From: bathory_acolyte	Date: April 22nd, 2005 09:59 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Finland tends to rank highly

	From: vexen	Date: April 22nd, 2005 10:06 pm (UTC)		(Link)

... as it does in many topics, you're right! But these topics include good and bad! The country in Europe with most violent crime and the most expensive country!

	From: bathory_acolyte	Date: April 22nd, 2005 10:09 pm (UTC)		(Link)

If there was a category for "most great bands per ... whatever" then Finland would rank top =P

	From: aspen_fox	Date: April 22nd, 2005 10:07 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Maybe Iceland. I'm not sure their economy is that competitive, but they have a very strategic location. And the weather's not as bad as most people think. Boston's actually colder in the winter than anywhere in Iceland. They've had equal rights for women for a long time and have even already had a woman President. Life expectancy is pretty high, and the literacy rate 100%. Obesity rate is very low. Nightlife is WICKED. ;)

I'm not completely sure on the other factors, but I could certainly find out! :)

	From: vexen	Date: April 22nd, 2005 10:18 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Women's Emancipation:
1893 New Zealand
1902 Australia
1906 Finland
1913 Norway
1916 Denmark, Iceland
Not bad, all 6 countries can rightly boast about that one for at least a century, I think!


"Global Competitiveness Report" by the World Economic Forum, Country Rankings 2004-2005
http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report
1. Finland
2. USA
3. Sweden
4. Taiwan
5. Denmark
6. Norway
7. Singapore
8. Switzerland
9.Japan
10.Iceland

Whether: Well whatever you're used to is normal, so I can't use weather comparisons.

Literacy! *That's* what I need stats on! But *scratches head*, how do I take into account immigration? If a country, for the good of humanity takes in lots of refugees from an illiterate country, it should score high for doing that... but taking into account illiteracy without taking immigration into account is unfair. Stats are never simple, least of all demographics and politics! Hi ho, hi ho...

	From: aspen_fox	Date: April 22nd, 2005 10:30 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I could probably get some accurate stats on literacy (and weather) from my in-laws. They're experts on Iceland.

(I don't think too many people immigrate to Iceland.)

	From: vexen	Date: April 23rd, 2005 01:02 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Literacy... ALL developed countries get 100%/99% (depending on how/who you count), with only a few on 98%, and the USA on 97%. The same trend exists for child literacy. In short... it's all too close to compare reasonably. Ah well.

	From: aspen_fox	Date: April 23rd, 2005 05:50 pm (UTC)		(Link)

But in a very large country, a 3% difference can be significant when you break down the numbers... it ends up in the millions. Iceland's a small country, but their standards of literacy are HIGHER. Also, one of their biggest tourist attractions is a library!

On a personal note, I don't consider the general populace of the U.S., at least here in California, to rate as 'literate.' Most kids can't spell, read or write very well at all and neither can many adults! There are misspellings and grammatical errors on billboard ads, in major magazines ... on many TV shows (which film out of southern CA). It's pathetic.

From: typhonian	Date: April 27th, 2005 08:23 am (UTC)		(Link)

That is not confined to the US. Many similar occurences occur here in the UK. c.f. Lynne Truss and her book.

	From: footpad	Date: April 22nd, 2005 10:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I don't think anything makes up for spending time in the country. Crime statistics, natural environments—you can tell a lot from these things, but they aren't everything. For example, I love France now; I know I could happily live the rest of my life here. Scandinavia looks like the perfect living environment, and in many ways it is, but in my experience it's peaceful, well-ordered and socially just a little bit boring.

And of course, different parts of the same country can be much more different than the average of two different countries.

	From: vexen	Date: April 22nd, 2005 10:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Nothing makes up for living there, it's true. I could ask people... but I don't like limited, anecdotal evidence... I'd (being anal as I am) have to start sampling properly in order to get data based on living in the country. Luckily, lots of other people have done that already... one factor I've used is the Quality of Life report via The Economist, and that actually took into account polls on such questions as "Are you happy..." etc, and comparing results by country.

Scandanavia may look beautiful, and may be boring... but both things do depend on the nature-scape and lifestyle you're used to and looking for. Very hard to compare morally or, as to be used as an example for others to follow. I'm looking for things where other people will get inspired to improve themselves by following the example of these countries. For example I highlight Sweden's exemplary recycling record; but I can't promote it's beauty because it's very difficult to do it objectively and more, it's not something that is readily made manifest by others in their own country! (Can the UK ever, through effort, produce the beautiful landscape of Scandanavia? A comparison would be unfair...)

	From: dwagon	Date: April 23rd, 2005 07:40 am (UTC)		(Link)

I'm not sure what single stat would take it into account, but concern for the environment (and actually doin something about it) should be in the rankings, as imo it shows that a country's taking a slightly more long term view of thing, and willing to make 'sacrifices' for that kind of thing.

Having a quick glance at the contires you've already got, I know Scandanavia at least has a good rep in this area, and it wouldn't suprise me if Oz and Switzerland did too.

Out of curiosity, how badly does the UK do in all this? *g*

	From: vexen	Date: April 23rd, 2005 12:17 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I want to include that, and make it a weighted one too because it's very important. But there are only specific stats available. Stats for CO2 emissions on roads, in industry, etc. Stats for energy usage at home. But as you mention, there doesn't seem to be a simple stat that encompasses it all. I know!! Rank them in the chronological order that they ratified Kyoto Protocol!

And I might add petrol tax too, or at least have a look to see what the variation looks like.

Yeah Scandanavia and Switzerland both are good at environmental stuff. If was this, primarily, that make me look at those countries for being "bests", although they've topped many other lists too.

UK... is present on some of the top sections. Occassionally we do badly. Not really a contendor though.

	From: dwagon	Date: April 23rd, 2005 05:45 pm (UTC)		(Link)

another thing I'm curious is abut how much varience there is between the top and bottom of your list - is Sweden a bit better than Switzerland, or a *lot* better?

	From: vexen	Date: April 24th, 2005 08:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Too hard to say, without creating a table and granting points, the judgement is only subjective. Switzerland hasn't appeared at the top of many of the heuristics I've used though. There's not enough variation of information yet to be able to discriminate quite so well. It's all a bit fudgy, but stats of this kind are never going to simple to play with!

From: typhonian	Date: April 24th, 2005 04:53 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Rank them in the chronological order that they ratified Kyoto Protocol!

But wouldn't that be a negative? As in how easy the government concerned has succumbbed to environmental idiocy?

	From: vexen	Date: April 24th, 2005 09:01 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Well it doesn't matter what the reasons are, as long as they do "succomb". Most governments are as concerned as their populations' about the affects of our industries and pollutants on the natural world. Countries can serve as good examples whether or not they've made steps in the right direction for the wrong reasons or not. As long as we start doing *something*, it might be ok in the future.

But for the record, I know for a fact that the first 15 signaturies at least all done so for very considered reasons, not just under pressure from idiocy, but out of genuine concern for what the future is going to be like if we don't curb emissions.

From: typhonian	Date: April 24th, 2005 11:51 pm (UTC)		(Link)

The Earth's Climate has always fluctuated (cf the "Little Ice Age" of the late Medieval Period) - the amount of GH gases that are artifically produced is a tiny fraction of the natural greenhouse gases present. (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html).

What would solve things would be to give up useless tranzi nonsense like the doomed Kyoto "Protocol" and instead, as a stop-gap until fusion gets online, to use nuclear fission. But the green luddites will not have a word of it.

	From: vexen	Date: April 25th, 2005 03:53 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Since London, summer after summer, started becoming envoloped in lethal smog during our more naive years, it has been evident and obvious that our casual use of combustion fuels was having an immediate and long-lasting affect on the environment. The yellow thick smog that used to kill dozens of people in London has gone now thanks to sensible controls. Combined with the increasing acid rain, loss of ozone layer and build-up of carbon monoxides and other poisons in the air, ground and waters around our cities, we are destroying everything and it's not nature doing it, it's US. Definately us.

AND EVEN if it was part of a natural increase in harmful chemicals, then it is very much in our interests to stop such as increase. We have to! Is your plan just to wait, and see who survives? Just to carry on and hope it's going to be ok? Because with the way we've made things, it's NOT going to be ok. In *every* environmental arena we are causing direct harm.

Kyoto is nowhere near enough. It was designed as a stop-gap protocol as short/medium term initial step. Unless we stop churning out all the crap we are (including CFCs and all the others), it is not going to be possible to reverse the climate change that we're already causing. Kyoto is designed as a quick-fix, an initial sensible step, after Kyoto we will need a much more stringent, powerful and long-lasting serious cutback on emissions in order to allow nature to return our environment to a stable state.

You say as a "stop-gap until fusion gets online"... do you really know how long it is until fusion replaces carbon fuels? Far too long. We can't give up Kyoto, it's the only sensible thing we're doing worldwide, and it's going to have to be stretched itself if it is to do enough.

What would have us do, instead?