Innovative Countries -- Global Innovation Index

This is a great summary of innovation by country from Visual Capitalist. See the Global Innovation Index (GII) map here:https://www.visualcapitalist.com/most-innovative-countries-2022/

First Published on IntellZine.com. Note the sustainability implications from innovation, and the lack of innovation.

We, at Strategic Business Planning Company, www.SBP.com, are always interesting in all aspects of innovation. Sometimes we hear from a layperson or an executive that the most innovative country in the work is ...  

Israel and Ireland were mentioned in recent years.  One executive said that "all innovation comes from Israel". All right, admittedly, Israel is a great source of innovation and invention, but it is a very small country (population, GDP). In absolute terms, Israel is not even close, but in relative terms (adjusted for size of country), Israel is a very respectable #16 in the world (GII score of 50.2).

World Water Day 2021 Quiz

World Water Day 2021 (March 22) Quiz    Name/Team: ____________ 

(See SustainZine blog post related to this quiz and World Water Day.)

1.      Approximately what percentage of the adult human body is water (H2O)?

a.       10-15%

b.      20-30%

c.       40-50%

d.      55-65%

Population is a killer for Global Warming. Good news, Kinda.

The world's out of control human population growth is something that few people want to talk about loudly because it sounds so very insensitive. But the increase in world population at nearly exponential levels is non-sustainable and multiplies all issues of sustainability: exhausting natural resources, pollution, etc. Estimates are that world population will grow to between 9m and 11m by mid century and then slowly decline.

Source: OurWorldInData

The problem with increased population is a double whammy. Not only are there more people, but the footprint of each person should raise dramatically as more people enter the middle class (or higher). Countries like China and India that have burned only 2 barrels of oil per person annually, can be expected to move up their consumption to 4 or 5 times that, more in line with the USA. People that eat lower on the food chain, rice and corn, can be expect to start eating beef and pork which takes 20 to 30 times the resources to produce. 

But, a new study, published in the Lancet, has found that fertility rates since 1950 have dropped faster and further than anyone expected. (See the BBC article by James Gallagher on this study.)

The low fertility rates in developed countries means that their populations should start shrinking (without net immigration). In 1950 women had an average of 4.7 children in their lifetimes, a rate that is now half at 2.4! Fertility rates less than about 2.1 result in a decrease in population (excluding net immigration). Many of the developed countries, like the UK with 1.7, have less than 2. Japan has 1.3. With fewer young people to work, the aging retired population becomes a bigger and bigger burden on the economy. It will take decades for the change in fertility to work through the population levels. 

Economic development has long looks at the use of population to improve the overall economy; more people could/should result in more things produces and a bigger economy. However, per capita economic development can be significantly improved by reducing the number of children. If the economy increases at 5%, but population also increases at 5%, then the per capita income remains the same. China reduced the rate of population growth, and that contributed dramatically to the improved per capita income and the rise of the middle class. I just saw stats talking about the percent of Chinese in extreme poverty at about 1950; more than 90% of the population lived in extreme poverty (currently a purchase-power-parity of $1.9 per day). By 2018, only about 1% of Chinese are in extreme poverty.  Controlling their population was a big contributor to China moving to surpass the USA in terms of economic power (GDP of more than $23T vs $19.5T for US). (Of course their single-child policies have caused many other problems and has recently been relaxed.) 

China and India represent about 35.7% of the worlds population with 1.4B and 1.34B, respectively. China has stomped on the brakes for decades; India has only tapped on the brakes. China's growth rate is only 0.39, while India's is 1.2. US is 0.71 and Japan is -0.23.

So, a big sustainability question, is first to stop the increase in population world-wide and regionally. But should sustainability initiative actually champion the reduction of world population. One way or another we need to get back to the carrying capacity of Mother Earth.  When you look at Earth over-shoot day, which has moved to August 1, it becomes graphically clear how much we are depleting the earths resources to live beyond our means. Stated differently, about 212 days into the year, we exhausted the renewable resources provided by the earth (and sun), so the resources consumed in the remaining 153 days of the year are depleting resources. In 1987, overshoot day was December 19th; in 2000, overshoot day was November 1.

This is the same as your annual salary paying all your bills until August 1 (58% of the year), and then you have to borrow money to pay for the rest of the year. Each and every year, you have to borrow more because the overshoot day keeps moving earlier in the year. Non-sustainable issues like overshoot are cumulative, and compounding. Not only do you owe the cumulative total of all the borrowing, but the interest keeps growing at an expanding rate using the magic of compounding.

We need to get our overshoots (and deficits) under control, and start to make the magic of compounding work for us, not against. Getting countries (and world) population growth under control is probably the most important factor in sustainability, and ultimately, the health and wellness of our plant. It's pretty important, as well, for those things that have become accustomed to living on this planet.! 

Criminal Injustice: Is abnormal non-sustainable?

We at SustainZine look for things that are abnormal, things that are so inefficient and clearly irresponsible that they should be categorized as non-sustainable. We think the Criminal Justice system in the USA qualifies and non-sustainable.

Question, what is a "normal" rate of incarceration for you citizens? And if you are a way out-of-control outlier to the other developed countries, does this represent non-sustainability.
That is, if you don't put anyone in jail, are you leaving your citizens to be rampaged by mobs and vigilantes? If you have far more people in jail than any other developed country, is this non-sustainable. When does it fully represent a "broken" system of (in)justice.

Our sister site ScenarioPlans.com (or DelphiPlan.com) talks about the US criminal system of incarceration. It is clearly broken, and totally not sane: More prisoners in US than any other country: Criminal (In)Justice Scenarios.

Here is the first paragraph:

The US has the most people incarcerated of any country in the world… Even though we only have 4.3% of the world’s population, we have more inmates -- 2.2 million -- than China (1.5m) and India (0.3m), combined (36.4% of world population)! We have 23% of China’s population but 40% more incarcerated. We have almost 1% of our population (0.737%) incarcerated! We have 6 times higher incarceration rate than China, 12 times higher that Japan, and 24 times the rates in India and Nigeria. That’s right, an American has a 1,200% greater chance of being incarcerated than a Japanese citizen. We have even a 20% higher incarceration rate than Russia with 0.615% of their population in (Siberian) prisons and jails.

Tell us what you think. Is this insane? Do we need to reform? What do you think could be rationally called a "sustainable" level of incarceration?

Time to DrawDown and Look at All the Sky, not just Half

In the US, we often characterize women hitting the Glass Ceiling where men are in the highest positions of companies – executives and board rooms. Interestingly, men don’t see much of a glass ceiling, maybe because they are usually upstairs and not looking down. Old white men may be complicit and complacent in women knocking at the other side of the glass, but world-wide the imperative to give women respect and opportunity is critical, with profound implications for the world population and sustainable economic development. It’s a human and a humanity issue for everyone everywhere.

Let’s talk about Drawdown and Half the Sky (Wikipedia contributors, 2018). Both are bestselling books and global initiatives.

Everyone should be familiar with each of these.

Half the Sky is a bestselling book by Kristof and WuDunn (2009), a movie, and an activist movement. See Half the Sky movement: http://www.halftheskymovement.org/

Women are not allowed to do many things in many countries. The limitations on women in many cases mean that only half of the human resources in a country/area are utilized. It's a lot like seeing only half of the sky!

Women are often not encouraged to go to school. In many cultures girls are expected to drop out of school very early, say age 11 to 13, so they can get married and/or work. (Or worse, funneled into sex slavery.) Encouraging women to stay in school longer solve many problems simultaneously. At an older age, with education, they are better able to do family planning and more productive work. This is key to population control. Educating women is key to reaching a global population of 9B or less, instead of 11B or more.

In terms of economic development, a better use of women resources is a critical asset to the work economy. In fact, women are absolutely critical to sustainability efforts: lower population, higher GDP, higher per capita GDP, and reduced environmental impacts on the planet.

There's an effort call DrawDown (www.DrawDown.org) that looks for the best initiatives, using the current technology that will make the biggest difference in CO2 emissions and global warming. Groups use the best, peer-reviewed, information available to analyze each initiative. Initiatives are evaluated on the emissions savings as well as the actual cost saving on a world-wide bases. When taken together, two women's initiatives, ranked #6 and #7, would move up to #1 position. The two categories are: educating women and family planning.

Note that the three women/girl initiatives are ranked 6, 7 and 62; however, combined, they represent arguably the best single initative to address in terms of impact on global warming reduction. And, oh, by the way, they will contribute massively to world GDP and assist dramatically with cost savings compared to business as usual.

The book Drawdown and the web site Drawdown.org are edited by Paul Hawken (2017).

The first table shows the summary by sector the top 80 Drawdown initiatives. These initiatives are all things that we should do, no matter how aggressively you think our action toward Global Warming might be. It would be simply irresponsible not to address these issues. Note that an initiative related to utilities is ranked 77 but has 3 parts; therefore, there the top 80 lists is actually 82 items (see the Top 80 list below).

We need to be more proactively regarding women and girl’s rights; or, we could continue to see only half the sky.

DrawDown Initiatives for Reducing Greenhouse Emissions (CO2e)
(Including Net Costs to Implement and Projected Savings)
Summary by Sectors of the top 80 Initiatives
Sector	Initatives	CO2e GT Reduction	Net Costs (US$B)	Savings (US$B)
Buildings and Cities	15	55	4,927	17,906
Electricity Generation	20	246	4,896	21,447
Food	17	322	777	10,017
Land Use	9	150	131	1,199
Materials	7	112	1,125	1,040
Transport	11	46	17,753	22,666
Women and Girls	3	121	-	88
TOTAL	82	1,051	29,609	74,362
Source: Paul Hawken (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
* Note. Energy Storage and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this list.

See the top 80 table below.

References

Kristof, N., & WuDunn, S. (2009). Half the sky: Turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Hawken, P. (2017). Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan every proposed to reverse global warming. (P. Hawken, Ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Wikipedia contributors. (2018, April 9). Half the Sky. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:55, April 10, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Half_the_Sky&oldid=835610476

DrawDown Initiatives for Reducing Greenhouse Emissions (CO2e)
(Including Net Costs to Implement and Projected Savings)
			Total CO2e (GT)
			Atmospheric	Net Costs	Savings
Rank	Solution	Sector	reduction	US $B	US $B
1	Refrigerant Management	Materials	89.74	N/A	($902.77)
2	Wind Turbines (Onshore)	Electricity Generation	84.6	$1,225.37	$7,425.00
3	Reduced Food Waste	Food	70.53	N/A	N/A
4	Plant-Rich Diet	Food	66.11	N/A	N/A
5	Tropical Forests	Land Use	61.23	N/A	N/A
6	Educating Girls	Women and Girls	59.6	N/A	N/A
7	Family Planning	Women and Girls	59.6	N/A	N/A
8	Solar Farms	Electricity Generation	36.9	($80.60)	$5,023.84
9	Silvopasture	Food	31.19	$41.59	$699.37
10	Rooftop Solar	Electricity Generation	24.6	$453.14	$3,457.63
11	Regenerative Agriculture	Food	23.15	$57.22	$1,928.10
12	Temperate Forests	Land Use	22.61	N/A	N/A
13	Peatlands	Land Use	21.57	N/A	N/A
14	Tropical Staple Trees	Food	20.19	$120.07	$626.97
15	Afforestation	Land Use	18.06	$29.44	$392.33
16	Conservation Agriculture	Food	17.35	$37.53	$2,119.07
17	Tree Intercropping	Food	17.2	$146.99	$22.10
18	Geothermal	Electricity Generation	16.6	($155.48)	$1,024.34
19	Managed Grazing	Food	16.34	$50.48	$735.27
20	Nuclear	Electricity Generation	16.09	$0.88	$1,713.40
21	Clean Cookstoves	Food	15.81	$72.16	$166.28
22	Wind Turbines (Offshore)	Electricity Generation	14.1	$545.30	$762.50
23	Farmland Restoration	Food	14.08	$72.24	$1,342.47
24	Improved Rice Cultivation	Food	11.34	N/A	$519.06
25	Concentrated Solar	Electricity Generation	10.9	$1,319.70	$413.85
26	Electric Vehicles	Transport	10.8	$14,148.00	$9,726.40
27	District Heating	Buildings and Cities	9.38	$457.10	$3,543.50
28	Multistrata Agroforestry	Food	9.28	$26.76	$709.75
29	Wave and Tidal	Electricity Generation	9.2	$411.84	($1,004.70)
30	Methane Digesters (Large)	Electricity Generation	8.4	$201.41	$148.83
31	Insulation	Buildings and Cities	8.27	$3,655.92	$2,513.33
32	Ships	Transport	7.87	$915.93	$424.38
33	LED Lighting (Household)	Buildings and Cities	7.81	$323.52	$1,729.54
34	Biomass	Electricity Generation	7.5	$402.31	$519.35
35	Bamboo	Land Use	7.22	$23.79	$264.80
36	Alternative Cement	Materials	6.69	($273.90)	N/A
37	Mass Transit	Transport	6.57	N/A	$2,379.73
38	Forest Protection	Land Use	6.2	N/A	N/A
39	Indigenous Peoples’ Land Management	Land Use	6.19	N/A	N/A
40	Trucks	Transport	6.18	$543.54	$2,781.63
41	Solar Water	Electricity Generation	6.08	$2.99	$773.65
42	Heat Pumps	Buildings and Cities	5.2	$118.71	$1,546.66
43	Airplanes	Transport	5.05	$662.42	$3,187.80
44	LED Lighting (Commercial)	Buildings and Cities	5.04	($205.05)	$1,089.63
45	Building Automation	Buildings and Cities	4.62	$68.12	$880.55
46	Water Saving - Home	Materials	4.61	$72.44	$1,800.12
47	Bioplastic	Materials	4.3	$19.15	N/A
48	In-Stream Hydro	Electricity Generation	4	$202.53	$568.36
49	Cars	Transport	4	($598.69)	$1,761.72
50	Cogeneration	Electricity Generation	3.97	$279.25	$566.93
51	Perennial Biomass	Land Use	3.33	$77.94	$541.89
52	Coastal Wetlands	Land Use	3.19	N/A	N/A
53	System of Rice Intensification	Food	3.13	N/A	$677.83
54	Walkable Cities	Buildings and Cities	2.92	N/A	$3,278.24
55	Household Recycling	Materials	2.77	$366.92	$71.13
56	Industrial Recycling	Materials	2.77	$366.92	$71.13
57	Smart Thermostats	Buildings and Cities	2.62	$74.16	$640.10
58	Landfill Methane	Buildings and Cities	2.5	($1.82)	$67.57
59	Bike Infrastructure	Buildings and Cities	2.31	($2,026.97)	$400.47
60	Composting	Food	2.28	($63.72)	($60.82)
61	Smart Glass	Buildings and Cities	2.19	$932.30	$325.10
62	Women Smallholders	Women and Girls	2.06	N/A	$87.60
63	Telepresence	Transport	1.99	$127.72	$1,310.59
64	Methane Digesters (Small)	Electricity Generation	1.9	$15.50	$13.90
65	Nutrient Management	Food	1.81	N/A	$102.32
66	High-speed Rail	Transport	1.52	$1,038.42	$368.10
67	Farmland Irrigation	Food	1.33	$216.16	$429.67
68	Waste-to-Energy	Electricity Generation	1.1	$36.00	$19.82
69	Electric Bikes	Transport	0.96	$106.75	$226.07
70	Recycled Paper	Materials	0.9	$573.48	N/A
71	Water Distribution	Buildings and Cities	0.87	$137.37	$903.11
72	Biochar	Food	0.81	N/A	N/A
73	Green Roofs	Buildings and Cities	0.77	$1,393.29	$988.46
74	Trains	Transport	0.52	$808.64	$313.86
75	Ridesharing	Transport	0.32	N/A	$185.56
76	Micro Wind	Electricity Generation	0.2	$36.12	$19.90
77	Energy Storage (Distributed)*	Electricity Generation	N/A	N/A	N/A
77	Energy Storage (Utilities)*	Electricity Generation	N/A	N/A	N/A
77	Grid Flexibility*	Electricity Generation	N/A	N/A	N/A
78	Microgrids	Electricity Generation	N/A	N/A	N/A
79	Net Zero Buildings	Buildings and Cities	N/A	N/A	N/A
80	Retrofitting	Buildings and Cities	N/A	N/A	N/A
		Sum of top initiatives	1,050.99	29,609.30	74,362.37
Source: Paul Hawken (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
* Note. Energy Storage and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this list.