It doesn't surprise me. I know a lot of people who think if they use a canvas bag once in a while, they're saving the planet. No need to change any other habits. That's all they're comfortable doing. Lots of people simply don't want to be pushed beyond their comfort level.

America - Land of the free. Land of the folks in denial.

Kevin

land of consumer capitalism .... if you don't buy all that junque ... how the neighbors gonna support those big houses they bought for more than they're worth on no down payment? walmart workers are depending on ya!!

Bill

Maybe the survey is accurate to its stated intent. Or it could be so misconstured as to be dishonest. Here's some points to ponder. The three stated catagories are:
a) home size
b) transportation
c)consumer choices

Looking at the top ranked countries those catagory ratings may be due to consumer choice but I strongly suspect that it's due to poverty. Those living in poverty have smaller dwellings, own less electronic devices and appliances, and they use public transport, bikes or walk. Come on folks, consider the results of this survey to be the result of the level of poverty in those countries. According to
IndiaOneStop.com 35-40 % of India's population live below the poverty line. Networkideas.org lists Brazil's poverty rate as 35% of their population. So what we are reading as green consumer choices may be decisions made by the lack of decision making power due to poverty. Tom

Tom's point is well taken, but the survey was adjusted to account for factors over which there was no control - climate, availability of mass transportation, smaller houses, eating more locally grown food, etc. etc.

Not saying it shows an accurate snapshot of how the entire globe views going green because there were only 14 countries surveyed - India, Brazil, China, Mexico, Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, Australia, Spain, Japan, France, Canada and the US. And the list is in descending order of rank with India and Brazil tying for first.

It was just interesting to me perhaps because we (generic "we") sit here in our 8 (plus) room air conditioned houses with big appliances (most of which might have some age and probably don't carry the "Energy Star" label); drive the SUV two blocks to the big supermarket and load up on over processed, over packaged foodstuffs, but maybe some organic fruit; patronize farmers markets if it's convenient; drink massive amounts of bottled water...

I think it just struck me because in the US, a country with so much "muchness", our efforts are collectively lackluster and we tend to do the right thing only when it's made easy. I won't diminish what anyone does in their attempts at being green, but realistically, there's a lot more to it than carrying a cloth totebag or starting a compost pile or scouring the countertop with vinegar and water instead of 409. That's kind of a given, right?

you got it bloomz - the point isn't that poor folks consume less because they have to, it's more like N Americans have a choice but, by and large, make the wrong one, even to doing the "cheap" thing 3 or 4 times instead of doing the more expensive thing once ... we make choices that are cheapest, and "green" alternatives are only top of the list if they're economically viable

I believe they also point out there that those lower income countries have aspirations to reach our level of material consumption, and we already are seeing the results of that, with the cost of food now that more of the world is adopting our meat addiction

Bill

Bill, I'll have to disagree with you about the problem being that more of the world is adopting our meat addiction. The UN's World Food Program, the world's larges distributor of food aid, describes this crisis as being worst for those making less than $2/day. In that group those with less income than $1/day are in dire straits and those living on less than 50 cents/day are desparate. These people have not change their diets to North American standards. A major part of the shortage has been that past years economic gains has allowed millions to move from a sweet potato, okra, maize diet to one with more rice and wheat. The demand exceeds the supply. Last year wheat prices rose 77% and rice's 16%. Since January rice has soared by 141%.The amount of good rice land in E. Asia has actually declined due to urban development. The rediculous US and EU biofuel initiatives, corn based ethanol in the US, has many acres of what was grain for food change to corn for ethanol. Then issues of agriculture protectionism by governments and wholesalers holding supplies waiting for higher prices aggrevates the situation. The crisis is real but citing that the cause is the worlds adoption of our meat addiction just throws more disinformation that makes response to the crisis more difficult. We need to understand the real reasons in order to address the crisis.
Tom

well, yes we can disagree - in much of Asia, lentils and rice are the poor folks staples, in S America, beans and rice, and all use wheat for bread .... when more animals are introduced, the mix of crops grown changes, and where those crops go as well .... for instance many US praire farms are switching to corn from oats and barley

a meat based diet requires a lot of grains and legumes be fed to animals [including chickens], that could otherwise be human food, .... the fact that many other factors are in play doesn't change the fact that as incomes rise in developing countries, meat becomes the food of choice, and that change is happening in India and China particularly

and the biggest problem with rice today is the fact that Australia once grew large amounts of rice for export to Asian countries, but after years of drought that production has fallen to near zero ... now of course, the Burmese pulse crops and rice are also a write off, maybe to never return to previous levels of export

no matter, the heavy reliance on meat in the US diet is NOT a "green" choice

Bill

A meat based diet does not "require" lots of grains to be fed to animals--although industrial agriculture does indeed do that. But beef and dairy cattle remain healthiest and produce the healthiest meat and dairy when they are raised on grass. And that allows them to be raised on land that is unusable for row crops. Pigs and poultry can also be raised partially on grass, lessening the need for grain.

Let's not confuse the evils of industrial agricultural models with the proper raising of animals for food.

I do, however, agree with you that a meat BASED diet is not healthy. Better for people is a plant based diet that includes meat now and then, here and there.

Okay, so it seems likely that the poorer nations who got a better green score in this survey probably did so because they can't afford to have 30+ electrical appliances in every house and an SUV in every driveway (and a steak on every plate). But the fact remains: a person who isn't blaring their 1000W stereo system because they can't afford one is still not using that electricity, and therefore is being green (though not by choice).

Now surely, everyone has noticed this and are not fooled. But I think this survey is probably meant to be more of a "Hey America, look what other countries are like" type of a thing and not necessarily extolling the virtuous people of other nations who *obviously* could be using as much or more energy than us if only they weren't so enlightened...

I agree with laceyvail because I live her comments .
As a beef cattle rancher ( that means dinner not a glass of milk ) , I try my best to raise my animals as humanely and earth friendly as possible . I can do this because we are a small operation and I am willing to put in the extra effort . AND - we eat mostly grains , fruit and vegetables and sometimes - meat - just as laceyvail stated .
We are slowly trying to convince other ranchers to adopt more green ranching habits - not an easy task .