What Makes Europe
Greener than the U.S.?

More from Yale e360

The New Urbanists:
Tackling Europe’s Sprawl
In the last few decades, urban sprawl, once regarded as largely a U.S. phenomenon, has spread across Europe. Now an emerging group of planners is promoting a new kind of development — mixed-use, low-carbon communities that are pedestrian-friendly and mass-transit-oriented.

Print Email Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Mixx Facebook

COMMENTS

Good piece and excellent points, but it bothers me that 'green' is becoming a bit of a knee-jerk anti-Americanism. If, you value wildlife, biodiversity, and wilderness the US looks pretty good in comparison with Europe. Carbon footprints are an important measure of environmental values, but how green is a continent that is basically devoid of large predators? America is guilty of rampant consumerism, but Europe is guilty of plundering the world through colonialism. On either side of the Atlantic there are many past failings to atone for, and much work to do.


There's just a lot more people in Europe, so public transit becomes a no-brainer because there are enough people around to move.

And there are just as many cars on the streets. There's just more people in the cities, higher density, so a lower proportion uses cars.

I don't really find the cities all that visibly green. It's not like they've got solar panels everywhere or anything like that.


The constant marketing pressure to buy has created a society that is always striving to acquire more: bigger and better cars and homes, trendier clothes, excessive toys and gadgets ...

How do we change direction when there is so much power and money behind maintaining this corporate-consumer relationship?

A grass roots movement to a simpler life is needed but very hard to imagine.


The whole point is that they aren't VISIBLY green. It's a lifestyle thing, not a "look at what we're doing" thing. Ms. Rosenthal wasn't writing about the great efforts and extensive changes they're making, and she even said that. Some societies are greener than others just because they've always been that way - solar panels and other flashy technology aren't what she's talking about. There's a lot more to green - for instance, it's better to just use less electricity than use a whole lot but use solar energy to produce it. Solar panels also have to be manufactured and maintained. You're sort of missing the whole point of the article with your last two sentences.


Ms. Rosenthal brings up several valid points regarding differences between European and American societies. But there are rational reasons for some of the difference in energy usage. First, the U.S. climate is much more extreme. A significant portion of the U.S. population lives in areas that are colder and/or warmer than Europe, requiring additional energy. In this regard, Europe is blessed with a climate very buffered by the Gulf Stream and the Mediteranean. Where are the European climate equivalents of the desert southwest, the entire southeast, the plains states, the northern tier states, etc.?

The fairly recent heat wave in Europe that killed thousands of people was less extreme than the temperatures experienced by many Americans every summer. Combined with historically low energy costs, almost all recent U.S. growth has occurred in areas more or less uninhabitable prior to air conditioning. The U.S. has also come of age during the age of the auto, whereas European development pre-dated that era. Finally, I would point out that France's low carbon emissions are significantly influenced by there heavy reliance on nuclear power.


Having worked for the enviromental departments for both U.S. and European owned firms, it's quite interesting that Europe is often tagged as green and the U.S. as not. It is true that Europe is much better at moving folks via mass transit, whereas the U.S. is much better at moving freight via train. The U.S. moves ~46% of its freight by train, whereas Europe moves only ~8%. The U.S. banned unleaded gasoline in 1975, whereas Europe waited until the late 1990s. France gets 80% of its electricity from non-C02 producing nuclear power, while the U.S. gets only 20%.



I have a problem with attributing certain behaviors to "Americans" as a class, as though that's the way all Americans are. Sure, there are some who live the way you describe, but there are others - indeed, whole subcultures - who, as another commenter puts it, "...are greener than others just because they've always been that way". Just as everyone used their clotheslines when I was a kid, so I keep using mine now.


It sounds a bit like the same old excuses again. Yes, there are differences between Europe and the U.S., but to say that being green or not is down to infrastructure is just an excuse. It is more to do with culture.

If you think you are the greatest country on Earth and can act as the World's policemen, do anything with impunity then this reflects on how you live. Having a regard for the planet and its people is far more about being in touch with what is happening and changing things that harm. That requires a change in attitude away from 'might is right' and an acceptance that each of our actions has a consequence.

I do not see that in the U.S., all I see is a people exercising their 'rights' and shouting long and hard if they think anybody is taking them away. It seems that being green is seen as negative and a removal of the 'right' to drive what you like, live how you want and consume as much as you want. That is so engrained in U.S. culture I think it will be very difficult to change and I cannot see any way of stopping the U.S. from wrecking the Copenhagen agreements just like they wrecked Kyoto.


Ms Rosenthal does a credible compare and contrast job. Surely, in daily life for many Western Europeans, it is easier to walk the low-carbon-walk than in the U.S. That said, most European Kyoto Protocol signatories are missing carbon reduction goals and suffering from rising vehicles-miles-traveled. Then there's Eastern Europe, but that's a discussion for another day.

This isn't to excuse the U.S.' inexcusable inaction on a national scale. Passing a federal climate law, warts and all, would be a very good thing as would contributing to the next international climate treaty. Will these things come to pass? Don't know.

Still, it's worth pointing out that the EPA is moving ahead on increasing auto fuel efficiency standards and controlling CO2 emissions as a pollutant. The DOE is spending $$ on clean tech RD & D. Some brand name corporations are leaving the Chamber of Commerce because of its hostility to climate action. Cities are passing energy efficient building codes, offering green incentives and installing smart electric power grid controls. There's a lot to be said for local action as the cradle for the infrastructure of life changes that Ms. Rosenthal identifies as necessary to becoming a greener society.


I am very suspicious of this type of unscientific comparison. Europeans need less heating and cooling because of their climate. Public transport makes more sense because of high population density. Nuclear power was adopted more vigorously because of government mandates that ignored the public objections that stopped nuclear power in the U.S. Europe has fewer fossil fuel resources, making them relatively more expensive. I prefer actual data to the random observations of urban apartment dwellers.


The author is essentially right in that most European countries are more environmentally conscious compared to the US. By comparing carbon footprints this is exactly what we see (which of course has a lot to do with historic structures and not only with attitudes). But by praising the European lifestyle and the fact that most people reuse their bags (which seems to
be the typical example the American observer discovers when comparing the environmental friendliness of the US and Europe) the author misses the point that most European countries
still are far from sustainable in the way they use fossil fuels and other natural resources.

We are still far from major changes in our basic energy supply, Germany is still building coal fired power plants on a large scale (the largest plant is being built close to Hamburg ), we still do not have a tax on kerosine, we still do not insulate our houses properly, we still consider it normal to drive to work for 2 hours a day, chicken is still less expensive than most kinds of vegetables (which does not mean one should not eat chicken) etc. etc.

I do not plead for renouncing to our western lifestyles, if we just thought a little more about how we use precious resources and if we were just a little more willing to pay a little more money for a much better (that is renewable) energy supply most problems concerning global warming could handled. Change can only come about if we are flexible enough in our minds to want change to come about in the first place. yes and i know there is the money issue.

But why do not we give it a try at least? Precious is rarely for free.


Tom, I'm not quite sure you come clear with what you mean. It stated in the article that in Europe its structure simply allows for what we might term a 'green' living standard, which is a buzzword to begin with.

I understand about the more expensive utilities, it's just been the norm to save as much as possible as opposed to being environmentally friendly, though that's the side effect. Even still, in a country as small as germany there were 66.2 billion passenger kilometers (41,044,000,000 passenger miles) on long distance, regional and inner-city public transit in the first half of 2009 alone whereas the full tally for the same modes in 2008 in the U.S. is around 1,365,000,000.

You can check that for the U.S. here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/pocket_guide_to_transportation/2009/pdf/entire.pdf for germany that was reported in the newspaper Die Welt on Wed. 16 September 2009 in an article entitled (in German) 'Deutsche nutzen Busse und Bahnen deutlich mehr', loosely translated, 'Germans are using buses and trains noticeably more,' this in reference to the same time period 2008. Yes it's easy to say higher densities make mass transit more relevant, but there were obvious decisions made that reflect how relevant these modes are in (for example) germany today.

Hamburg has a 9% modal share for cyclists and bremen has a 22% modal share. münster is even higher. it's not just about public transit, these are conscious decisions to move the modal share away from the automobile, even as germany has the second highest rate of car ownership per capita in the world, right behind the U.S.

Then your comment about nuclear power is a slightly off, considering there's a nuclear power plant 40 miles out of NYC that, should any of the many tiny fault lines it lies on go, would have a disastrous affect. Nuclear power certainly exists in the U.S. despite whatever efforts you might be citing.


Nice post. Many of the posts miss the point that it isn't an accident that Europe has higher densities: it is planning. The Netherlands could look like New Jersey, but it doesn't because the Dutch chose a different path (remember: most urbanization took at the same time in Europe and in the USA).

To Dave C: While Europe could move more goods by rail then they do (they move around 17%). There are two things to note. First, much of the non-road transportation (about 30%) is by sea (makes sense given geography). More importantly, Europeans move much less freight per capita - maybe two thirds of what we move. And what are we moving? Nope, not computers and food and furniture. We are moving coal. Almost all of it by rail (and about half of the rail freight we move). So Europe moves less freight by rail because they move less coal. They move move less coal because they use less energy (and get less of the energy they do use from coal).


Tom, what makes you think Europe needs less heating and cooling than the U.S.? Europe is big, it stretches over a large area which includes cold countries in the north and in the south those that have summer temps around 40C. In the middle we still get -10C in winter and have to use heating. In the summer we can get to the high 30s C but don’t have air conditioning running 24 hours a day.

Look at some Scandinavian countries to see how they manage cold and to Spain and Greece to see how they manage extreme heat. As I said, the differences are cultural not physical. To say that Europe has an advantage is just another excuse and more denial of the problems.


It certainly would be valuable for someone to do a quantitative companion piece to Elisabeth Rosenthal's fascinating set of observations of comparative behavior in Europe and the U.S. Perhaps build up energy use histograms for typical individuals in different European countries and in different regions of the U.S. as David MacKay does for the typical U.K. resident in his splendid "Sustainability-with the hot air" and let the numbers speak for themselves?

I think it is also critical that we stay non-judgmental about past behavior of Americans and Europeans (and everyone else around the globe) and focus on rapidly adopting the best social and technical innovations from around the world so we can maximize global quality of life while lessening the risk of catastrophe from greenhouse gas emissions. We need all the civility we can muster if we are to have a hope of controlling climate change.


Your story about Zurich, Switzerland carries a MAJOR omission relating to why people produce so little garbage is Switzerland, and this applies to all of Switzerland, not just Old Zurich - and that is that for at least 10 years in Switzerland garbage bags are heavily taxed (and you are only allowed to use these taxed-bags to throw your garbage out). That means that each garbage bag carries a tax of anywhere from 50 cents to several dollars. That really makes you learn quickly how to produce less garbage! Now that is costs so much to throw things out, you naturally want to buy things with less packaging, or you leave the packaging at the stores (it is common to see consumers unpack their items after purchase and leave excess packaging at stores in Switzerland), which encourages manufacturers to produce products with less packaging, so the whole systems was forced to adapt. And don’t think about not using these taxed garbage bags – Switzerland had garbage police that go after offenders! Really! Sounds very 1984, but it works! – you really learn to use less and dispose less and are much friendlier to the environment.

As you described, you are only allowed to throw out certain things in the regular trash. Each year every resident gets a long list of how to dispose of various categories of trash (ex: cardboard, bottles divided up by color, plastic bottles newspapers, electronics, cans, etc.) and a list of acceptable places and times to dispose of them. So in the end, what ends up in your regular trash can is much, much less than in, say, the US.



Why doesn't the author or any commentator mention that the U.S. military is the greatest user of oil in the world and the greatest polluter, including CO2, SO2, PCBs, depleted uranium, and everything else?

Although almost all European nations are complicit with U.S. military operations, the subject deserves more than mention--extensive discussion.


@kevincent

Another reason why we dont transport so much coal by rail, there are built up a lot of power stations very near to open cast mining areas of coal, so the coal is transported by conveyors direct to the power stations. A lot of power stations are built at rivers and the coal comes per ship.


America has been such a young bountiful country, we've just finished clearing the planes of those annoying buffaloes. We were one of the few countries geared up for an industrial surge immediately after WWII.

These observations are meant to illustrate the thought that America is lagging on the evolutionary scale, just starting to realize that resources may be limited, something Europe has has a couple of centuries more to realize.


Good observations and reporting. For one delicious moment I felt I was there in the dolce vita. Alas, I'm here instead. I have never had a corner store that sold fresh local foods. I have to drive a long car route for this. I need room in my house to stock food because the roads take a while to plow in the winter. I need room to stock other things because what's available locally is poor quality to the point of being nearly useless. And I fear that it might be toxic. And I need room to store equipment to prepare good meals and make other quality stuff and to deal with power outages. And I need a large yard to grow most of my own produce and eggs.

I wish so much that I had neighbors who could supply quality food and goods. It is mostly buy the cheapest stuff you can, make it look pretty, and sell it for as much as you can get. That's who we've become. It will be a long road back. But thanks for the delicious view of the world beyond.


It seems that the initial anecdote is at odds with the central thesis. If in fact the reason that Americans waste power is that their society is structured in a way that makes it more convenient to do so, then presumably once in Europe, the American would adapt (and not take the cab when public transport is readily available). I do think that Americans tend to have a sense of entitlement — I can't waste my time on public transport, I can't be bothered to hang my clothes on the line, I don't want to put on my sweater so I'll just crank up the heat — which runs across more issues than just environmental concerns.


Thanks for sharing your insights on European lifestyles versus American ones. It's something to think about.

As a person who moved to America as an young immigrant, I did not grow up automatically in the wealth offered by the States. I have it now, and it makes me think about where these assumptions of wealth, space, and luxury come from.

I also wonder what my future children will assume to be "normal" as they grow up, so it is interesting to see the European perspective (especially as seen by an American).


Great article. I'm a U.S. citizen who's spent 10 years living in Central and Eastern Europe and who's been all over the continent.

The author's central observation is that, statistically speaking, the greatest factor in influencing one's environmental impact is not "personal choice," but rather infrastructure, laws and regulations, and social pressure. Sure, there is a small class of conscious "low impact citizens" in the U.S., but these few people must try hard to fight the system. In Europe, the path of least resistance is to consume less than in the U.S., even when you compare regions in the U.S. and Europe that have similar climates.

Essentially, most of Europe has the infrastructure of, say, Boulder, Colorado. In the U.S. there are precious few places that have European-style infrastructure that naturally leads to a 50 percent (or more) drop in environmental impact.

The Europeans, too, are not exactly sustainable. But they provide an example of how consumption can be lowered dramatically (compared to the U.S.) while still retaining the same quality of life.



It’s all about being pragmatic and saving money.

As a European I don’t think we have a higher moral standard then the average American, I do think however that we realize better that going on like this is quite impossible.

So in order to fight the crazy traffic jams we try and improve public transport; not because we are so concerned about the environment (no worries, we are) but because we don’t want people to waste time (and thus money) sitting in their car for hours. And there is an incentive; petrol in Europe is so expensive nowadays that is it’s well worth it to use trains, trams and busses. Europeans for that matter are (still) stunned by the price Americans pay for their petrol.

In the same way, just like in Switserland, we tax garbage in the Netherlands to make people aware of the costs of removal and to make them produce less. Over 17 million people living in such a small country as the Netherlands would otherwise soon drown in their own dirt.

Carrot and stick; cleaner environment and higher prices/taxes.

POST A COMMENT

Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

Name
Email address
URL
Comment

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Elisabeth Rosenthal has covered international environmental issues for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune for the last three years, traveling extensively to report on environmental projects. Before that, she was a correspondent in the Times' Beijing bureau for six years. She has a MD from Harvard Medical School.

RELATED ARTICLES

The Greenest Place in the U.S.
May Not Be Where You Think
Green rankings in the U.S. don’t tell the full story about the places where the human footprint is lightest. If you really want the best environmental model, you need to look at the nation’s biggest — and greenest — metropolis: New York City.
READ MORE

Pumping Up the Grid:
Key Step to Green Energy
The U.S can build all the wind turbines and solar arrays it wants, but until it does something about improving its outmoded electricity grid, renewable energy will never reach its potential. What we need is a new electricity transmission system, with the costs shared by all.
READ MORE

For Greening Aviation,
Are Biofuels the Right Stuff?
Biofuels – made from algae and non-food plants – are emerging as a potentially viable alternative to conventional jet fuels. Although big challenges remain, the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could be major.
READ MORE

Regional Climate Pact’s Lesson:
Avoid Big Giveaways to Industry
As Congress struggles over a bill to limit carbon emissions, a cap-and-trade program is already operating in 10 Northeastern states. But the regional project's mixed success offers a cautionary warning to U.S. lawmakers on how to proceed.
READ MORE

Using Peer Pressure as a Tool
to Promote Greener Choices
Environmentalists, utilities, and green businesses are turning to behavioral economics to find innovative ways of influencing people to do the right thing when it comes to the environment. Is this approach really good for the planet or just a fad?
READ MORE

MORE IN Opinion

As Copenhagen Talks Near,
What Are Prospects for Success?
For months, hopes that a climate treaty would be signed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference have been raised, then dashed, then raised again. Now, with prospects waning that a binding accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be reached this year, ten environmental leaders and climate experts outline for Yale Environment 360 what they believe can still be accomplished at Copenhagen.
READ MORE

Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing
the Public on Climate Change
by ted nordhaus and michael shellenberger
Even as the climate science becomes more definitive, polls show that public concern in the United States about global warming has been declining. What will it take to rally Americans behind the need to take strong action on cutting carbon emissions?
READ MORE

Pervasive Plastics: Why the U.S.
Needs New and Tighter Controls
by john wargo
Long a ubiquitous part of modern life, plastics are now in everything from diapers to water bottles to cell phones. But given the proven health threats of some plastics — as well as the enormous environmental costs — the time has come for the U.S. to pass a comprehensive plastics control law.
READ MORE

Coping With Climate Change:
Which Societies Will Do Best?
by gaia vince
As the world warms, how different societies fare in dealing with rising seas and changing weather patterns will have as much to do with political, social, and economic factors as with a changing climate.
READ MORE

The Greenest Place in the U.S.
May Not Be Where You Think
by david owen
Green rankings in the U.S. don’t tell the full story about the places where the human footprint is lightest. If you really want the best environmental model, you need to look at the nation’s biggest — and greenest — metropolis: New York City.
READ MORE

The Economic Case for
Slashing Carbon Emissions
by frank ackerman
Amid a growing call for reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to 350 parts per million, a group of economists maintains that striving to meet that target is a smart investment — and the best insurance policy humanity could buy.
READ MORE

The Other Inconvenient Truth:
The Crisis in Global Land Use
by jonathan foley
As the international community focuses on climate change as the great challenge of our era, it is ignoring another looming problem — the global crisis in land use. With agricultural practices already causing massive ecological impact, the world must now find new ways to feed its burgeoning population and launch a "Greener" Revolution.
READ MORE

A Timely Reminder of
the Real Limits to Growth
by bill mckibben
It has been more than 30 years since a groundbreaking book predicted that if growth continued unchecked, the Earth’s ecological systems would be overwhelmed within a century. The latest study from an international team of scientists should serve as an eleventh-hour warning that cannot be ignored.
READ MORE

Why I Still Oppose
Genetically Modified Crops
by verlyn klinkenborg
Introduced more than a decade ago, genetically modified crops are now planted on millions of acres throughout the world. But the fundamental questions about them remain — both about their safety and their long-term impact on global food security and the environment.
READ MORE

Pumping Up the Grid:
Key Step to Green Energy
by michael noble
The U.S can build all the wind turbines and solar arrays it wants, but until it does something about improving its outmoded electricity grid, renewable energy will never reach its potential. What we need is a new electricity transmission system, with the costs shared by all.
READ MORE

RELATED e360 DIGEST ITEMS

23 Nov 2009: Hacked Climate Change E-mails
Reveal Extent of Hostility Toward Skeptics

23 Nov 2009: East Antarctic Ice Sheet
Appears to Be Melting Faster, Study Says

20 Nov 2009: Using Enzymes from Termites
To Make Biofuel from Plants and Wood Waste

20 Nov 2009: Emergency Rainforest Fund
Created by Prince Charles and 35 Nations

19 Nov 2009: Oceans’ Ability to Absorb CO2
May be Diminishing, New Study Says

19 Nov 2009: Kenya Evicts Squatters
From Beleaguered Mau Forest

18 Nov 2009: Companies Increase Commitment
To Tackling Climate Issues, Report Says

18 Nov 2009: Massive CO2 Increases
Documented in Comprehensive New Study

17 Nov 2009: Increase In GM Crops
Leads to Jump in Herbicide Use

16 Nov 2009: Dutch Cabinet Okays Tax
Based on Miles Driven by Motorists