No countries manage to live well and sustainably. Of 151 nations that have just been rated, not a single one achieves the Goldilocks feat of doing it just right 鈥� creating a good life for its inhabitants without overusing natural resources.
鈥淲e didn鈥檛 really find a good role model of any country doing things sustainably,鈥� says of the University of Leeds, UK. 鈥淥ur analysis is a wake-up call that we need to do things in a radically different way if we are to have any hope of achieving a good life for all people on the planet.鈥�
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the worst offenders for plundering nature unsustainably are rich nations. Countries like the US provide good lives for their citizens, but break multiple environmental limits.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, poorer countries like Vietnam tend to overuse fewer resources, but don鈥檛 meet all the well-being targets for their people.
Measuring greenness
O鈥橬eill and his colleagues rated each country鈥檚 sustainability by totting up how it used, produced or affected seven things. These were water, phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon dioxide emissions, material consumption, ecological footprint and land-use change.
The team鈥檚 analysis built on a 2009 study that defined nine 鈥渓ife support鈥� systems for Earth. That study concluded that we had breached the limits for three of the systems: climate change, nitrogen and loss of biodiversity.
O鈥橬eill鈥檚 group also used 11 measures to assess whether countries provided their citizens with satisfactory lives. Some were basic biological necessities like nutrition, sanitation, access to energy and healthy life expectancy. Others reflected social stability and equity, including income, education, equality, social support, employment prospects, quality of democracy and overall life satisfaction.
The ideal country would score zero for resource overshoot and 11 for citizen well-being: everyone鈥檚 needs would be met without draining natural resources unsustainably. The worst possible country would show seven overshoots and zero citizen well-being, meaning all natural resources were over-consumed without benefits for citizens.
The worst offenders
Rich countries like the US, UK and Australia dramatically overshoot their limits to feed materialistic lifestyles.
鈥淭he USA transgresses all seven planetary boundary indicators, but at the same time scores relatively highly on the social thresholds, achieving nine out of 11,鈥� says team member of the University of Leeds. The UK did similarly, exceeding all planetary boundaries except water and land use, but reaching eight of the 11 social thresholds. 鈥淭hey could be described as 鈥榳ell-off over-consumers鈥�.鈥�
In contrast, South Africa breaches the same natural boundaries as the UK, but achieves only one social target: nutrition. 鈥淪outh Africa could be described as a 鈥榙ysfunctional over-consumer鈥�, because its consumption doesn鈥檛 seem to result in a better life for so many of its citizens,鈥� says Steinberger.
Some poor countries, like Malawi and Senegal, keep within planetary boundaries but reach none of the social thresholds.
A few countries are doing better at balancing well-being and sustainability. They include Sri Lanka 鈥� which breaches no natural limits 鈥� Vietnam and Moldova. However, none meets all the well-being targets.
Fixing the world
鈥淭he analysis provides a critical reminder of the tremendous challenge facing humanity,鈥� says of Stockholm University in Sweden, who proposed the nine life-support systems. 鈥淪uddenly, we must accept that we need to share, in a just and safe way, the remaining biophysical space on Earth, and we鈥檝e never before had to consider this.鈥�
鈥淲e can no longer pretend that simply 鈥榣etting the market decide what is best for us鈥� will lead to anything but disaster,鈥� says Steinberger.
O鈥橬eill鈥檚 team says poorer countries should prioritise basic needs 鈥� which can be met without overshooting limits 鈥� while citizens of rich countries should rethink what they need to achieve satisfaction. Crucially, 鈥渓ife satisfaction鈥� scores improved only marginally for every new biological limit breached, suggesting that scaling back luxuries could have disproportionately large environmental benefits.
鈥淪ome of the strongest determinants of life satisfaction are good health; strong family and community relationships; economic security in the form of employment or higher incomes; and relative rather than absolute wealth with respect to the rest of one鈥檚 society,鈥� says Steinberger. 鈥淪o there鈥檚 lots of international leeway in the material dependency of life satisfaction, and a lot we can learn about how to move to lower material forms of life satisfaction.鈥�
One step may be to stop judging progress solely by economic growth, measured as gross domestic product (GDP). We should 鈥渁bandon GDP as our main measure of national progress鈥�, says O鈥橬eill. Instead we should target 鈥渢he things that genuinely matter to people, like health, happiness, meaningful employment and equality鈥�.
鈥淲e would argue that material de-growth of the richest nations is imperative for medium- and long-term planetary stability,鈥� says Steinberger. 鈥淗owever, in poorer countries, with a lack of basic goods like food and sanitation, some level of growth is essential for social progress.鈥�
Nature Sustainability
