Estonia's Responsibility Towards The Environment

Estonia Republic of Estonia [Country Profile Page]
Status	Independent State
Social and Moral Index	28th best
Capital	Tallinn
Land Area	42 390km21
Location	Europe, Baltic States, Scandinavia
Population	1.3m2
Life Expectancy	77.14yrs (2017)3
GNI	$38 048 (2017)4
ISO3166-1 Codes	EE, EST, 2335
Internet Domain	.ee6
Currency	Euro (EUR)7
Telephone	+3728

Estonia is positioned 144th in the world regarding its responsibility towards the environment. This rank is computed using 21 data sets. Estonia comes in the best 20 in terms of its sign-up rate to major international accords on protecting the environment. It does better than average in its forested percent change 2000-2020₉ and in its environmental performance₁₀ (but low for Europe). But, things could still be better. Estonia does worse than average when it comes to energy to GDP efficiency₁₁ and in reducing annual meat consumption per person₁₂. And finally, it falls into the worst-performing 20 for the rate of rational beliefs on the environment in the population₁₃ (amongst the worst in Europe).

1. Estonia's Responsibility Towards The Environment
2. Data Sets
   1. Forest Area Change 2000-2020
   2. Environmental Performance
   3. Energy to GDP Efficiency
   4. International Accords on the Environment
   5. Rational Beliefs on the Environment
   6. Meat Consumption
3. Links

---

1. Estonia's Responsibility Towards The Environment

#climate_change #the_environment

Compared to Europe (2025)14
Pos.		Lower is better Avg Rank14
1	Switzerland	45.0
2	Denmark	50.4
3	Liechtenstein	56.8
	...
36	Malta	92.2
37	Ukraine	94.8
38=	Iceland	96.9
39	Estonia	97.0
40	Montenegro	97.3
41	Azerbaijan	101.2
42	Bosnia & Herzegovina	103.5
43	Serbia	104.8
44	Armenia	108.2
	Europe Avg	86.45
q=48.

Responsibility Towards The Environment (2025)14
Pos.		Lower is better Avg Rank14
1	Sri Lanka	34.9
2	Uruguay	43.2
3	Switzerland	45.0
	...
142=	St Kitts & Nevis	96.9
142=	Iceland	96.9
144	Laos	97.0
145=	Estonia	97.0
146	Montenegro	97.3
147	Sudan	97.8
148	Comoros	99.1
149	Russia	99.2
	World Avg	84.93
q=199.

We have known for a long term that we must protect the environment from habitation destruction, over-exploitation, pollution, and the emissions that cause climate change. In 1998, Greenpeace wrote that "Environment can no longer be meaningfully separated from health, quality of life, democracy, education, economy or trade"₁₅. What countries have been doing the right thing, via legislation and national culture? 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.

For more, see:

• " Countries With the Best Environmental Records" by Vexen Crabtree (2025).

2. Data Sets

2.1. Forest Area Change 2000-2020

#biodiversity #deforestation #environmentalism #forests #over-exploitation #the_environment

Forest Area Change 2000-2020 Higher is better9
Pos.		Total9
1	Guernsey	82.6%
2	Bahrain	75.2%
3	Iceland	64.7%
	...
32	Denmark	9.8%
33	Kazakhstan	9.7%
34	Lithuania	8.9%
35	Estonia	8.7%
36	Romania	8.7%
37	Spain	8.6%
38	Dominican Rep.	8.5%
39	Greece	8.4%
	Europe Avg	8.2%
	World Avg	-0.1%
q=234.

Estonia ranks 35th in the world in terms of its forested percent change 2000-2020.

Forests are carbon sinks, mitigating against climate change_16,17. Unfortunately, we are destroying over 70,000 km² of forest each year₁₈. In the last few thousand years, we've removed 30-40% of the Earth's forest cover_19,17, mostly to clear space for agriculture, and for logging_20,21. 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_22,20. It brings soil erosion from wind and rain which, over time, can almost-permanently stop any hope of growing food₂₃, and spreads desertification. Entire ecosystems are collapsing as a result, including ones that we depend upon₂₄. 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.₂₅.

Some regions of the world are increasing their forest cover₁₇; the best from 2000-2020 are Scandinavia (13.8% ), The Balkans (11.0% ) and Baltic States (7.6% )₉. 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% )₉.

For more, see:

• "Deforestation" by Vexen Crabtree (2024).

Averages by decade for Estonia (for the ranks, lower is better):

Forest Area Change 2000-2020	2000s  Average	2010s  Average
Estonia:	4.3%	4.4%
World Rank:	35th	⇡  29th
World Avg:	0.6%	-0.7%

2.2. Environmental Performance

#climate_change #energy #sustainability #the_environment

Environmental Performance Higher is better10
Pos.		201810
1	Switzerland	87.4
2	France	84.0
3	Denmark	81.6
	...
45	Romania	64.8
46	Dominican Rep.	64.7
47	Uruguay	64.7
48	Estonia	64.3
49	Singapore	64.2
50	Poland	64.1
51	Venezuela	63.9
52	Russia	63.8
	Europe Avg	69.6
	World Avg	56.4
q=180.

With respect to its environmental performance, Estonia comes 48th in the world.

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.

2.3. Energy to GDP Efficiency

#energy #sustainability #the_environment

Energy to GDP Efficiency Lower is better11
Pos.		2022 Avg11
1	Rwanda	0.25
2	Chad	0.26
3	Tanzania	0.31
	...
123	Uzbekistan	1.52
124	Malaysia	1.53
125	Vietnam	1.55
126	Estonia	1.56
127	Bosnia & Herzegovina	1.60
128	Kazakhstan	1.63
129	Bulgaria	1.63
130	Seychelles	1.63
	Europe Avg	1.25
	World Avg	1.23
q=165.

Estonia comes 126th in the world regarding energy to GDP efficiency.

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.

So far, compared to the 2010s, Estonia has improved its energy-to-GDP efficiency more than any other country in the world except Paraguay.

Averages by decade for Estonia (for the ranks, lower is better):

Energy to GDP Efficiency	1980s  Average	1990s  Average	2000s  Average	2010s  Average
Estonia:	4.41	3.63	2.19	2.28
World Rank:	140th	⇣  141st	⇡  129th	⇣  152nd
World Avg:	2.10	2.15	1.60	1.30

2.4. International Accords on the Environment

#environmentalism #internationalism

International Accords on the Environment Higher is better
Pos.		Total Avg Rate
1	Sweden	83%
2	Canada	82%
3	Norway	81%
4	Latvia	81%
5	Estonia	80%
6	Ukraine	80%
7	Finland	79%
8	Georgia	79%
9	Switzerland	78%
10	Nigeria	78%
11	Germany	76%
12	Belarus	76%
	Europe Avg	62.7%
	World Avg	57.5%
q=197.

Estonia ranks 5th-best in the world in terms of its sign-up rate to major international accords on protecting the environment.

Each country is scored using a formula that takes the date each country took up major international environmental agreements, as a ratio of maximum possible days. The agreements covered are: (1) the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, (2) the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides, (3) the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, (4) the Waigani Convention (for those countries that are eligible), (5) the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), (6) the Kyoto Protocol and (7) its successor, the Paris Agreement, (8) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), (9) the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and finally, (10) the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

For more, see:

• " Countries With the Best Environmental Records" by Vexen Crabtree (2025).

Estonia was one of the 31 countries that signed the Basel Convention during its first year.

“In 2023, Estonia accounted for 0.4% of the EU's net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and achieved a net emissions reduction of 27.9% compared with 2005. The country's total emissions decreased by 40.6% between 2005 and 2023, but its land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector remained a net emissions source in 2023, after being a carbon sink up until 2013. While emissions from sectors under the EU emissions trading system (ETS) fell by 59% compared with 2005, those from sectors covered by the effort-sharing legislation declined by only 4.1%. Between 2005 and 2023, Estonia succeeded in reducing emissions in all sectors, except transport and agriculture, but remained one of the most carbon-intensive economies in the EU, heavily reliant on oil shale in energy production. Over 59.4% of Estonia's recovery and resilience plan supports the green transition. Estonia [confirmed in 2023] its commitment to achieving climate neutrality by 2050.”

EU 2023 Climate Action Strategy₂₆

Averages by decade for Estonia (for the ranks, lower is better):

International Accords on the Environment	1990s  Average	2000s  Average	2010s  Average	2020s  Average
Estonia:	45%	78%	98%	100%
World Rank:	108th	108th	⇡  53rd	⇡  1st
World Avg:	45.0%	74.4%	90.7%	95.0%

2.5. Rational Beliefs on the Environment

Rational Beliefs on the Environment Higher is better13
Pos.		2011 %13
1	Argentina	78.3%
2	Greece	77.6%
3	Brazil	77.1%
	...
133	Latvia	19.5%
134	Tunisia	19.3%
135	Czechia	16.0%
136	Estonia	15.9%
137	China	15.1%
138	Denmark	14.9%
139	Libya	14.6%
140	Iceland	13.1%
	Europe Avg	33.6%
	World Avg	39.9%
q=145.

Amongst the lowest in Europe in terms of the rate of rational beliefs on the environment in the population, Estonia comes 10th-worst in the world. In a 2023 survey, 25% of Estonians identified climate change as one of the four most serious problems facing the world (almost half the 46% EU average)₂₆. "Most expect national government (55%) and/or the EU (45%) to tackle climate change, while 22% find it to be a personal responsibility"₂₆.

2.6. Meat Consumption

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

Meat Consumption Lower is better12
Pos.		2021 kg12
1	Congo, DR	03.0
2	Burundi	03.5
3	Bangladesh	04.3
	...
126	Seychelles	70.6
127	S. Africa	71.6
128	Kazakhstan	71.8
129	Estonia	72.1
130	Guyana	72.4
131	Latvia	74.0
132	Finland	74.0
133	Italy	74.3
	Europe Avg	71.1
	World Avg	52.5
q=185.

Estonia ranks 129th in the world regarding reducing annual meat consumption per person.

There are five key arguments in favour of vegetarianism which accrue even from partial adoption: (1) Vegetarian diets have notable health advantages over carnivorous diets, especially for heart and cardiovascular issues_27,28,29. (2) It is morally better to avoid killing or harming animals. (3) Plant-based diets use much less water than carnivorous ones, to the extent that agricultural and water management scientists urge governments to encourage people to switch₃₀. (4) Vegetarian food production uses substantially less land_27,31,32. And, (5) vegetarianism is better for the environment than meat-production for emissions, sewerage, pollution and chemicals usage._27,31. A plant-based diet causes 75% less greenhouse gas emissions than a typical carnivorous diet₃₂. The global food industry causes about 1/3 of all planet-heating emissions, and so "to slow the worst climate effects, the United Nations has called for a drastic reduction in meat consumption"₃₂. Despite this, "reducing appetites for carbon-intensive meat and dairy is incredibly hard"₃₃ and as countries get richer, they tend to eat more meat.

On average throughout the 2010s, Estonia's rate was 64.8.