Britain Gets Bad Mark in Pollution Ratings
在倡導“綠色”和環境保護的歐洲，英國人一定沒有想到自己的國家在環保方面卻是一個“矮子”。
Britain has one of the worst environmental records in Europe.
在倡導“綠色”和環境保護的歐洲，英國人一定沒有想到自己的國家在環保方面卻是一個“矮子”。根據美國耶魯大學和哥倫比亞大學研究人員共同撰寫的《2005年環境可持續發展指數報告》，在146個上榜國家中，英國位列第66位。這樣的排名比大多數北歐國家、美國(第45位)甚至許多前蘇聯加盟共和國的排名都要低。
據英國《衛報》1月25日報道，這份將要在1月27日達沃斯世界經濟論壇上發表的報告，其目的在於通過對各國在諸如大氣汙染治理、生物多樣性和環保國際協作等方面的研究和分析，對各國在未來幾十年裡環保方面的能力做出一個準確判斷。根據這份報告，芬蘭得分75.1，高居各國之首，而英國只有50.2分，排在第66位。
但從排名上看，英國比2002年時的第91位排名上升了不少，但該報告的作者在解釋其中的原因時表示，這並不是說英國人在改善環保方面做出了什麼突出的貢獻，而是因為新報告在一些標準的採用方面作了一些修改。
根據這份環境可持續發展報告，在22個歐盟國家裡，英國的環保排名在第16位，也就是說英國在環保方面比起斯堪的納維亞半島國家、德國、法國和前蘇聯的一些加盟共和國，比如拉脫維亞、立陶宛和愛沙尼亞來說，做得遠遠不夠。可以說，在歐盟大家庭中，英國人的環保紀錄應該是最末流的。根據上述報告，在環保方面做得最出色國家應該是北歐的芬蘭，世界上沒有任何一個國家在環保方面能夠超過芬蘭的成就。而在歐洲國家裡，環境保護工作最不得力的國家則是比利時。
耶魯大學環境法規政策中心主任、本書作者之一的丹尼爾·埃斯蒂認為：“英國在環保方面最薄弱的.環節就是土地的退化。此外，英國在減少大氣汙染方面做得也很不夠。倫敦和許多其它英國城市在治理大氣汙染方面都存在很多問題。雖然巴黎和羅馬的大氣汙染要比倫敦嚴重得多，但是同美國的洛杉磯或者是休斯敦相比，倫敦的大氣汙染實在是太嚴重了。”
報告還顯示，英國人在促進他國減少汙染方面也比較落後。比如英國至今仍然是海外鋼鐵和汽車業的消費大戶，而這些行業在任何一個國家都是汙染大戶。埃斯蒂教授表示：“雖然這些汙染嚴重的工業已經移出了英國，一些經濟學家甚至將這樣的舉止稱為一個成就，但從全球環保角度來看，這個問題顯然一點也不樂觀。”
對於這份即將正式出臺的報告，英國環境、食品和農業事務部的一位發言人進行了反駁。他說：“英國在可持續發展方面一直有著良好的信譽。在改善生活用水方面，英國也逐年取得進步。”
對於美國環保方面的問題，報告作者之一的埃斯蒂教授認為，美國在環保方面比美國人自己想象的要差，但要比大多數歐洲人認為的要好。他說：“美國的環保發展很不平衡。美國的水質在世界上是一流的，但在溫室氣體排放方面，美國則處在世界末流地位。”
Britain has one of the worst environmental records in Europe, according to a new index ranking countries on their performance on green issues which will be unveiled at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week.
The 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), obtained by the Guardian ahead of Thursday"s publication, was compiled by researchers at Yale and Columbia universities using 21 broad indicators covering pollution levels, policy and vulnerability to environmental damage. The aim, their report says, was to gauge each nation"s ability "to protect the environment over the next several decades".
By that measure, Britain is in a lowly state. It ranks 66th out of the 146 countries on the index, considerably behind most of northern Europe, the US (ranked 45th), and even most of the former Soviet Union.
The result is at least a marked improvement on the last index in 2002, when Britain was ranked 91st, but the ESI"s authors say that the rise up the table is a reflection of a refinement in the criteria used more than real environmental improvements. The country remains near the bottom of the league in Europe.
Britain ranked 16th out of the 22 European Union countries in the study, significantly worse than Scandinavia, Germany, France and the former Soviet Baltic republics, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Finland came top in Europe and the world. Belgium came last in Europe while North Korea was judged to be worst in the world.
"In the UK, the weakest element is land degradation. There is a high percentage of British land that has been messed with through 1,000 years of history," said Daniel Esty, director of the Yale centre for environmental law and policy and one of the report"s authors. "Britain also lags badly when it comes to reducing air pollution. London and other cities have a serious air pollution problem.
Britain also scored poorly for exporting environmental pressures abroad, continuing to consume the output of polluting industries, like steel and cars, which have moved overseas. "The dirty business is being done elsewhere," Prof Esty said. "Economists will celebrate this as comparable advantage, but it looks differently from an environmental point of view."
However, the main reason Britain improved its position in the global table since the last index in 2002, Prof Esty said, was the introduction of new measures of sustainability, such as vulnerability to environmental disasters like drought, where the country"s geography and high rainfall makes it look good.
The index was compiled by assigning each country points under 21 different headings, such as air quality, biodiversity, reducing air pollution, environmental health and international collaborative efforts. Britain scored 50.2, compared with 75.1 for Finland, 55.2 for France and 52.9 for the US.
Prof Esty said the US performed worse than many Americans expected but better than most Europeans believed. "The US has a very uneven performance," he said. "They have the best water quality in the world ... but they are on the bottom tier on waste generation and greenhouse gas emissions."
