An aerial picture shows the port in Helsinki in 2006. Nordic countries take the greatest care of their environment and their people, according to a ranking published on Thursday by the publication Reader's Digest.(AFP/File/Pekka Sakki)
Posted on 09/21/2007 5:23:08 AM PDT by SkyPilot
PARIS (AFP) - Nordic countries take the greatest care of their environment and their people, according to a ranking published on Thursday by the publication Reader's Digest.
An aerial picture shows the port in Helsinki in 2006. Nordic countries take the greatest care of their environment and their people, according to a ranking published on Thursday by the publication Reader's Digest.(AFP/File/Pekka Sakki)
Finland comes top of the 141-nation list, followed by Iceland, Norway and Sweden, and then Austria, Switzerland, Ireland and Australia.
At the bottom of the list is Ethiopia, preceded by Niger, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso and Chad.
The United States comes in 23rd, China 84th and India 104th.
The ranking combines environmental factors, such as air and water quality, respect for biodiversity and greenhouse-gas emissions, as well as social factors, such as gross domestic product, access to education, unemployment rate and life expectancy.
The statistical basis is the UN's Human Development Index and the Environmental Sustainability Index drawn up by Yale and Columbia universities and the World Economic Forum.
European countries -- again, led by Scandinavia -- also top the Reader's Digest assessment of 72 cities for their quality of life. The criteria for this include public transport, parks, air quality, rubbish recycling and the price of electricity.
The winner is Stockholm, followed by Oslo, Munich and Paris.
Asia's mega-cities fare the worst. At the bottom is Beijing, preceded by Shanghai, Mumbai, Guangzhou and Bangkok.
At the bottom of the list is Ethiopia, preceded by Niger, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso and Chad.
One should keep in mind 2 things.
The first is that Scandinavian countries are really like large cities surrounded by essentially empty forests. They have a few, very competitive multi-nationals (or oil in the case of Norway) are mostly homogeneous and huge amounts of natural resources per capita.
There are places in many other large rich countries that are very similar to this including the United States. However, when combined with other more problematic, or less nice areas, those larger countries come out much less pretty. Thus, comparing a country with fewer than the number of people in NYC with countries with more than 50 million is simply inappropriate.
The second thing is that it is dark and cold for half the frigin year.
Helsinki seemed to have the grimmest, heaviest drinkers in the world. They made the Soviets look downright festive.
LOL! I suspect that human concerns rank as secondary in this survey as they did in the article; how many members of the Religion of Pieces live in each of those countries? We know Australia is having serious problems with their members of the Religion of Pieces.
Perhaps it’s urban legend, but I’ve always heard that Scandinavian countries have very high suicide rates. Which is odd, since the quality of life is so darn high!
I know here in Switzerland that the suicide rate is high and we are always near the top of these lists.
You reminded me when I took the boat from Helsinki to Estonia, Tallinn. Not only was it a booze cruise but a drunk fest for the Finns over the weekend there.
Does anyone know where we can access the entire list?
Hopefully this list will convince all of the whiners here in the USA to move.
Fat chance.
Having been to Finland i’d agree its near the top. The South Island of New Zealand would be my all-time top choice to live if I had no ties to anywhere. Gorgeous, very nice people, not crowded at all, little crime, healthy lifestyles, etc.
Three words: Swedish Bikini Team.
Absotuely! Just ask the innocent Scandinavians recently killed by Muslim mutants!
A bit of trivia information about your ROP question: Iceland has denied a request from the local Muslim community to build a mosque and has been getting pressure from the EU to reverse that decision.
Iceland and Finland are still very homogeneous countries unlike Sweden which has many areas controlled by Sharia and religion of peace (e.g. Malmo and Stockholm neighborhoods).
Today, Estonia (with its low flat tax system) is more and more in the same league.
I hope they keep it that way in Iceland, Estonia and Finland. It is nice to visit places where local hatemongerers like Al Sharpton and Osama wannabes are not all over the place.
In Finland, the archipelago is great (baltic sea and great lakes), and easily accessible from Helsinki and afforable to the middle-class. Public school system and Universities are not indoctrination camps (like in UK and US). Local startups and innovative environment has produced everything from Linux to Nokia. Heavy drinking from the age of 13 or so is an embarrasing (but drugs are not a problem).
They are great places, but still, in the end, I opted out and wanted to live in the US. I can’t rationalise that, though.
Those Scandinavians are so happy their breeding like rats!
Anybody who thinks their actions are not a deliberate effort to populate the world and conquer through sheer numbers is an industrial strength moron.
A hopelessly flawed study with a gross socialistic bias. If quality of life is the bottom-line metric, respect for biodiversity makes little sense, while actual biodiversity does. A crowded nation has little biodiversity, as does a nation of small area. A nordic nation that is rather empty should have some biodiversity, but if the habitat is rather uniform (vast areas of taiga and tundra) that will limit diversity. A country with a large area covering many habitats, such as the US, will have far more biodiversity for one to experience. Greenhouse gas emissions seem irrelevant to quality of life. In fact, I'd argue that quality of life is likely inversely related to greenhouse gas emissions. Such emissions have no local impact, so reducing such emissions has little benefit for the planet while imposing hardships locally. I'm sure liberty is underweighted in this socialistic exercise, and socialism overweighted. The results are nonsense, but if they prompt liberals here to pull up stakes and move to Scandanavia, I'm all for it.
Now that's what I call "Quality of Life".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.