Countries With the Best Environmental Records

All countries' current and historical approach towards the environment is gauged via 21 datasets, including multiple decades of data on its forested percent change 2000-2020, its environmental performance, energy to GDP efficiency, its sign-up rate to major international accords on protecting the environment, the rate of rational beliefs on the environment in the population, reducing annual meat consumption per person and its score on the Green Future Index.

The countries that do the best (Sri Lanka, Uruguay and Switzerland) tend to have avoided the excesses of early industrial countries, and have not yet repeated the same mistakes of environmental destruction - at least, not on the same scale. The regions with the best average results per country are Central America, South America and Scandinavia. The worst are Eritrea, The Vatican City and Timor-Leste (E. Timor), and the worst regions Micronesia, Australasia and Melanesia.

The interesting portion is the middle-range countries; there is heavy competition on efficiency, sustainable planning, and environmental wisdom given the high energy demands of well-developed countries as judged by GDP. All results go towards the overall SAMDI (Social and Moral Development Index).

1. The Criteria: The Environment
2. Overall Results by Country
3. Overall Results by Region
4. The Social and Moral Development Index
5. Links

---

1. The Criteria: The Environment

The Environment		Overall Results: Best: Sri Lanka, Uruguay, Switzerland Regions: Central America, South America and Scandinavia Worst: Eritrea, Vatican City, Timor-Leste (E. Timor) Regions: Micronesia, Australasia and Melanesia
Constituent Data Sets: The Environment
1. Forest Area Change 2000-2020		Best: Guernsey, Bahrain, Iceland Worst: Ivory Coast, Nicaragua, Gambia 2010s: Burundi, Bahrain, Malta, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Cambodia 2000s: Guernsey, Iceland, Bahrain, Nicaragua, Ivory Coast, Gambia
2. Environmental Performance		Best: Switzerland, France, Denmark Worst: Burundi, Bangladesh, Congo, DR
3. Energy to GDP Efficiency		Best: Rwanda, Chad, Tanzania Worst: Turkmenistan, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahrain 2010s: Chad, Rwanda, Burundi, Trinidad & Tobago, Iceland, Bahrain 2000s: Chad, Burundi, Rwanda, Bahrain, N. Korea, Trinidad & Tobago 1990s: Chad, Palestine, Mali, Bahrain, Qatar, Mongolia 1980s: Cambodia, Burundi, Nepal, Bahrain, Mongolia, Qatar 1970s: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ecuador, Czechia, Luxembourg, Romania 1960s: Oman, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Singapore, Luxembourg, Norway
4. International Accords on the Environment		Best: Sweden, Canada, Norway Worst: Vatican City, Palestine, Andorra 2020s (so far): 143-country draw, Vatican City, USA, S. Sudan 2010s: Samoa, Mauritius, Belize, Vatican City, S. Sudan, Palestine 2000s: Panama, Netherlands, Czechia, Palestine, Vatican City, Iraq 1990s: El Salvador, Panama, Norway, 4-country draw 1980s: USA, Canada, Norway, 68-country draw 1970s: Canada, Mauritius, Nepal, 130-country draw
5. Rational Beliefs on the Environment		Best: Argentina, Greece, Brazil Worst: Turkmenistan, Albania, Haiti
6. Meat Consumption		Best: Congo, DR, Burundi, Bangladesh Worst: Hong Kong, USA, Nauru 2010s: Burundi, Congo, DR, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Australia, USA
7. Green Future Index		Best: Iceland, Finland, Norway Worst: Iran, Algeria, Zambia

1.1. Forest Area Change 2000-2020

#2000s #2010s #biodiversity #deforestation #environmentalism #forests #over-exploitation #the_environment

Forest Area Change 2000-2020 Higher is better1
Pos.		Total1	2010s	2000s
1	Guernsey	82.6%	0.0%	82.6%
2	Bahrain	75.2%	34.6%	40.5%
3	Iceland	64.7%	15.0%	49.7%
4	Burundi	44.2%	44.2%	0.0%
5	Uruguay	43.8%	17.3%	26.5%
6	Montenegro	32.1%	0.0%	32.1%
7	Malta	31.4%	31.4%	0.0%
8	Cuba	31.0%	10.6%	20.4%
9	Kuwait	28.9%	0.0%	28.9%
10	Uzbekistan	23.3%	10.2%	13.1%
11	Algeria	23.1%	1.6%	21.5%
12	China	23.0%	9.7%	13.3%
13	Vietnam	23.0%	9.4%	13.6%
14	Ireland	22.8%	8.6%	14.3%
15	Syria	20.0%	6.1%	13.9%
16	Guam	16.7%	16.7%	0.0%
17	Puerto Rico	15.5%	1.0%	14.5%
18	Iran	15.2%	0.6%	14.7%
19	Bulgaria	14.9%	4.2%	10.7%
20	Chile	14.6%	8.9%	5.7%
q=234.

Forest Area Change 2000-2020 Higher is better1
Pos.		Total1	2010s	2000s
234	Ivory Coast	-50.6%	-28.5%	-22.2%
233	Nicaragua	-41.1%	-18.6%	-22.4%
232	Gambia	-35.2%	-19.1%	-16.0%
231	Chad	-35.0%	-22.0%	-13.0%
230	Paraguay	-32.6%	-17.7%	-14.9%
229	Malawi	-29.4%	-15.8%	-13.6%
228	St Pierre & Miquelon	-29.1%	-15.3%	-13.8%
227	Uganda	-28.0%	-15.0%	-13.0%
226	Mauritania	-27.7%	-14.8%	-12.9%
225	Benin	-25.8%	-13.8%	-12.1%
224	Cambodia	-25.6%	-23.8%	-1.8%
223	Northern Mariana Islands	-24.8%	-19.7%	-5.1%
222	Comoros	-22.3%	-11.7%	-10.5%
221	Somalia	-21.6%	-11.4%	-10.2%
220	Egypt	-20.6%	-31.5%	10.9%
219	Niger	-19.7%	-10.3%	-9.4%
218	Myanmar (Burma)	-19.0%	-9.2%	-9.8%
217	Namibia	-18.5%	-9.7%	-8.8%
216	Pakistan	-18.2%	-9.0%	-9.3%
215	Guatemala	-16.8%	-5.2%	-11.6%
q=234.

Forests are carbon sinks, mitigating against climate change_2,3. Unfortunately, we are destroying over 70,000 km² of forest each year₄. In the last few thousand years, we've removed 30-40% of the Earth's forest cover_5,3, mostly to clear space for agriculture, and for logging_6,7. The produce from both is shipped from poorer countries to richer ones. Half-hearted government efforts and company obfuscation of supply chains makes it almost impossible for consumers to tell which foods and products are from sustainable sources, and which ones are encouraging irresponsible deforestation, meaning that there is little incentive for companies to relent.

The effects are catastrophic. 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation_8,6. It brings soil erosion from wind and rain which, over time, can almost-permanently stop any hope of growing food₉, and spreads desertification. Entire ecosystems are collapsing as a result, including ones that we depend upon₁₀. The water cycle is driven by forests, and their loss reduces ordinary rainfall, increases flooding, removes an abundant source of water filtration, and contributes to a rise in water levels.₁₁.

Some regions of the world are increasing their forest cover₃; the best from 2000-2020 are Scandinavia (13.8% ), The Balkans (11.0% ) and Baltic States (7.6% )₁. There is an overall trend that developed countries gathered their riches by using up their natural resources, and now, they pay poorer countries to use up theirs instead, whilst they can afford to slowly rebuild their natural environments. But it's not wholly that simple - some rich regions are still burning through what they've got. The regions clearing their forests fastest are Central America (-12.8% ), Africa (-9.1% ) and North America (-2.9% )₁.

For more, see:

• "Deforestation" by Vexen Crabtree (2024).

Forest Area Change 2000-2020 By Global Region:

	Area	1	2010s	2000s
	Africa...	-8.7%	-4.5%	-4.2%
	Asia...	3.2%	0.5%	2.7%
	Australasia	0.1%	0.2%	-0.1%
	Europe...	8.2%	2.5%	5.7%
	North America	-2.0%	-1.0%	-1.0%
	South America	-2.5%	-1.3%	-1.2%
	The Middle East...	7.2%	-0.3%	7.5%
	World	-0.1%	-0.7%	0.6%

1.2. Environmental Performance

#climate_change #the_environment

Environmental Performance (2018)12
Pos.		Higher is better12
1	Switzerland	87.4
2	France	84.0
3	Denmark	81.6
4	Malta	80.9
5	Sweden	80.5
6	UK	79.9
7	Luxembourg	79.1
8	Austria	79.0
9	Ireland	78.8
10	Finland	78.6
11	Iceland	78.6
12	Spain	78.4
13	Germany	78.4
14	Norway	77.5
15	Belgium	77.4
16	Italy	77.0
17	New Zealand	76.0
18	Netherlands	75.5
19	Israel	75.0
20	Japan	74.7
q=180.

Environmental Performance (2018)12
Pos.		Lower is worse12
180	Burundi	27.4
179	Bangladesh	29.6
178	Congo, DR	30.4
177	India	30.6
176	Nepal	31.4
175	Madagascar	33.7
174	Haiti	33.7
173	Lesotho	33.8
172	Niger	35.7
171	Central African Rep.	36.4
170	Angola	37.4
169	Pakistan	37.5
168	Afghanistan	37.7
167	Benin	38.2
166	Mauritania	39.2
165	Eritrea	39.3
164	Papua New Guinea	39.4
163	Djibouti	40.0
162	Swaziland	40.3
161	Cameroon	40.8
q=180.

The Environmental Performance Index 2018 data includes 24 indicators including air pollution, water and sanitation, biodiversity, ecosystems and environmental health, combined into a single score by country, by the Yale University Center for Environmental Law & Policy.

The worst countries on this scale (in 2018) generally use massive quantities of natural resources in an unsustainable manner and have populations that are rising quickly. Turkmenistan and United Arab Emirates have only a tiny percentage of their primary energy supply sourced from renewables (both under 0.03%). Equatorial Guinea saw its CO₂ emissions per person rise by 11% between 1970-2008, the second highest in the world after Bhutan. Incredibly for an island, under 13% of those in Haiti believe that human activity is causing global warming, whilst only 29% believe it in United Arab Emirates and Turkmenistan.

The best countries are not better in all criteria but normally excel in a few categories. Iceland produces 82% of its primary energy supply through renewable sources. Its CO₂ emissions per person rose only by 0.1 percent. It more than doubled its forested area between 1990 and 2008. Switzerland reduced its CO₂ emissions per person by 0.5% and also increased its forested areas.

Environmental Performance By Global Region:

Environmental Performance (2018)12
	Area	Higher is better12
	Africa...	46.4
	Asia...	54.5
	Australasia	55.2
	Europe...	69.6
	North America	58.9
	South America	58.6
	The Middle East...	60.0
	World	56.4

1.3. Energy to GDP Efficiency

#the_environment

Energy to GDP Efficiency Lower is better13
Pos.		2022 Avg13	2010s Avg	2000s Avg	1990s Avg	1980s Avg	1970s Avg	1960s Avg
1	Rwanda	0.25	0.26	0.28	0.49	0.27
2	Chad	0.26	0.20	0.11	0.21	0.31
3	Tanzania	0.31	0.39	0.45	0.56	0.69
4	Uganda	0.37	0.36	0.33	0.35	0.32
5	Sierra Leone	0.37	0.44	0.46	0.80	0.60
6	Malawi	0.37	0.48	0.57	0.61	0.53
7	Madagascar	0.38	0.46	0.42	0.39	0.41
8	Sri Lanka	0.39	0.38	0.44	0.45	0.48	0.61	0.43
9	Burundi	0.41	0.32	0.26	0.35	0.16
10	Central African Rep.	0.41	0.38	0.37	0.42	0.35
11	Ethiopia	0.42	0.46	0.44	0.34	0.29
12	Afghanistan	0.43	0.55	0.35	0.93	1.01
13	Guinea-Bissau	0.45	0.63	0.74	0.90	0.52
14	Niger	0.48	0.57	0.42	0.57	0.41
15	Congo, DR	0.49	0.58	0.87	1.13	0.95
16	Nigeria	0.49	0.43	0.63	1.15	1.17
17	Myanmar (Burma)	0.53	0.46	0.48	0.54	0.49
18	Gabon	0.55	0.62	0.80	1.36	1.56
19	Switzerland	0.55	0.68	0.98	1.36	1.64	1.68	1.63
20	Nepal	0.55	0.48	0.38	0.28	0.18
q=165.

Energy to GDP Efficiency Lower is better13
Pos.		2022 Avg13	2010s Avg	2000s Avg	1990s Avg	1980s Avg	1970s Avg	1960s Avg
165	Turkmenistan	4.69	3.46	4.71	8.70	8.12
164	Trinidad & Tobago	4.64	5.11	5.10	4.55	2.96	3.58	3.31
163	Bahrain	4.19	4.00	7.13	15.59	19.77
162	Venezuela	4.18	2.27	2.29	2.26	2.13	1.46	1.47
161	Iceland	4.01	4.58	3.67	3.20	2.92	3.27	2.84
160	Laos	2.75	1.95	0.83	0.48	0.63
159	N. Korea	2.46	2.87	6.50	6.82
158	Mozambique	2.38	2.93	2.10	0.39	0.65
157	Malta	2.36	2.55	2.52	1.67	1.65
156	Canada	2.29	2.56	2.94	3.60	3.97	4.39	4.21
155	Oman	2.28	2.03	1.84	2.07	2.11	2.44	0.17
154	Russia	2.25	2.34	3.47	5.76	5.40	4.44	4.12
153	Iran	2.24	2.02	2.16	2.35	1.95	1.03	0.86
152	Kyrgyzstan	2.20	2.71	3.44	4.53
151	Syria	2.12	2.07	2.00	1.40	1.06
150	Ukraine	2.11	2.70	4.32	6.69	5.68
149	Lebanon	2.06	1.35	1.78	2.58	2.19
148	Singapore	2.06	2.36	2.88	3.49	3.35	4.55	6.85
147	Libya	2.05	1.83	2.70	5.16	5.91
146	Barbados	2.04	2.04	2.09	1.80	1.53
q=165.

GDP per unit of energy consumption is often called 'Energy Intensity'. It's how efficient countries are at producing GDP in terms of primary energy use. It represents primary energy consumption using the substitution method, per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). A lower value means that less energy was used to maintain the country's GDP.

High values could mean that a country wastes little energy, and low values could mean that they use a lot of energy for little gain. However, some countries could be engaged heavily in endeavours that are worthwhile, but, which do not generate GDP. However, in general, it is still good to measure energy-to-GDP efficiency as it is likely that if they do so efficiently, the national as a whole is also likely to be using energy efficiently in general. This is a proxy method for measuring that, made useful by the long history of GDP data that is available.

Our World in Data correlated and processed data from 3 sources: (1) U.S. Energy Information Administration (2023), (2) Energy Institute - Statistical Review of World Energy (2024) and (3) Bolt and van Zanden - Maddison Project Database 2023.

Energy to GDP Efficiency By Global Region:

	Area	2022 Avg13	2010s Avg	2000s Avg	1990s Avg	1980s Avg	1970s Avg	1960s Avg
	Africa...	0.83	0.88	0.97	1.18	1.17	1.61	1.48
	Asia...	1.50	1.52	2.04	3.18	2.99	1.67	1.68
	Australasia	1.23	1.49	1.80	2.26	2.27	2.29	2.12
	Europe...	1.25	1.44	1.83	2.51	2.83	2.77	2.58
	North America	1.40	1.46	1.68	1.76	1.70	3.17	3.03
	South America	1.45	1.35	1.52	1.55	1.23	1.09	1.09
	The Middle East...	1.60	1.57	2.10	3.87	3.89	1.71	1.56
	World	1.23	1.30	1.60	2.15	2.10	2.13	2.05

1.4. International Accords on the Environment

#environmentalism #internationalism

Here are more details on each accord:

1. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, adopted in 1989 and in force since 1992, is one of a trio of global treaties aimed at protecting human health and the environment from the dangers of hazardous waste. The other two are the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. If Basel's instruction is "don't dump it", then Rotterdam's is "don't ship it without asking" and Stockholm's is "avoid producing it at all wherever possible". This trio helps manage the movement of waste between countries, especially from developed to developing countries, promoting environmentally sound management. Together they require prior informed consent from transit countries before waste shipments can proceed, encourage waste minimization and local disposal whenever possible, and aim to protect the environment from highly dangerous, long-lasting chemicals by restricting and ultimately eliminating their production, use, trade, release and storage.₁₄

2. The Waigani Convention is an extension of Basel, and, is used in particular to apply it South Pacific nations who face unique challenges, such as illegal dumping by companies from richer countries who see the area as harder to monitor.
   National dates of notification: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280087d5c for Waigani signatory notification dates.

3. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) derived from United Nations activity in the 1980s following rising scientific alarm over the impact of human activity on natural habitats and a rising awareness of resultant extinctions and disruptive shifts in ecosystems that is difficult (or impossible) to reverse. CBD was launched at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and received 168 signatures over the subsequent year. A large number of small island nations were early adopters: they are uniquely susceptible to over-exploitation by rich companies and countries, but simultaneously, are the least responsible for driving global extinctions.₁₅

4. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 that committed 37 industrialized countries and the EU to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012. It was the first legally binding agreement to tackle climate change, recognizing that developed nations bear greater responsibility for current emissions. It introduced market-based mechanisms - emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism - to help countries meet targets. The refusal of the USA to join was the biggest setback humanity had faced so far in its struggle to curb harmful human behaviour. A second commitment period, known as the Doha Amendment, extended obligations through 2020, though with fewer participating countries.

5. The Paris Agreement was adopted in December 2015 during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris and entered into force in November 2016. It aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. This is a minimum-effort agreement, under which countries set their own goals; the standard is low enough that even the USA signed it, although progress has reverted and its commitments deleted during Trump's time as President. Also, Iran, Libya and Yemen signed it in 2016, but never ratified it into law.

6. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten the survival of the species. The date used for scoring is the date the country brought CITES into force nationally.₁₆

7. Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (adopted in 1985) and the The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (adopted in 1987); the first is about sharing science and data, and the latter is a legally binding treaty that sets specific targets to phase out ozone-depleting substances (ODS) like CFCs and halons.₁₇

International Accords on the Environment By Global Region:

	Area	Avg Rate	2020s (so far) Rate	2010s Rate	2000s Rate	1990s Rate	1980s Rate	1970s Rate
	Africa...	56.4%	97.2%	92.9%	75.4%	42.4%	21.3%	9.3%
	Asia...	55.4%	94.2%	88.4%	69.6%	40.9%	16.6%	5.6%
	Australasia	48.2%	86.8%	84.2%	68.6%	35.6%	9.9%	4.4%
	Europe...	62.7%	95.6%	91.9%	76.5%	46.9%	33.5%	8.4%
	North America	57.7%	93.6%	89.6%	77.6%	53.0%	25.0%	7.5%
	South America	66.5%	100.0%	96.9%	83.7%	58.1%	35.8%	24.7%
	The Middle East...	51.5%	95.1%	85.7%	67.5%	41.4%	13.4%	6.0%
	World	57.5%	95.0%	90.7%	74.4%	45.0%	23.3%	8.5%

1.5. Rational Beliefs on the Environment

Rational Beliefs on the Environment (2011)18
Pos.		Higher is better %18
1	Argentina	78.3%
2	Greece	77.6%
3	Brazil	77.1%
4	Trinidad & Tobago	74.5%
5	Costa Rica	74.2%
6	Cyprus	71.0%
7	Guatemala	70.9%
8	Philippines	70.8%
9	S. Korea	70.7%
10	Colombia	70.3%
11	Bolivia	69.3%
12	Paraguay	68.9%
13	Mexico	67.0%
14	Nicaragua	67.0%
15	El Salvador	66.8%
16	Indonesia	66.5%
17	Japan	64.7%
18	Panama	64.6%
19	Peru	63.9%
20	Chile	63.8%
q=145.

Rational Beliefs on the Environment (2011)18
Pos.		Lower is worse %18
145	Turkmenistan	8.6%
144	Albania	9.4%
143	Haiti	10.0%
142	Tajikistan	11.1%
141	Uzbekistan	11.3%
140	Iceland	13.1%
139	Libya	14.6%
138	Denmark	14.9%
137	China	15.1%
136	Estonia	15.9%
135	Czechia	16.0%
134	Tunisia	19.3%
133	Latvia	19.5%
132	Zimbabwe	19.6%
131	Kuwait	19.6%
130	USA	19.7%
129	Botswana	20.4%
128	Norway	20.5%
127	UAE	20.8%
126	Malawi	22.0%
q=145.

Rational Beliefs on the Environment By Global Region:

Rational Beliefs on the Environment (2011)18
	Area	Higher is better %18
	Africa...	38.3%
	Asia...	37.9%
	Australasia	28.0%
	Europe...	33.6%
	North America	54.2%
	South America	63.8%
	The Middle East...	35.1%
	World	39.9%

1.6. Meat Consumption

#animal_rights #animal_welfare #diet #food #health #meat #veganism #vegetarianism

Meat Consumption Lower is better19
Pos.		2021 kg19	2010s Avg19
1	Congo, DR	03.0	03.7
2	Burundi	03.5	02.7
3	Bangladesh	04.3	04.1
4	Madagascar	05.4	06.7
5	India	05.7	04.3
6	Nigeria	07.0	07.9
7	Ethiopia	07.1	06.9
8	Rwanda	07.6	08.5
9	Mali	07.8	21.5
10	Niger	08.1	09.1
11	Afghanistan	08.7	10.9
12	Uganda	09.4	11.1
13	Togo	09.4	12.7
14	Kenya	10.3	15.5
15	Mozambique	10.4	08.4
16	Sierra Leone	11.7	08.6
17	Sri Lanka	12.0	08.6
18	Tanzania	12.1	10.0
19	Ivory Coast	12.6	11.5
20	Cambodia	12.6	13.4
q=185.

Meat Consumption Lower is better19
Pos.		2021 kg19	2010s Avg19
185	Hong Kong	146.9	135.1
184	USA	126.8	118.5
183	Nauru	125.9
182	Mongolia	115.6	84.3
181	Argentina	115.5	106.0
180	Bahamas	111.9	101.2
179	Australia	110.2	119.4
178	St Vincent & Grenadines	109.5	100.7
177	Israel	107.7	101.4
176	Samoa	106.2	103.9
175	Spain	100.3	98.4
174	Brazil	98.8	95.7
173	Chile	97.8	86.7
172	St Kitts & Nevis	96.6	91.2
171	Portugal	94.6	94.1
170	French Polynesia	92.5	96.1
169	Croatia	90.8	70.5
168	Taiwan	89.8	79.8
167	St Lucia	89.6	90.9
166	Poland	89.3	83.3
q=185.

Vegetarian diets have health advantages over carnivorous diets. Plant-based diets use much less water than carnivorous ones, to the extent that agricultural and water management scientists are urging governments to encourage people to switch₂₀. Some vegetarians are morally opposed to the maltreatment of animals: some avoid meat products as an offensive against the meat industry. But there are problems with vegetarians, too. Some merely want to look good socially; some have accepted pro-vegetarian ideas that are plain wrong and misguided, and, some faddish vegetarian diets are harmful and dangerous. The countries that ate the least meat throughout the 2010s were Burundi, Congo, DR and Bangladesh₁₉.

Meat Consumption By Global Region:

	Area	2021 kg19	2010s Avg19
	Africa...	24.9	22.8
	Asia...	46.7	42.1
	Australasia	74.2	67.5
	Europe...	71.1	69.1
	North America	71.1	65.4
	South America	68.7	64.3
	The Middle East...	53.0	45.3
	World	52.5	49.0

1.7. Green Future Index

#climate_change #energy #sustainability #the_environment

Green Future Index (2023)21
Pos.		Higher is better Score21
1	Iceland	6.7
2	Finland	6.7
3	Norway	6.4
4=	Sweden	6.3
4=	Denmark	6.3
6	Netherlands	6.2
7	UK	6.1
8	S. Korea	6.0
9	France	6.0
10=	Spain	5.9
10=	Germany	5.9
12	Belgium	5.8
13	Italy	5.7
14=	Ireland	5.7
14=	Canada	5.7
16	Luxembourg	5.6
17	Greece	5.6
18	Portugal	5.5
19	USA	5.4
20=	Switzerland	5.4
q=76.

Green Future Index (2023)21
Pos.		Lower is worse Score21
76	Iran	2.6
75	Algeria	3.1
74	Zambia	3.3
73	Qatar	3.4
72	Bangladesh	3.5
71	Paraguay	3.6
70=	Guatemala	3.6
68=	Russia	3.6
68	Malaysia	3.7
67	Pakistan	3.7
66	Uganda	3.7
65	Ghana	3.8
64	Cameroon	3.8
63	Turkey	3.8
62	Peru	4.0
61	Dominican Rep.	4.0
60	Egypt	4.0
59	Angola	4.0
58	Ethiopia	4.0
57	Kuwait	4.1
q=76.

The Green Futures Index (GFI) has been running since 2021, and looks at 23 data sets for over 70 countries, with a focus on effectiveness, policy and planning 'for a low carbon future. It is complementary to existing goals and frameworks for sustainable development'. Datasets include qualitative appraisals and quantitative measurements on carbon emissions across multiple sectors, renewable and nuclear energy, recycling capabilities, green technologies used in building and construction, transport, scientific and industrial green innovations and patent quantities, climate action and climate policies. Each country is then ranked by their final score.₂₂.

Green Future Index By Global Region:

Green Future Index (2023)21
	Area	Higher is better Score21
	Africa...	4.0
	Asia...	4.3
	Australasia	4.6
	Europe...	5.6
	North America	4.7
	South America	4.5
	The Middle East...	3.9
	World	4.8

2. Overall Results by Country

#climate_change #human_development #the_environment

The overall scores are simply an average of each countries' position in all of the data sets that make up this category. Countries only receive a ranking if they have at least 6 different data points across the data sets. The overall results for each country are listed alongside their position in the Social and Moral Development Index.

Pos.		Responsibility Towards The Environment (2025) Lower is better Avg Rank23	Social & Moral Lower is better Avg Rank24
1	Sri Lanka	34.9	68.2
2	Uruguay	43.2	52.4
3	Switzerland	45.0	32.6
4	Morocco	46.5	83.9
5	Puerto Rico	47.1
6	Burundi	47.8	118.2
7	Nepal	47.9	90.0
8	India	49.5	83.1
9	Philippines	49.6	82.5
10	Costa Rica	49.7	54.7
11	Denmark	50.4	27.0
12	Mali	51.0	113.5
13	Madagascar	52.4	108.2
14	Nigeria	55.8	111.6
15	Rwanda	56.4	107.5
16	Chile	56.4	57.5
17	Peru	56.7	77.4
18	Liechtenstein	56.8	46.2
19	Japan	57.4	42.5
20	Uganda	57.8	108.0
21	Kenya	57.9	102.2
22	Portugal	58.0	47.5
23	Mauritius	58.1	62.6
24	Germany	58.2	37.6
25	Ghana	58.6	92.5
26	Thailand	59.5	74.3
27	Spain	59.5	44.5
28	Austria	59.6	36.2
29	Tunisia	60.1	76.2
30	Vietnam	60.6	82.9
31	Niger	61.3	119.1
32	Greece	61.4	57.7
33	Tanzania	61.6	108.8
34	Ethiopia	61.7	114.5
35	Indonesia	61.9	84.8
36	Cameroon	62.6	114.6
37	Italy	63.1	47.2
38	Jordan	63.1	88.8
39	Ireland	63.1	37.8
40	Burkina Faso	63.1	108.5
41	Gambia	63.3	111.9
42	Senegal	63.4	98.5
43	Hong Kong	64.6
44	Cyprus	64.8	53.9
45	Dominican Rep.	65.0	85.5
46	Ecuador	65.6	78.6
47	Hungary	65.8	54.7
48	Guatemala	66.1	93.7
49	Lesotho	66.1	103.8
50	Mexico	66.3	78.4
q=199.

Pos.		Responsibility Towards The Environment (2025) Lower is better Avg Rank23	Social & Moral Lower is better Avg Rank24
51	Norway	66.9	29.9
52	Guinea	67.1	118.6
53	El Salvador	67.4	86.5
54	Bangladesh	69.7	100.6
55	Brazil	70.2	71.6
56	Maldives	70.5	88.9
57	Ivory Coast	70.8	116.2
58	Colombia	70.9	82.7
59	Togo	71.1	112.4
60	Netherlands	71.1	33.3
61	Luxembourg	71.4	41.4
62	Sweden	71.8	31.8
63	Finland	71.9	33.4
64	Yemen	71.9	126.2
65	Pakistan	72.0	110.2
66	France	72.8	42.9
67	Congo, DR	73.0	128.5
68	Romania	73.8	65.7
69	Swaziland	74.2	117.8
70	Chad	74.4	132.9
71	UK	74.4	41.4
72	Turkey	75.0	79.2
73	China	75.2	82.8
74	Belgium	75.3	39.4
75	Cape Verde	75.6	88.8
76	Afghanistan	75.7	134.1
77	New Zealand	75.8	36.6
78	Bulgaria	75.8	67.3
79	Malawi	76.0	112.7
80	Benin	76.5	111.7
81	Australia	76.6	38.5
82	Botswana	76.8	94.5
83	Syria	77.4	119.1
84	Congo, (Brazzaville)	77.6	119.7
85	Latvia	77.7	59.2
86	Egypt	78.0	100.3
87	Argentina	78.5	67.4
88	Dominica	78.5	77.7
89	Iran	79.0	100.3
90	Cuba	79.4	89.5
91	Algeria	79.7	98.2
92	Nicaragua	80.5	97.6
93	Slovakia	80.8	59.6
94	Poland	81.0	56.3
95	UAE	81.8	81.0
96	Bolivia	81.8	88.4
97	Slovenia	82.1	45.6
98	Panama	82.5	80.9
99	Singapore	83.3	60.4
100	Georgia	83.6	78.0
q=199.

Pos.		Responsibility Towards The Environment (2025) Lower is better Avg Rank23	Social & Moral Lower is better Avg Rank24
101	Sierra Leone	83.6	115.9
102	Guinea-Bissau	83.7	121.0
103	Namibia	83.9	99.3
104	S. Korea	84.0	53.8
105	Cambodia	84.0	111.2
106	Central African Rep.	84.2	130.5
107	Djibouti	84.5	117.2
108	Honduras	84.6	102.0
109	Zambia	85.4	111.8
110	Venezuela	86.1	97.8
111	Taiwan	86.1	50.3
112	Macedonia	86.9	75.9
113	Canada	87.2	41.8
114	Guyana	87.4	96.3
115	Gabon	87.9	111.1
116	Croatia	88.5	61.8
117	Jamaica	88.6	79.3
118	Fiji	89.1	87.4
119	Czechia	89.3	52.6
120	Malaysia	89.5	76.6
121	Lithuania	89.5	60.7
122	Paraguay	91.0	95.5
123	Equatorial Guinea	91.2	135.7
124	Belize	91.3	90.1
125	Albania	91.5	75.4
126	St Vincent & Grenadines	92.0	81.6
127=	Monaco	92.1	59.0
127=	Moldova	92.1	77.6
129	S. Africa	92.2	83.5
130	Malta	92.2	55.8
131	Sao Tome & Principe	92.7	109.3
132	Palestine	92.7
133	Vanuatu	93.0	107.2
134	Mozambique	93.9	120.0
135	Qatar	94.1	85.3
136	Liberia	94.2	118.8
137	Trinidad & Tobago	94.5	74.8
138	Ukraine	94.8	78.3
139	Saudi Arabia	94.9	101.6
140	Israel	95.8	69.1
141	Tonga	96.1	98.7
142=	St Kitts & Nevis	96.9	83.0
142=	Iceland	96.9	41.4
144	Laos	97.0	117.2
145=	Estonia	97.0	52.4
146	Montenegro	97.3	72.2
147	Sudan	97.8	134.4
148	Comoros	99.1	124.0
149	Russia	99.2	88.7
150	Myanmar (Burma)	99.9	116.3
q=199.

Pos.		Responsibility Towards The Environment (2025) Lower is better Avg Rank23	Social & Moral Lower is better Avg Rank24
151	Kuwait	100.5	86.0
152	Bahamas	100.9	81.6
153	Azerbaijan	101.2	95.0
154	Mauritania	101.2	122.9
155	Oman	101.8	99.4
156	Iraq	102.8	125.6
157	Antigua & Barbuda	103.2	82.3
158	Seychelles	103.4	85.4
159	Bosnia & Herzegovina	103.5	77.7
160	St Lucia	103.6	89.3
161	USA	103.8	57.5
162	Lebanon	103.9	95.0
163	Papua New Guinea	104.5	120.5
164	Serbia	104.8	72.3
165	Haiti	105.8	119.8
166	Samoa	107.0	106.2
167	Bahrain	107.9	91.1
168	Mongolia	108.1	87.8
169	Armenia	108.2	83.6
170	Suriname	108.5	95.9
171	Kyrgyzstan	108.7	94.3
172	Angola	109.5	136.4
173	Kazakhstan	109.8	90.7
174	Barbados	110.1	69.8
175	Kiribati	111.4	103.1
176	Micronesia	114.6	112.3
177	Bhutan	115.3	100.8
178	Belarus	116.0	87.7
179	Uzbekistan	116.1	101.6
180	Cook Islands	119.6
181	Libya	121.4	112.9
182	Zimbabwe	121.5	126.2
183	Solomon Islands	121.6	121.4
184	Marshall Islands	123.1	122.1
185	Palau	124.5	93.7
186	Grenada	125.0	86.3
187	Tuvalu	127.4	108.7
188	Tajikistan	128.6	110.0
189	Niue	129.5
190	Brunei	130.2	97.6
191	Somalia	131.0	158.4
192	N. Korea	132.3	117.1
193	Turkmenistan	134.1	120.9
194	Nauru	134.4	117.5
195	San Marino	134.9	76.1
196	Andorra	136.3	77.8
197	Timor-Leste (E. Timor)	137.5	108.3
198	Vatican City	138.3	142.5
199	Eritrea	146.2	146.0
q=199.

3. Overall Results by Region

#biodiversity #climate_change #deforestation #energy #environmentalism #food #human_development #internationalism #meat #over-exploitation #sustainability #the_environment #veganism #vegetarianism

	Area	Responsibility Towards The Environment (2025) Lower is better Avg Rank23	Social & Moral Lower is better Avg Rank24
	Africa...	80.07	119.0
	Asia...	86.44	92.0
	Australasia	93.28	95.6
	Baltic States	96.33	55.7
	Central America	89.80	91.7
	Europe...	86.45	55.7
	Melanesia	87.17	108.7
	Micronesia	85.10	104.0
	North America	94.06	82.7
	Polynesia	115.53	87.3
	Scandinavia...	88.17	31.5
	Small Islands...	93.38	89.4
	South America	89.87	83.9
	The Americas...	92.66	81.5
	The Balkans	94.56	70.7
	The Caribbean...	95.72	83.9
	The Mediterranean	80.97	71.0
	The Middle East...	87.62	94.1
	World	84.93	88.6

The table here shows overall results for this category, compared with each region's average score on the Social and Moral Development Index. Regional values are calculated as an average of national results, not by total regional population. The tables below show results for each data set for each region.

The Environment Data Sets by Region:

	Area	Forest Area Change 2000-2020 Higher is better1	Environmental Performance (2018) Higher is better12	Energy to GDP Efficiency (2022) Lower is better Avg13	International Accords on the Environment Higher is better Avg Rate	Rational Beliefs on the Environment (2011) Higher is better %18	Meat Consumption (2021) Lower is better kg19	Green Future Index (2023) Higher is better Score21
	Africa...	-8.7%	46.4	0.83	56.4%	38.3%	24.9	4.0
	Asia...	3.2%	54.5	1.50	55.4%	37.9%	46.7	4.3
	Australasia	0.1%	55.2	1.23	48.2%	28.0%	74.2	4.6
	Baltic States	7.6%	66.6	1.07	79.0%	20.3%	76.5
	Central America	-12.8%	57.3	0.99	64.2%	63.2%	51.4	4.4
	Europe...	8.2%	69.6	1.25	62.7%	33.6%	71.1	5.6
	Melanesia	1.9%	45.1		52.2%		50.3
	Micronesia	-0.4%	52.5		40.6%		82.9
	North America	-2.0%	58.9	1.40	57.7%	54.2%	71.1	4.7
	Polynesia	-0.6%	64.3	1.22	47.7%	24.2%	93.3	4.6
	Scandinavia...	10.4%	76.9	1.69	74.9%	18.6%	73.6	6.5
	Small Islands...	1.8%	57.4	1.64	49.5%	44.9%	67.7	4.5
	South America	-2.5%	58.6	1.45	66.5%	63.8%	68.7	4.5
	The Americas...	-2.1%	58.8	1.42	60.7%	58.6%	70.3	4.6
	The Balkans	11.0%	61.2	1.34	56.9%	38.7%	63.5	5.4
	The Caribbean...	1.6%	57.6	1.62	52.3%	44.9%	75.9	4.0
	The Mediterranean	7.5%	65.8	1.23	56.4%	40.1%	59.1	4.8
	The Middle East...	7.2%	60.0	1.60	51.5%	35.1%	53.0	3.9
	World	-0.1%	56.4	1.23	57.5%	39.9%	52.5	4.8

4. The Social and Moral Development Index

The data sets form part of the calculations for the Human Truth Foundation's Social and Moral Development Index.

The Social and Moral Development Index concentrates on moral issues and human rights, violence, public health, equality, tolerance, freedom and effectiveness in climate change mitigation and environmentalism, and on some technological issues. A country scores higher for achieving well in those areas, and for sustaining that achievement in the long term. Those countries towards the top of this index can truly said to be setting good examples and leading humankind onwards into a bright, humane, and free future. See: Which are the Best Countries in the World? The Social and Moral Development Index.

GDP per unit of energy consumption is often called 'Energy Intensity'. It's how efficient countries are at producing GDP in terms of primary energy use. It represents primary energy consumption using the substitution method, per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). A lower value means that less energy was used to maintain the country's GDP.

The Environmental Performance Index 2018 data includes 24 indicators including air pollution, water and sanitation, biodiversity, ecosystems and environmental health, combined into a single score by country, by the Yale University Center for Environmental Law & Policy.