aiming to have some 30 gigawatts of solar power in operation by 2020.

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. We very much look forward to seeing eco-rigs off Japan's coast! Further, it is anticipated that by 2049 one-quarter of residences will obtain their electric power and heat from a fuel cell on-site.

Japan has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% versus 1990 levels by 2020 and about 70% by 2050. According to the government, emissions fell by about 6% during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009. We would like to see an ambitious, firm 10 year objective enshrined in law especially since greenhouse gas emissions have been going up in Japan not down. We hope and trust that new, strengthened pledges and commitments reflecting the rising eco-dynamism that has come to the forefront in Japanese society, will be codified into law. An environment tax is welcome. We also like how Japan are quantifying industrial pollution targets for various sectors but we need teeth in implementation. Merely relying on corporate volunteering to solve global climate change is woefully inadequate and apt to end badly if pursued as policy.

Belgium, Finland, Monaco, Andorra: The situation here has similarities to France due to outsize reliance on nuclear power. In Belgium, they are driven some 60% by nuclear energy. 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. Finland was among the very first countries to impose a carbon tax on transportation fuels. It also has ones affecting use of electricity and space heating. Degradation of peat lands has been extensive for a country this size resulting in excessive greenhouse gas emissions per capita. Monaco imports its electricity from France and Andorra from France and Spain so we also include them here. We acknowledge their claim of being on a path to become carbon-neutral one day. But merely being 60% below their 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2050 isn't necessarily going to get them there before then, now is it? 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.

UK has been committing to development of significantly more coal which we heartily dislike. Scotland may have 10% of Europe's coal "reserves" but they also may have more than 10% of Europe's coal-related environmental liabilities. Coal executives anywhere should be willing to post a bond sufficient to cover the full cost, including monitoring, of environmental and health liabilities potentially associated with any carbon dioxide burial scheme, prior to undertaking a "clean coal" project. Those same parties typically downplay or misrepresent the environmental risks associated with their proposed projects but, in a peculiar twist of bravado, are unwilling to pony up the cost of the potential calamity. The extra cost to get to the contingent-burial stage are of the order of $75 to $150 per tonne of CO2 depending on many variables that may well push the total far higher into the $200 to $300 per tonne range. Currently, the best single-valued estimate may be about $125 per tonne. This amount is many times the current trading range in Europe for carbon dioxide emissions. That makes us wonder why they persist with their endeavors at all in rearguard actions to try to forestall the demise of a moribund industry segment. However, if the UK can design and implement a carbon tax whose magnitude adjusts according to the market price of carbon to effectively create a minimum price below which carbon cannot trade, then we are getting somewhere. We see great potential there because you build in a whip-hand-ride type of mechanism to reduce any tendency towards gaming in carbon markets. You thereby "force the tempo of play" with a serious carbon price to accelerate transitioning away from fossil fuels, and you achieve that at least semi-automatically via markets which makes it harder for commercial interests to grouse.

UK currently relies on fossil fuels to drive about three-quarters of their electrical grid. The advent of electric cars in Britain, to the extent it occurs, won't move the needle back on climate change much so long as we have something like that going on. Renewable energy sources in UK are being developed historically from a very low 2% to 3% percentage level of total electric power production and energy use. They are targeting renewable energy, especially from offshore wind power, to provide 20% of demand by 2020 including driving about one-third of all electricity generation capacity. Nuclear plants are likely to provide a little under 10% of grid power by 2020. The people of UK seem to understand the jam we are in collectively concerning our environment and the future of the Earth better than populations as-a-whole just about anywhere else. Many citizens of UK have been participating in a voluntary grassroots "10:10" campaign to reduce their own carbon emissions by 10% by 2010. They also have foisted energy efficiency improvements and conservation efforts into the purview of commercial interests to get them competing with others in a kind of green race where the losers must pay up to compensate society for their relative largesse. We like this game; we wish there was a global version of it to invigorate people and get them moving and thinking about things at large not just focusing on what's happening in their own little world. We think its very true what the UN says about us getting beyond self-interest or even national interest.

UK has been meeting its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and its greenhouse gas emissions fell by 2% in 2008 and, at that juncture, were 20% below their 1990 levels. Scotland is expected before 2012 to have about one-third of electricity generation come from renewable sources, especially wind turbines and hydropower. UK is the first country to legally commit to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 relative to 1990 levels, including their fair share of emissions arising from flying and shipping in and out of UK. Furthermore, they now have their own legal and budgetary obligation to slice carbon emissions by at least one third relative to 1990 levels before 2020. UK has already surpassed Denmark in offshore wind power to be world leader in that category. And UK has plans for much more of it in coming years, for example, in the North Sea. Also, significant wave, tidal and biomass power projects are in the works. Microgeneration of heat and electricity near or within the locality of use should be another big positive development.

Britain still consumes too many goods and resources and through time is said to be the most profligate generator of greenhouse gas emissions on a per person basis. Water quality in almost one-quarter of waterways are said to be substandard. Any recourse to dirty fuels including petrochemical-based diesel will certainly have negative consequences for the environment and their ability to reach stated climate-altering emissions-reduction goals. UK still has a problem limiting the concentration of nitrogen dioxide, particulates including very fine-grained ones, and other pollutants, too to safe thresholds in the air of many cities including London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Sheffield and Manchester. Furthermore, if old buildings containing foam insulation are demolished haphazardly, large quantities of ozone-depleting, heat-trapping gases may be released into the atmosphere, thereby adding to greenhouse gas emission totals.

UK has definitive plans for systematically increasing the energy efficiency of homes, buildings and transportation. Another one billion pounds sterling is being invested to get locomotives off dirty diesel fuel and onto drawing electric power to propel trains. The advent of green chemistry in a big way is another vital challenge facing us all and it must be met in an abbreviated time frame in UK as well. This should encompass physical and organic chemistry processes and production of pharmaceuticals.

Albania, Montenegro: Here is another situation, all else being equal, where lagging behind in economic development of the smokestack variety works in favor of transitioning to a green, clean future. Fewer status quo old economy types to get in the way of change. Both countries have relied on hydropower for the lion's share of electricity production. Albania has suffered from energy shortages. Recently, they have fired up a new thermal facility which compromises their environmental picture somewhat. Montenegro has relatively high per capita energy use due to its dominant aluminum industry. However, they have significant green ecotourism potential and their environmental problems have remained quite benign.

Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe: Angola and Equatorial Guinea are new oil powers that have historically depended on natural resources like minerals and timber to drive their economies. Development of significant liquefied natural gas facilities is also possible. There has been much conflict and corruption in the past but they have much more money now than ever before. So they are now in the enviable position of having the means to enable them to get into position to prevail in the endless struggle to prevent potential catastrophic and incremental degradation of the natural environment. Compared to many countries, it appears within their grasp to solve many infrastructure, wanton pollution and socioeconomic issues such as better education, equal opportunity and more equitable income distribution. For example, there should not be cholera outbreaks that recur again and again, or that are not remediated even though the threat of flooding episodes may be always with them especially in precariously-situated places such as Luanda. It should be high priority for most people to have access to toilets and potable water. Deforestation should be contained, rolled back and reforestation commenced. Watch closely what resource extracting companies are doing. Make laws, rules and regulations such that it is not more feasible for any entity or person to pollute than to prevent or treat the waste streams they generate. If it is impossible to stop environmental degradation of some kind, make them pay for that externality they are responsible for in their profiteering. Therefore, the full cost of addressing the problem can be bankrolled and attended to later perhaps when a new environmental or health facility, technology or power source is funded and put in place.

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.

Italy, Netherlands, Denmark: In Italy, wind power capacity rose by nearly one-third during 2009 year-over-year. 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, by about 2013, 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 developing significant wind and biomass sources of renewable energy.

All these promising initiatives should speed the decline not expansion of carbon-intensive fuels. Italy's one-time plan to increase coal reliance to about one-third of the country's needs is a non-starter. There have been 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.

Netherlands obviously still has to eliminate every vestige of fossil fuel subsidy. Per capita greenhouse gas emissions levels have been among the worst. However, Netherlands now has a plan to go from less than 5% renewable sources of energy to 20% by 2020, including the powering of about one-third of the electric grid by then. Both wind and solar energy utilization is moving up and up. The country's land area is about one-quarter below sea level already affecting most of the population so its likely citizens including those who live in the vulnerable port city of Rotterdam will force "greening". Netherlands is implementing a far-reaching road tax in 2012. We think its brilliant. Taking such aggressive action to contain climate change cannot happen too soon because we're sure this country does not want to continue paying hundreds of millions of Euros to reclaim tiny strips of shore area from the encroaching sea for an unknown length of time. The emphasis worldwide should be on far-reaching mitigation efforts, not blowing too many resources on dubious adaptation measures when we have not solved the cause of the problem yet.

In Denmark, carbon dioxide emissions declined by 6.2% during 2007 and greenhouse gases in aggregate were lessened by about 8% during 2008 which is promising. Copenhagen is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2025. Denmark's ongoing use of fossil fuels remains high on a per capita basis, however. Fossil fuels still account for about three-quarters of power generation requirements including nearly a 50% contribution from old-man coal. Their per person ecological footprint overall has been fairly ravenous so they have been responsible for generating a high level of pollutants. We hope Denmark does not elect to re-fire anymore with coal as a fuel. The consequences are we have yet-another high-carbon setting and further stressors are placed on their limited ecological carrying capacity. Implementation of a carbon tax should help to further address environmental cacophony.

Denmark has been a pioneer in offshore wind development and production of wind turbines, gearboxes, wind towers and blades. Wind power contributes almost one quarter of their electric power already which puts them on a path to reaching as much as one-third of energy use from renewable sources by 2020. There are also a myriad of mini-sized wind turbines that power at modest capacities for homes and businesses. Beyond that, they rely almost entirely on fossil fuels as a source of energy.

Across Greenland, impacts on the landscape that have occurred already as a consequence of global warming-induced melting of ice, calving of glaciers and thawing of permafrost have been nothing short of astounding. Just listening to the cascade of melt-water and thunder of ice collapsing ought to be enough to shake the confidence of even the most die-hard fossil fuel investor.

Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein: 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. Reliance on hydropower is apt to decrease as glacier melt water volume decreases over time with climate change. It is not clear to what extent increased rainfall and catchment could make up for the shortfall in hydraulic force attributable to dwindling glacier-fed waterways. Snowpack has also been trending down. The negative impact on winter tourism revenue is apt to be substantial over time. Switzerland's per capita carbon footprint remains too luxurious and reducing same by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 is inadequate. Ditto for Liechtenstein, though we understand they may up this goal to 30% depending on what others do. Transportation and space heating emissions are too high in these localities. 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 do think Austrians have the mindset to become very eco-conscious. Renewable energy including significant hydropower should account for about one third of total energy by about 2020. We anticipate they will further reduce conspicuous consumption, the demands on their country's ecosystems, and cut back on waste being generated. Liechtenstein is a story similar to Austria and Switzerland and their emissions have been heading down. Having per capita vehicle ownership second highest in the world tells us they should start slimming down.

Rwanda, Malawi, Burundi, Swaziland, Lesotho: Rwanda, Malawi and Burundi have poor, basic agricultural subsistence economies that rely on hydro power to a large extent, so fossil fuel use and carbon emissions from electricity generation, industry or transportation are insignificant. They do not consume or pollute much but their countries have limited ecological carrying capacities. The majority of Burundi's population cannot feed themselves enough now so it is time to cut back on population growth. Deforestation has been nearly wholesale in Burundi and has been devastating for Rwanda, too.

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. Producing biodiesel from jatropha, palm, soya, rapeseed, animal fats or other sources should also be pursued and optimized to the extent arable land needed for food is not sacrificed.

Rwanda appears to be on the up and up in the low carbon world of tomorrow we need now. Projects and options being considered for implementation range from biogas to reforestation to solar power plants and expanded extraction of methane gas from Lake Kivu (careful!).

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. However, Lesotho has a developing problem of wetlands degradation and soil erosion. Too much sediment is building-up in downstream areas causing a reduction in water flow rates and hydropower capacity and increasing the risk of flooding.

El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras: These settings are vulnerable to extreme weather events. To worsen the impact of such events, there is too much deforestation and erosion arising from stripping, clearing, hacking, slashing, burning, plundering and/or mismanagement of natural resources and protective ecosystems. Various waterways are very polluted. Civil strife in some localities adds to the woes. The new mathematics comes with this theorem: If you cheat the environment, you cheat all life forms in that environment (including yourself). The corollary is many more tourists come to visit a pristine environment. Why would one try to reconnect with nature somewhere that has been suffering rapid deforestation, in particular, such as Nicaragua and Honduras?

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.

Morocco: Except for a small amount of hydropower, Morocco is still almost-entirely dependent on fossil fuels for energy. However, Morocco has a sizeable fund to support renewable energy projects, in particular, vast expansion of solar thermal power. They have commenced solar thermal projects and may move headlong into solar photovoltaic-driven ones, too with external assistance from European countries. By 2020, solar power may constitute a third or more of Morocco's grid power and wind-driven turbines could supply one-sixth of their connected power generation capacity. If and as these projects come to be, ecological survivability will be greatly enhanced.

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 three 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 both Niger and Mali is apparently over seven, the highest rates on Earth for countries. In Ethiopia, it has reached five 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% plus per year 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. Contaminated water, foul air and dust often adds to the challenges of preserving public health and well being in places like Bamako, Mali; Ndjamena, Chad and Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

An estimated two 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. Try surviving in Niamey, Addis Ababa, Freetown or Bangui. These countries are among the least developed ones on Earth. To add another dollop of ecological risk, Freetown is yet another West African city teetering on the brink of inundation when 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. And in Ethiopia, given what they have been faced with, development activity has been arcing up. Their move to wind and solar power is encouraging.

The great green wall project across the Sahel to try to stop further desertification is perhaps a meter high in Senegal right now. Of late, the hope and plan now is for it to be extended across the continent and be a corridor about 15 kilometers wide. This sounds to us like the "lead-off hitter", as part of a grand scheme to naturally protect and facilitate restoration of vast areas of depleted agricultural land in Africa. Its a great example of what should receive funding or qualify for help via carbon credits given that its incremental afforestation with a crucial, noble objective that could conceivably pay off in spades one day. The squeeze play is not limited to encroaching desert, it also involves encroaching ocean: the Senegal coastline loses on average about one meter per year of land to erosion and rising sea level. Senegal has historically been heavily dependent on oil-driven power generation. However, there are plans and hopes to move to solar power. Solar stoves, cookers and water heaters are starting to replace other dirty, indoor-polluting energy sources such as wood. Micro-sized lead smelting activities undertaken out of desperation for money should be stopped; children have been dying from exposure to fumes and dust from this grimy, grubstake activity.

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. Many Ghanaians are having to travel further to fetch it or to relocate based on where water is available. 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 electronic 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. Deforestation, drought and climate change driven drying-out of landscape has displaced increasing numbers of people to the big cities, in particular, Abidjan. Urban areas grow uncontrollably and can become miserly centers where many people are enduring a wretched time, have nowhere else to go and not all that much to do except take action to ensure survival. 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. Trouble is, many more trees, shrubs and grasses are needed to defend against the advance of sand dunes, to stop it. Water-stressed people often have no remaining option other than to migrate in search of it. 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; Nouakchott, Mauritania and Monrovia, Liberia which are already prone to flooding. Incidences of flash flooding affect sanitation and agricultural productivity directly and lead to spreading of various diseases. Anecdotal evidence indicates encroachment by the sea affecting parts of the Liberian coast has progressed at a rate of about one kilometer per generation. Guinea is likewise in the crosshairs of the formidable phenomenon of global warming and climate change. Its low-lying coastal plain includes the major city, Conakry, right on the coast. Unhappily, Conakry, Guinea; Lome, Togo and Monrovia, Liberia already have formidable water quality and quantity issues. 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 bacterial and viral contamination from caterpillar ends and more.

Timor-Leste has a slash-and-burn mentality that persists. Papua New Guinea has troubles with deforestation of tropical rainforest: an estimated one-quarter has been removed or degraded already and half could be gone by 2020. Intentional burning of peatlands and rainforests remains too-widespread in Papua New Guinea. Dealing with the "morning after" implications of free-for-all mining activity in this frontier country has brought much pollution-related grief for its people.

As the Earth and its inhabitants grapple with the very real possibility of one day having more than 10 billion people, the population arcs ever-upwards in Papua New Guinea. Within a time span of two generations the population could about-double.  

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.

Especially in Myanmar and Cambodia, these countries have problems arising from deforestation, erosion, lack of latrines especially in rural areas, and shortages of water suitable for drinking. Despite setting up conservation areas, Myanmar has been clearing forested areas at the net rate of about 10 million hectares of forest in a generation of time. Half the mangroves on Irrawaddy delta disappeared during a generation of military rule in Myanmar. Tragically, the clearing of mangrove forests and swampland contributed to the mighty impact of the cyclone and incursion of saltwater striking Myanmar in 2008. Surges during this catastrophe reached as high as six meters above means sea level. Through sheer human agony triggered by cyclone Nargis, the Irrawaddy delta and Irrawaddy River area demonstrates again the vulnerability of people, homes and cropland that are near sea level. 

Cambodia and parts of Myanmar are low-lying countries geographically which means they have ongoing significant risk of being afflicted by flooding events and transgressions of the ocean. Phnom Penh is very vulnerable to ecological risks. Diseases, air, wind-blown soil and water pollution are not stopping at border crossings. Water-borne illness and arsenic poisoning is widespread. Apparently, solid arsenic contained in the sediment load that reacts with iron in oxygen-reduced environments near the surface in the presence of certain bacteria results in alteration of the arsenic such that it is easily dissolved in water. Highland erosion of arsenic from rocks thereby ends up percolating into groundwater, aquifers and wells. Erosion in Cambodia is often associated with unchecked strip mining and cutting down trees to make charcoal or burn the wood as a source of energy. Charcoal is also later combusted as a fuel creating a dreadful carbonaceous soot for people to breathe. One intriguing development in the early stages for Cambodia has been production of char including char contained in the form of briquettes concocted from biomass such as cassava and coconut husks, residues and chaff.