The UK that is:
Britain could manage only 25th place on the list of countries considered to be the most desirable to live, according to the survey.
There is something of a problem with the way that the rankings were drawn up though:
A country\’s green credentials were based on a variety of factors including education and income which gave an indication of how desirable they were to live in,
OK, fair enough.
Britain was 41st in terms of air quality; Moldova took first place.
While Norway topped the league table for water quality, Britain was in a respectable 15th position.
Austria was first for environmental health – taking childhood mortality, disease and deaths from intestinal infections into account – with Britain 35th.
The country fell down on its carbon footprint. In 2004 Britain\’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions were more than double the worldwide average and were still rising. Britain ranked around mid-table – 77th place – on greenhouse gas emissions.
CO2 emissions do not indicate whether a country is desirable to live in or not: such emissions in and of themselves have zero effect in fact. Given that such emissions are closely correlated with wealth you would actually find that the higher the emissions the more desirable a country was to live in, but that\’s an indirect effect.
So judging whether a country is a good place to live by stating that higher CO2 emissions equals bad is a very strange metric indeed.
Said emission migh be bad for all sorts of reasons, but not as a part of working out the standard of living.