315
u/NoCloudSaves 2d ago
North Korea is doing great!
82
u/If_theshoefits 2d ago
Yes. North Koreans are not though.
45
u/IshyTheLegit 1d ago
A North Korean is though.
4
u/ReluctantRedditor275 1d ago
It's hard enough being the only fat kid in your class. Imagine being the only fat kid in your whole country.
→ More replies (1)3
250
u/TukkerWolf 2d ago
I am really surprised by some countries, like Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.
370
u/Blonkertz 2d ago
Unbelievable poverty
69
u/geebeem92 2d ago
Not about mindset, if they had the means we’d be all fukkd because the pollution would be even worse.
54
u/Can_not_catch_me 1d ago
Exactly, these arent countries that are some shining examples of progressive ecological policies, its a list of countries too poor or generally impoverished to cause the problems more developed and stable nations do
23
u/pn_1984 1d ago
What progressive ecological policies were implemented by any country ever without solving their basic needs first? It's simply unfair to expect them to do it.
Not to mention, India, for example, is the only G20 country to have ensured that the pledge towards creating a green planet made at the Paris Climate Change Summit in 2015 was fulfilled even before the deadline.
13
u/MasterRed92 1d ago
You should look into the massive ecological programs in India happening right now as well, they are very conscious of the environment and are doing some really cool shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adTsC7RPlUs This is one example of some stuff they are trying.
2
u/Aardark235 1d ago
Exactly. The environmental damage in India is atrocious. People make bad decisions when they are poor. Takes a few generations of wealth to care about the planet.
7
u/AceGamingStudios 1d ago
These countries first and foremost care about feeding their people. It's unfair to ask them to "do more for the planet" when millions of their people don't get 3 meals a day. Even then countries like India are putting in the effort and launching many environmental projects. But the thing is that it's simply not possible to focus on saving the planet if your people can't even get their basic needs met. The best the world can do, is Fastrack the development of cleaner energy sources and provide them at cheaper costs, so that these countries can switch to them instead of relying on fossil fuels as much.
15
u/Redqueenhypo 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s kinda disturbing how we expect them to permanently stay in “child sweatshop worker” or “if the flood washes away my single digit number of goats, I’m destitute” levels of poverty forever
Edit: hey what happened to the two assholish replies from usernames with two random words followed by a string of numbers? Got conscripted?
2
u/biglyorbigleague 1d ago
We don’t, we just don’t see that changing anytime soon. It’s gonna be a long road.
1
u/Ionel1-The-Impaler 1d ago
I mean, I want the latter part about Goats and thatched roofs globally but I’m an actual Luddite so not the best source.
2
4
u/thehippocampus 1d ago
Colonialism just put on a new mask.
5
u/Redqueenhypo 1d ago
How is anyone okay with the idea that a huge number of people should just permanently be stuck as the invisible (no south Asians in my Canada!!) underclass making our nice things that we throw away after one use? They can’t even reuse half our clothes in Ghana bc nobody there can fit into XXL flag t shirts.
→ More replies (1)5
u/eezeehee 1d ago
Thats capitalism...someone has to suffer so you can afford your cheap clothing and home items, and even expensive items like phones and electronics. People are okay with it, because they cant see it and it doesnt directly affect them.
4
u/dhkendall 1d ago
I don’t think that’s quite it. Take India for example, the most surprising country to me with no Earth Overshoot Day. It is definitely a poor country by Western standards, but I think we can agree it’s better off than South Sudan, Laos, Ghana, Belize, or Guinea, and they all have an OED according to the map. Plus its population absolutely eclipses those other countries’ put together, you’d think just on the resources 1.2 billion Indians need to exist it would be in the OED club.
8
u/S0l1s_el_Sol 1d ago
Also Egypt would literally have the most largest demographic collapse if smth happened to the Nile
4
u/Normal_Actuator_4220 1d ago
Those countries have large populations, per capita they’re lower than many other nations, their large populations often inflated how much ecological impacts they have.
20
u/be_like_bill 2d ago
I wonder what the methodology is and if there is a per-capita factor somewhere in there.
46
8
u/Sassi7997 1d ago edited 1d ago
Especially India as the country with the largest population and the 5th largest GDP.
28
u/MinuQu 1d ago
It is calculated per capita, so having a high population actually makes India less surprising.
→ More replies (1)4
u/CakeBeef_PA 1d ago
the country with the second largest population
FYI, India has actually overtaken China and had the largest population now
1
u/Sassi7997 1d ago
Could've sworn I deleted that while writing my comment. Thanks for the correction.
3
5
u/Accomplished_Sea5704 1d ago
The worst thing happened to Indian subcontinent is flooding of foreign goods in the market, people were not ready for it, neither was the government.
Nobody knew how we would handle waste or reuse or recycle or even process waste.
For example, plastic. It came, was cheap and accessible and people just mindlessly use and toss it on the streets and 90% don’t even know that it doesn’t decompose and contaminates our environment.
Few people who are educated just live in urban areas which are a bit better in terms of waste management.
One thing I like about my people is they are at least mindful of the little resources we have and just try to be minimal.
That explains this map.
181
u/DefaultUsername0815x 2d ago
This map with it's statistics is just questionable to say the least.
Yes, if you calculate resources used per capita afghanistan and India may seem feasible for then planet.
However, that's just because a lot of people live in complete poverty, not a model for other countries to follow. If you ever visited afghanistan or India (did both), you will understand that this map is BS. How people treat the environment there is just horrible and beyond and imagination. Rivers in India are more chemicals and plastic than water. People in afghanistan drive their trucks into the river to change their oil (yes, I saw that with my own eyes). How is that not killing earth and a model for all countries?!
36
u/0987throw654away 2d ago
Oh. Wow. What a bad map.
It’s per capita in a country compared to a global limit.
That’s meaningless. That means that maybe Las Vegas in the American southwest might be water sustainable, because it uses less than 100L per person a week, because that’s how much water falls per person around the world. But it’s worthless because resources aren’t evenly distributed Las Vegas gets less than average water supplied, you need to tie locale to locale.
It doesn’t matter how low per capita consumption is in Egypt it’s consumption of calories, water, fossil fuels, and much more besides is very much unsustainable in a way that affects them now, let alone in the far future.
This must be degrowth propaganda. It’s utterly meaningless as data presentation
→ More replies (3)18
u/pm_me_ur_pet_plz 1d ago edited 1d ago
This map isn't supposed to make moral judgement on the system or attitude in various countries. All it shows is that, in the current day, it's impossible to live a sustainable life unless you live in poverty. That's not meaningless, that's quite profound.
Edit: I wanna add, I'm definitely not one of those people that want to shrink the economy. We need science and innovation to make us more sustainable and for that we need a strong economy.
7
u/0987throw654away 1d ago
But. But it doesn’t.
One of the worlds best regions for sustainability is Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. Using icelands abundant natural heat, they are able to produce sufficient calories and variety including tomatoes and suchlike, year round in a fully sustainable manner, they are totally powered by sustainable energy and they extract substantial amount of mineral wealth for production/investment that they could proabbly be self sufficient.
Of course they choose not to be , they trade with the world, because there’s a benefit to variety and specialisation. But even so they would proabbly remain one of the richest and happiest people on earth.
There’s a lot for be said for the Nordics ‘exploiting the global south materially, through transnational capitalism, which is th wonky way to fund their large social states” but, it isn’t totally true. My point is, if the message of this map is that in order to be sustainable the world must live in poverty, then the message is flawed if not false.
11
u/pm_me_ur_pet_plz 1d ago
No my dude. They are more sustainable compared to other countries with the same standard of living. Just because they have geothermal energy production doesn't mean that that magically makes all their industry and economy resource efficient and sustainable, far from it.
An Icelandic family driving an imported car, living in a modern house full of imported electronics and things, living a western lifestyle isn't living sustainably. A poor Indian family living in some makeshift hut with barely anything on the other hand is.
15
u/Tathaagata_ 2d ago
Easier to care about environment when you know where your next meal is coming from.
It’s ironic that people who have killed off most of the wildlife in their countries are lecturing a country that accommodates the highest population of humans and some of the highest wildlife populations in the world.
6
u/Buriedpickle 2d ago
My dude, just because your country is mentioned in a bad light, you don't need to defend it tooth and nail. Both of these issues should and could be solved.
Also, think about who is polluting your rivers. Is it the common people? I doubt so. Acknowledge the problem and blame the real culprits who can care about the environment. Companies and the government.
Last thing: western countries haven't killed off most of the wildlife. Where did you even get that from?
→ More replies (5)2
6
u/DefaultUsername0815x 2d ago
I haven't killed off anything. And I haven't lectured anyone except OP for his/her method of creating that map.
And is that "highest population while having some of the highest wildlife populations" afghanistan and India in the room with us now?
0
u/Tathaagata_ 2d ago
You didn’t kill anyone but your ancestors probably did. And you would have reaped the benefits of what your ancestors did.
2
u/DefaultUsername0815x 2d ago
And now what? Should I kill myself because of my ancestors? I'm responsible for MY actions and my footprint. And I'm doing that. That argument about ancestors is shitty and will get no one anywhere. It's even dangerous to always look at the ancestors, genocides where based on such "reasoning".
-1
u/Tathaagata_ 2d ago
India has some of the highest wildlife populations in the world. Look it up, Google is your friend.
6
u/DefaultUsername0815x 2d ago
Based on what? Wildlife per square meter? Wildlife per capita? It's a huge country with hot to tropical climate (even some alpine climate), it's logical that a place like that has much more Wildlife that arctic or Sub-Saharan climate. I'm not questioning that India has a lot of wildlife and that's a good thing. But it's not really accomplished by the country, rather by nature. The environmental protection and protection of wildlife species is still lacking to say the least. And no, I'm still not judging, it's a lot harder to care for wildlife and protect it when you have to worry how your family will survive.
-1
u/Tathaagata_ 2d ago
Buddy it’s actually accomplished by the country and not just nature. If it was a tropical/sun tropical country thing all of India’s neighbours would be doing good too but they aren’t.
The British actively hunted down Lions, Tigers, and Leopards in India. Up until the nineteenth century, Asiatic lions were found in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India. Now, they are just sound in India and their population is increasing. India is the only home of Asiatic Lions. Similar story for Tigers. India alone has 75% of the world’s wild Tiger population. Similary, India has more than 50% of Asian elephant population. India has a thriving Leopard population. I can go on and on but yiu get the gist. And how much of its wildlife has Europe been able to conserve? I swear the west is really ignorant when it comes to India.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Valara0kar 1d ago
I swear the west is really ignorant when it comes to India.
I have not seen a population as nationalistic as Indians since 1910 europe.
→ More replies (4)3
31
6
14
37
u/sfrusty26 2d ago
I'm curious the data on India. It seems like with their population, even if they are rationing much less than other countries, would undoubtedly cause them to consume too much.
76
14
u/Own-Homework-9331 2d ago
the fact that most of them are vegetarians could be a factor.
28
u/atomic-vacuum 2d ago
Could be. Although, non-vegetarians out number vegetarians in India but they are occasional non-vegetarians.
8
u/Drumbelgalf 2d ago
Also that the majority doesn't have a car and mostly eats locally produced food.
→ More replies (3)2
13
u/Fascist-Reddit69 2d ago
USA uses seven time the electricity india uses, let alone per capita. You guys are so much ignorant that forget that USA doesn't have bike culture, no public transportation system, everyone owns car. That should explain how much pollution (carbon emissions) USA generates. If indians/chinese lived like americans earth would be doomed
1
u/krishn4prasad 1d ago
Well, we're catching up. So, get ready to suffer. Now its our turn to cook earth 🔥😬
2
u/sfrusty26 2d ago
Why the anger? I am asking a simple question. You have racist comments made as well.
4
u/Fascist-Reddit69 2d ago
Anger? Im just stating facts, people here are questioning indias less emissions lmao They don't realise it.
They just assume what ever they want.
→ More replies (2)
32
u/Alone_Barracuda7197 2d ago
How many of those countries do you actually want to live in?
24
u/atomic-vacuum 2d ago
Living in one.
21
u/Weary-Connection3393 2d ago
Doesn’t necessarily mean you WANT to live there. In fact, I’d wager all of those countries have more people emigrating (going away) than immigrating (coming in).
Of course, that’s a gross oversimplification. But that’s how maps and statistics are sometimes
13
u/atomic-vacuum 2d ago
I am probably in the best one(not because its my country) if these are the options.
2
u/Cause_Necessary 1d ago
I mean, as someone who grew up here, I wouldn't want to leave. But might have to in the future, for jobs
2
u/Weary-Connection3393 1d ago
I hope my comment wasn’t insulting to you. One can find happiness and a good life in lots of places. And being connected to your homeland is pretty natural I guess.
I guess this map would show even less green, if the diaspora of those countries was counted with the population that stayed. It’d probably leave only the countries where people are on average too poor to emigrate. It’s all in all a sad commentary on our species as a whole. We just aren’t capable of including the wider effects of your daily activities into our future actions.
1
u/Cause_Necessary 1d ago
It wasn't insulting at all, just wanted to share my perspective.
Probably, yeah. It is quite unfortunate.
6
4
9
5
3
3
9
u/Tathaagata_ 2d ago
What’s your point? I wouldn’t want to live in many of the white countries either.
1
15
u/AdNational1490 2d ago
Bhutan? Only Carbon Negative country in the world?
13
u/Tathaagata_ 2d ago
Being carbon negative doesn’t mean they don’t consume other natural resources.
→ More replies (3)4
u/NipoleonB 2d ago
if Bhutan has no haters I am dead
2
1
15
u/ChasteSin 1d ago
India is absorbing it's waste? And Egypt? Cairo literally has a place called Garbage City.
3
5
u/manzanita2 1d ago
This doesn't ring true. Egypt in particular imports a HUGE fraction of it's food.
5
6
u/Homelessjokemaster 2d ago
Then we all should live like the good people of North Korea (a.k.a the better Korea) and it would instantly solve all our global issues
6
u/tarkin1980 1d ago
Once again, Best Korea is a model for us all to strive for. How on earth do they do it?!
6
2
2
2
u/Macau_Serb-Canadian 1d ago
The most populous country of the world with total insouciance about resources is certainly a surprise. Also shocking are the Philippines, Pakistan and the desert land of Tunisia.
The rest are sparcely populated countries in the abundant tropical area, so it makes sense.
2
2
u/AwarenessNo4986 1d ago
From Pakistan here.
20% of my city's metro area power requirement (LESCO), is now fulfilled by Solar energy.
2
3
u/Suspicious_House_275 1d ago
India needs to escape this green web if it ever hopes to make its citizens prosperous.
4
u/mickturner96 2d ago
Sorry what is this trying to show?
14
u/pickledperceptions 2d ago
Its showing a perfect example of how to draw a completely non-descriptive map using a stat so subjective you could could call it post modern art.
21
5
4
u/cyclingzealot 1d ago
Which country, per capita average, is living below the Earth's biocapacity were every human being on the planet have the same level of consumption.
1
2
u/Squeaky_Ben 2d ago
how the hell did india get on this map? I thought they were quite industrialised?
7
u/Kaguro19 1d ago
Still less industrialized compared to others. Most of our production is still agricultural.
2
2
2
u/Fair_Result357 1d ago
Funny thing is the vast majority of people living in those countries don't care about the environment they are just poor. The only thing this map shows is that poverty is better for the environment.
2
2
u/Berendick 1d ago
I.e. the countries you wouldn't want to live in. And if you already do, you likely wanna move out.
1
u/lonewalker1992 1d ago
India...lol...check back in 5 years with the rate of development and industrialisation underway
2
u/Whisktangofox 1d ago
How the hell did India end up on this map? It's one of the most heavily populated and polluted places on earth.
→ More replies (1)0
u/ro0625 1d ago
Not nearly as polluted as the US or Canada though. There is physical pollution because of the terrible environmental management but overall resource inefficiency is low and there isn't nearly as much overconsumption as in the West.
People in India throw trash on the ground. This doesn't waste many resources.
Commuting 60 miles every day in a gas car does.
Weird how many people don't realize the Western lifestyle is disgustingly wasteful and inefficient.
→ More replies (4)
1
1
u/SquirrelBlind 2d ago
I am sure that Cuba and some other Caribbean countries aren't green only because of the European and Canadian tourists.
1
1
1
u/romance_in_durango 1d ago
I'd love to see this for the last year each country overshot their resources.
1
1
1
u/psychopape 1d ago
Isn’t Philippines the number one oceanic pollution contributor ? Or do they considered only 30% of its surface ?
1
1
u/Over-Percentage-1929 1d ago
At least if all countries had that biocapacity, the humanity would be spared of the parasites that do this kind of research.
2
1
1
1
-4
2d ago
[deleted]
15
u/atomic-vacuum 2d ago
It is per capita probably.
The rural India (most people live here) is still far behind in pollution.
People see an image of a river or two and estimate that the country is dirty forgetting the fact it is the most populous country but isn't as big as the other big countries.
10
u/starring2 2d ago
I went checking and it's the average consumption per capita. India is a big polluter but since there are 1.5 billion indians, that pollutio, coupled with food scarcity and lack of basic supplies for tens of millions, makes it population not consume a lot, when compared to others.
However, it appears that its growth is unsustainable. The overshooting is calculated assuming all humans were living in the same conditions as, say, a western country. So same quality of life, supplies, eco-footprint etc.
India currently consumes 0.7 earths to sustain the population. But we all know that most indians are living in inadequate conditions. If the situation will improve for them too, then India is set to become among the worst for OD.
3
7
u/Tathaagata_ 2d ago
Even urban india’s per capita consumption is really low. For example, penetration of air conditioning in India is only about 8%. For such a hot country, that’s an abysmally low figure.
4
u/potato-of-Ireland 2d ago
Also it is just consumption counted here, so all of their exports which make up a giant portion of India's overall co2 footprint is counted as part of the (primarily) western countries consuming said goods.
3
3
u/atomic-vacuum 2d ago
Carbon footprint should be counted as part of the West as they are consumers of the product.
China is probably not highlighted on the map because of its huge manufacturing sector.
3
u/potato-of-Ireland 2d ago
China also has a very large and quickly growing domestic consumer market.
1
u/Sassi7997 1d ago
How does India as the country with the largest population and the 5th largest GDP in the world not have an Earth Overshoot Day?
3
u/TheFritzWilliams 1d ago
It's per capita and India is very poor per capita, if we go per inch of land they can exploit, India, Bangladesh and the sort will not make it, they do have a lot of pollution but that's because of the density in their large urban areas, not their resource consumption per person.
1
1
u/Snaz5 1d ago
I think this map leans heavily on the waste absorption part and i assume it’s also per-capita, which is why India gets by despite being such a big polluter. With clean energy like nukes i bet a lot more countries would be on this map. We are really efficient at growing food, making building materials etc. i would only think maybe water is an issue, but that’s also mostly because of industrial wastage
1
u/Seventhson74 1d ago
I for one one second do not believe that INDIA doesn’t consume more resources than it produces.
1
1
u/gkalinkat 1d ago
Insightful. I would go so far to say that achieving a healthy and educated population without leaving a strong environmental footprint is actually the biggest challenge for humanity
1
u/RohitG4869 1d ago
These are also the countries which will pay the largest price due to the effects of climate change
1
u/FewExit7745 1d ago
Well in the Philippines (highlighted in Green) every day every unique species of an animal vanish because people actively lets their cats outside because "bird sounds are annoying".
People here are nature lovers by word but the opposite in reality, just like their favourite politicians.
1
u/navyblusheet 1d ago
ITT: white westerners seething with "they are poor and nobody wants live in these countries anyway" LMAO
2
u/skelectrician 1d ago
If it's the environmentalists goal to reduce our quality of life to a level comparable to the highlighted countries on the map, it's no wonder nobody is listening to them.
1
u/tmsods 1d ago
I've read the subtitle like 5 times. What does that even mean?
2
u/limex67 1d ago
I assume google can explain you the earth overshoot day in any detail you want
1
u/tmsods 1d ago
That wasn't the question.
The subtitle says countries who wouldn't exceed earth's biocapacity if every country had the same level.
Level of what? That's very poorly worded. Are they trying to say countries whose intake does not exceed the global average biocapacity?
Assuming that, a lot of those are in the desert so I'd assume they exceed their own biocapacity either way. Likewise, there probably are a lot of countries that don't exceed it because they're resource rich and not super densely populated. Like Russia, Brazil, Australia, and even the US I'd wager.
2
u/EducationalImpact633 1d ago
I assume that it is about same level of consumption, so take all of earths consumption , divide it by the amount of countries that exist. Compare that number with number of citizens in each country. If the per capita number is below the threshold for the amount specified as the limit in earth overshoot day then “color in” the country.
So a bit misleading title to be honest
0
1.8k
u/atomic-vacuum 2d ago
I am from one of these countries and I can assure most of them don't care about nature. The fact is people don't have enough money to exploit the resources.