Bangladesh 2nd worst country in curbing pollution

[Homo Sapiens]

Home Environment
11:44 AM, January 25, 2018 / LAST MODIFIED: 12:04 PM, January 25, 2018
Bangladesh 2nd worst country in curbing pollution

Star Online Report
Bangladesh has been ranked the second worst country in curbing environmental pollution, an Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranking report says.

The EPI ranking, published on the sidelines of the annual World Economic Forum meet in Davos on Tuesday, places Bangladesh on the second last among 180 countries – only ahead of Burundi.

The 2018 EPI Rankings. Rank, EPI score, and regional standing (REG, shown in color) for 180 countries. Photo taken from EPI website

“Low scores on the EPI are indicative of the need for national sustainability efforts on a number of fronts, especially cleaning up air quality, protecting biodiversity, and reducing GHG emissions,” the report posted on YaleNews website states.

The report added, the low scores in some countries can be attributed to weak governance.

Switzerland emerged the leading country in overall environmental performance with a score of 87.42. France, Denmark, Malta and Sweden were in the top five while the United States made it to the 27th rank. As regards air quality, India scored a mere 5.75, China 14.39 and Pakistan 15.69, and these “face a public health crisis that demands urgent attention,” according to the report released on Tuesday.

EPI rankings is a bi-annual report produced by researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum. To formulate EPI, several key factors are taken into consideration. A total of 24 indicators were evaluated and grouped into ten issues: air quality, water and sanitation, heavy metals, biodiversity and habitat, forests, fisheries, climate and energy, air pollution, water resources, and agriculture.

http://www.thedailystar.net/environment/bangladesh-worst-country-curbing-pollution-1524922

 

[Homo Sapiens]

South Asia as a whole are crap in this list. BD-179, India-177, Nepal-176, Pakistan-169, Afganistan-168.

 

[Russell]

I want to blame the govt...because they have to enact and enforce the laws...

But, ppl in this country are equally guilty - no one gives a shit about the environment or pollution.

And the so called 'environmentalists' are paid stooges.

 

[Imran Khan]

Who care man

 

[Khanate]

Flawed methodology.

On what planet is Singapore (ranked 49th) worse off than Colombia (ranked 42nd)? Singapore is ranked as one of best places to live and work in the world while Colombia has been involved in a civil conflict for the last 50 years.

As in previous reports and studies, the 2018 EPI shows a positive correlation with country wealth, as measured by per capita GDP. (Source: EPI)​

Again, Singapore per capita GDP is 52,960.71 USD (2016) and Colombia's per capita GDP is 5,805.61 USD (2016). Singapore has almost 10 times the per capita GDP of Colombia so how is Singapore worse off in EPI rankings if there is indeed a positive correlation between EPI and the country's wealth?

EPI's conclusions don't even match their own rankings.

South Asia as a whole are crap in this list. BD-179, India-177, Nepal-176, Pakistan-169, Afganistan-168.

For inspiration, contact:

• Sri Lanka, ranked 70th
• Maldives, ranked 111th

 

[Homo Sapiens]

On what planet is Singapore (ranked 49th) worse off than Colombia (ranked 42nd)? Singapore is ranked as one of best places to live and work in the world while Colombia has been involved in a civil conflict for the last 50 years.

As in previous reports and studies, the 2018 EPI shows a positive correlation with country wealth, as measured by per capita GDP. (Source: EPI)
Again, Singapore per capita GDP is 52,960.71 USD (2016) and Colombia's per capita GDP is 5,805.61 USD (2016). Singapore has almost 10 times the per capita GDP of Colombia so how is Singapore worse off in EPI rankings if there is indeed a positive correlation between EPI and the country's wealth?

As a small, highly developed and highly urbanized country, Singapore has high green house gas emmission, which I think lowered their score compared to Colombia, a big, forested country with medium development.Plus, may be Colombia doing something substantial to curb pollution recently which earned them favorable place.Who knows?

 

[Khanate]

As a small, highly developed and highly urbanized country, Singapore has high green house gas emmission, which I think lowered their score compared to Colombia, a big, forested country with medium development.Plus, may be Colombia doing something substantial to curb pollution recently which earned them favorable place.Who knows?

Then explain why is Qatar ranked 32nd?

Qatar is a desert where the main source of drinking water supply is desalinated seawater. Qatar has very little fresh water supplies and what they do have is running out. And Qatar deals in "dirty" oil, extraction of which we are told by environmentalists is killing our planet. So why is Qatar ranked so high when its barely sustainable?

And since you asked, the cost of owning a car in Singapore is insane. For example, a 2018 Honda Civic goes for $128,000 SGD. That's nearly $100,000 USD whereas a 2018 Honda Civic in Qatar is only $18,000 USD. Singapore's insane taxation policy keeps vehicles on the road to a minimum. Ergo, most Singaporeans use public transport. Now which country lives in sustainable urban communities and is doing more for the environment? I'd have to go with Singapore.

As for Columbia and Singapore, there is no comparison. Singapore is cleaner, safer and better in every single way. The problem here is EPI is comparing Singapore with "Columbia" when it should be comparing cities like Singapore and Bogotá, the capital of Columbia. Bogotá has the 5th worst air quality in Latin America (Source: WHO) while more people die of air pollution in Medellín than guns (Source). This gives us a much more clear picture.

However, if you want to stick with countries then EPI needs to adjust the indicators they are using and the weight assigned so their ranking takes into account the conditions in which majority of the population in a country lives. Only FARC rebels and indigenous tribes live in the forests of Columbia. That's not a lot of people while 10 million people live in Bogotá and Medellín combined. That's fifth of Columbia's 49 million population living in really bad air quality.

What does EPI's ranking say to the inhabitants of the two of Columbia's worst air pollution centers, i.e., Bogotá and Medellín? Nothing. EPI's rankings simply masks their issues. So, yes, EPI's methodology is woefully antiquated and fundamentally flawed. Though I doubt newspapers care, they are only after a headline.

Source: EPI Data & Methodology

 

[bête noire]

Then explain why is Qatar ranked 32nd?

Qatar is a desert where the main source of drinking water supply is desalinated seawater. Qatar has very little fresh water supplies and what they do have is running out. And Qatar deals in "dirty" oil, extraction of which we are told by environmentalists is killing our planet. So why is Qatar ranked so high when its barely sustainable?

And since you asked, the cost of owning a car in Singapore is insane. For example, a 2018 Honda Civic goes for $128,000 SGD. That's nearly $100,000 USD whereas a 2018 Honda Civic in Qatar is only $18,000 USD. Singapore's insane taxation policy keeps vehicles on the road to a minimum. Ergo, most Singaporeans use public transport. Now which country lives in sustainable urban communities and is doing more for the environment? I'd have to go with Singapore.

As for Columbia and Singapore, there is no comparison. Singapore is cleaner, safer and better in every single way. The problem here is EPI is comparing Singapore with "Columbia" when it should be comparing cities like Singapore and Bogotá, the capital of Columbia. Bogotá has the 5th worst air quality in Latin America (Source: WHO) while more people die of air pollution in Medellín than guns (Source). This gives us a much more clear picture.

However, if you want to stick with countries then EPI needs to adjust the indicators they are using and the weight assigned so their ranking takes into account the conditions in which majority of the population in a country lives. Only FARC rebels and indigenous tribes live in the forests of Columbia. That's not a lot of people while 10 million people live in Bogotá and Medellín combined. That's fifth of Columbia's 49 million population living in really bad air quality.

What does EPI's ranking say to the inhabitants of the two of Columbia's worst air pollution centers, i.e., Bogotá and Medellín? Nothing. EPI's rankings simply masks their issues. So, yes, EPI's methodology is woefully antiquated and fundamentally flawed. Though I doubt newspapers care, they are only after a headline.

Source: EPI Data & Methodology

Qatar is a low density country of only 176/km^2 which way less than even actual big countries. Singapore is a city state with almost 8000/km^2 density. Not even remotely comparable.

Take for example, BD's carbon output is half that of India and Pakistan but BD ranks worst. That's because BD has density 3 times of India and almost 5 times of Pakistan. So result is, even with less emission per capita, since more people are emitting in smaller space, we have more pollution in that small space and hence rank worse.

So Singapore while good with their wealth and less emission per capita, ranks worse because with that many dense population, they have way more pollution. If Singapore emitted as much as Columbia per capita, they would be at the bottom of the ranks. You are right in the sense they emit less than Columbia PER CAPITA but as a whole country, it emits more.

 

[Khanate]

Qatar is a low density country of only 176/km^2 which way less than even actual big countries. Singapore is a city state with almost 8000/km^2 density. Not even remotely comparable.

Take for example, BD's carbon output is half that of India and Pakistan but BD ranks worst. That's because BD has density 3 times of India and almost 5 times of Pakistan. So result is, even with less emission per capita, since more people are emitting in smaller space, we have more pollution in that small space and hence rank worse.

So Singapore while good with their wealth and less emission per capita, ranks worse because with that many dense population, they have way more pollution. If Singapore emitted as much as Columbia per capita, they would be at the bottom of the ranks. You are right in the sense they emit less than Columbia PER CAPITA but as a whole country, it emits more.

Before you quote me, again, read what EPI is saying:

As in previous reports and studies, the 2018 EPI shows a positive correlation with country wealth, as measured by per capita GDP. (Source: EPI)​

The correlation here is per capita GDP. And Singapore has 10 times the per capita GDP of Columbia.

Second, EPI's methodology doesn't take into account the conditions of the population clusters within the country, e.g., the residents of Bogotá and Medellín who represent 1/5th of the Columbia's population are breathing very bad air.

Ergo, "PER CAPITA" doesn't reveal the real picture. If a billionaire walks into a room filled with 1,000 poor, hungry and homeless people, everyone in the room instantly becomes a millionaire "PER CAPITA". The presences of a billionaire in the room doesn't improve the lives of poor at all. It simply masks their issues which is exactly the same problem with EPI's ranking and methodology.

 

[bête noire]

Before you quote me, again, read what EPI is saying:

As in previous reports and studies, the 2018 EPI shows a positive correlation with country wealth, as measured by per capita GDP. (Source: EPI)​

The correlation here is per capita GDP. And Singapore has 10 times the per capita GDP of Columbia.

Second, EPI's methodology doesn't take into account the conditions of the population clusters within the country, e.g., the residents of Bogotá and Medellín who represent 1/5th of the Columbia's population are breathing very bad air.

Yes there's correlation, doesn't mean higher GDP has to have less emission as in Singapores case is different than almost all the other countries. And if EPI doesn't take into account conditions and populace clustered within the country, take it up to them. What's that have to do with my answer, which was specifically addressing why Singapore is ranked below.

Ergo, "PER CAPITA" doesn't reveal the real picture. If a billionaire walks into a room filled with 1,000 poor, hungry and homeless people, everyone in the room instantly becomes a millionaire "PER CAPITA". The presences of a billionaire in the room doesn't improve the lives of poor at all. It simply masks their issues which is exactly the same problem with EPI's ranking and methodology.

I never thought for a second Singapore was worse off than Columbia in air quality where people live. My answer was directly on why Singapore was ranked below.

 

[Khanate]

Yes there's correlation, doesn't mean higher GDP has to have less emission as in Singapores case is different than almost all the other countries.

The stated correlation is between is EPI ranking and per capita GDP. I expect it to hold for outliers. If not, then its appropriate to question the methodology.

Yes there's correlation, doesn't mean higher GDP has to have less emission as in Singapores case is different than almost all the other countries. And if EPI doesn't take into account conditions and populace clustered within the country, take it up to them. What's that have to do with my answer, which was specifically addressing why Singapore is ranked below.

Its called reductio ad absurdum. The only point was to highlight the absurdity of EPI's rankings, if it wasn't clear. But, yea, thanks.

I never thought for a second Singapore was worse off than Columbia in air quality where people live.

Congrats.

 

[Bilal9]

Flawed methodology.

On what planet is Singapore (ranked 49th) worse off than Colombia (ranked 42nd)? Singapore is ranked as one of best places to live and work in the world while Colombia has been involved in a civil conflict for the last 50 years.

I think you may be thinking of Venezuela instead of Colombia. In the ranks of South American banana republics, Colombia fares a lot better than Venezuela, although the latter has oil revenue etc.

 

[24 Hours]

South Asia as a whole are crap in this list. BD-179, India-177, Nepal-176, Pakistan-169, Afganistan-168.

Quite a shame, given the environmental beauty around this region that we have so far.

 

[Khanate]

I think you may be thinking of Venezuela instead of Colombia. In the ranks of South American banana republics, Colombia fares a lot better than Venezuela, although the latter has oil revenue etc.

Good to see you're still around, Bilal.

The reason I selected Colombia (ranked 42nd) and Singapore (ranked 49th) for comparison is because Colombia is ranked slightly better while it has a lower per capita GDP than Singapore which goes against EPI's stated correlation.

Venezuela is nice good candidate too but its ranked 51st by EPI so lower than Singapore's 42nd ranking hence the correlation holds. That runs counter to the argument I'm trying to advance. Need to keep things legit.