Connect with us

Economy

Ranked: Countries with the Most Sustainable Energy Policies

Published

on

Countries with the Most Sustainable Energy Policies

strongest energy policies index

Ranked: Countries With Most Sustainable Energy Policies

The sourcing and distribution of energy is one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Just under one billion people still lack basic access to electricity, and many more connect to the grid through improvised wiring or live through frequent blackouts. On the flip side of the socioeconomic spectrum, a growing chorus of voices is pressuring governments and corporations to power the global economy in a more sustainable way.

Today’s visualization – using data from the World Energy Council (WEC) – ranks countries based on their mix of policies for tackling issues like energy security and environmental sustainability.

The Energy Trilemma Index

According to WEC, there are three primary policy areas that form the “trilemma”:

1. Energy Security
A nation’s capacity to meet current and future energy demand reliably, and bounce back swiftly from system shocks with minimal disruption to supply. This dimension covers the effectiveness of management of domestic and external energy sources, as well as the reliability and resilience of energy infrastructure.

2. Energy Equity
A country’s ability to provide universal access to reliable, affordable, and abundant energy for domestic and commercial use. This dimension captures basic access to electricity and clean cooking fuels and technologies, access to prosperity-enabling levels of energy consumption, and affordability of electricity, gas, and fuel.

3. Environmental Sustainability
The transition of a country’s energy system towards mitigating and avoiding environmental harm and climate change impacts. This dimension focuses on productivity and efficiency of generation, transmission and distribution, decarbonization, and air quality.

Using the dimensions above, a score out of 100 is generated. Here’s a complete ranking that shows which countries have the most sustainable energy policies:

RankCountryTrilemma ScoreLetter Grade*
1🇨🇭 Switzerland85.8AAA
2🇸🇪 Sweden85.2AAA
3🇩🇰 Denmark84.7AAA
4🇬🇧 United Kingdom81.5AAA
5🇫🇮 Finland81.1AAA
6🇫🇷 France80.8AAA
7🇦🇹 Austria80.7AAA
8🇱🇺 Luxembourg80.4BAA
9🇩🇪 Germany79.4AAA
10🇳🇿 New Zealand79.4AAA
11🇳🇴 Norway79.3CAA
12🇸🇮 Slovenia79.2AAA
13🇨🇦 Canada78.0AAC
14🇳🇱 Netherlands77.8BAB
15🇺🇸 United States77.5AAB
16🇨🇿 Czech Republic77.4AAB
17🇺🇾 Uruguay77.2ABA
18🇪🇸 Spain77.0BAA
19🇭🇺 Hungary76.8AAB
20🇮🇹 Italy76.8BAA
21🇮🇸 Iceland76.2BAB
22🇱🇻 Latvia76.1ABA
23🇸🇰 Slovakia75.6ABA
24🇧🇪 Belgium75.2BAA
25🇮🇪 Ireland75.2CAA
26🇷🇴 Romania75.1ABA
27🇭🇷 Croatia74.9ABA
28🇦🇺 Australia74.7BAB
29🇵🇹 Portugal74.0BBB
30🇪🇪 Estonia73.8BAB
31🇯🇵 Japan73.8CAB
32🇮🇱 Israel73.3CAB
33🇲🇹 Malta72.9DAA
34🇭🇰 Hong Kong (China)72.5DAB
35🇦🇷 Argentina72.4BAB
36🇱🇹 Lithuania72.4CBA
37🇰🇷 South Korea71.7BAC
38🇨🇷 Costa Rica71.6CBA
39🇧🇷 Brazil71.6ABA
40🇲🇽 Mexico71.3ABB
41🇧🇬 Bulgaria71.3BBB
42🇷🇺 Russia71.2AAC
43🇸🇬 Singapore71.2DAB
44🇻🇪 Venezuela70.3ABB
45🇪🇨 Ecuador69.6ABB
46🇵🇦 Panama69.5CBA
47🇬🇷 Greece69.5CBA
48🇨🇱 Chile69.4BBB
49🇨🇴 Colombia69.3BCA
50🇲🇺 Mauritius69.0CBB
51🇲🇾 Malaysia68.5BBC
52🇦🇪 U.A.E.68.3BAD
53🇵🇱 Poland68.3BBB
54🇨🇾 Cyprus67.9DBB
55🇶🇦 Qatar67.9AAD
56🇧🇳 Brunei67.7CBC
57🇦🇿 Azerbaijan67.7BBB
58🇵🇪 Peru66.8ACB
59🇰🇿 Kazakhstan66.6BBC
60🇦🇲 Armenia66.3CBB
61🇺🇦 Ukraine66.0ACC
62🇸🇻 El Salvador66.0BCA
63🇴🇲 Oman65.5BAD
64🇲🇪 Montenegro65.4CBB
65🇰🇼 Kuwait65.2CAD
66🇹🇷 Turkey64.9CBC
67🇵🇾 Paraguay64.7DBA
68🇹🇭 Thailand64.6CBC
69🇮🇩 Indonesia64.1BCC
70🇷🇸 Serbia63.8BBC
71🇲🇰 North Macedonia63.7CBC
72🇨🇳 China63.7BBD
73🇦🇱 Albania63.7DBA
74🇮🇷 Iran63.6ABD
75🇹🇳 Tunisia63.6BBC
76🇹🇹 Trinidad and Tobago63.3CAD
77🇬🇪 Georgia63.1CBC
78🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia62.8CAD
79🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herz.62.1BBC
80🇧🇭 Bahrain62.1BAD
81🇱🇧 Lebanon61.6DAC
82🇩🇿 Algeria61.3CBD
83🇲🇦 Morocco61.1CCC
84🇧🇴 Bolivia60.4BCC
85🇱🇰 Sri Lanka60.1BCB
86🇦🇴 Angola60.0ADB
87🇪🇬 Egypt59.9BBD
88🇬🇹 Guatemala59.7BCC
89🇬🇦 Gabon59.5CBD
90🇳🇦 Namibia59.1CDA
91🇻🇳 Vietnam58.9ACD
92🇿🇦 South Africa58.9DBD
93🇮🇶 Iraq58.9BBD
94🇵🇭 Philippines58.6BCC
95🇯🇴 Jordan58.5DBC
96🇧🇼 Botswana57.7DCC
97🇩🇴 Dominican Republic57.6DBB
98🇯🇲 Jamaica56.9DBC
99🇹🇯 Tajikistan55.7DCC
100🇭🇳 Honduras55.3DCC
101🇸🇿 Eswatini55.1DCC
102🇳🇮 Nicaragua54.5DCC
103🇬🇭 Ghana52.9CDC
104🇲🇲 Myanmar51.9BDB
105🇰🇭 Cambodia51.6CDC
106🇰🇪 Kenya51.3BDB
107🇲🇩 Moldova51.2DCD
108🇲🇳 Mongolia51.1DCD
109🇮🇳 India50.3BDD
110🇵🇰 Pakistan49.6CDD
111🇨🇮 Côte d’Ivoire49.3BDC
112🇿🇲 Zambia47.8CDB
113🇨🇲 Cameroon47.4BDD
114🇧🇩 Bangladesh47.1DDC
115🇿🇼 Zimbabwe46.0CDC
116🇲🇷 Mauritania45.6BDD
117🇳🇵 Nepal44.3DDC
118🇸🇳 Senegal43.4DDD
119🇹🇿 Tanzania42.5DDC
120🇪🇹 Ethiopia42.3DDC
121🇲🇬 Madagascar42.2CDC
122🇲🇿 Mozambique41.4DDC
123🇳🇬 Nigeria40.7BDD
124🇲🇼 Malawi39.1DDB
125🇧🇯 Benin36.3DDD
126🇹🇩 Chad33.8DDD
127🇨🇩 D.R.C.33.8DDC
128🇳🇪 Niger30.0DDD

*The letter grade represents national performance in three dimensions. The first letter represents Security, the second letter represents Equity, the third letter represents the Environmental Sustainability. The top grade is AAA, the lowest is DDD.

Highs, Lows, and Outliers

Every country has unique circumstances — from strategic energy reserves to green energy ambitions — that shape their domestic energy policies. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more interesting situations around the world.

Sweden

sweden energy trilemma index

Qatar

qatar energy trilemma index

Singapore

singapore energy trilemma index

Dominican Republic

dominican republic energy trilemma index

Niger

niger energy trilemma index

Global Energy Outlook

Achieving the balance of prosperity and sustainability is a goal of nearly every country, but it takes stability and the right mix of policies to get the job done.

The fact that many trilemma scores are improving is an indicator that the world’s patchwork of energy policies are slowly moving in the right direction.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Comments

Cities

Visualizing the Footprint of Highways in American Cities

Highways improved mobility for the average American, ingraining the automobile into the urban fabric of American cities, for better and worse.

Published

on

The Impact of Highways

Footprint of Highways in American Cities

Visualizing the Footprint of Highways in American Cities

Driving on the open road is a defining feature of the American experience, made possible by coast-to-coast highways. It defined a generation of life and ingrained the automobile into the urban fabric of American cities, for better and worse.

Today’s animations show how highways reshaped the downtown cores of six American cities and created new patterns of urban life. But first, some background information on the creation of the interstate system.

The Interstate Highway System

The U.S. Interstate System was created on June 29, 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act. It would eventually run 46,876 miles, cost $521 billion and take 36 years to complete.

Map of the US Interstate System

From San Diego to Bangor, the interstate highway system connected Americans and opened up the country to commerce and geographic mobility like never before, but for all its benefits, this new transportation network ripped through established patterns of urban and town life, creating a new era of urban development.

The Legacy of Highways: The Suburbs and Inner Cities

The vast geography of continental America helped to entrench personal mobility and freedom into American society. Highways and automobiles accelerated this lifestyle and even changed the shape of entire cities.

According to Prof. Nathaniel Baum-Snow of the University of Toronto, between 1950 and 1990, the population of central cities in the U.S. declined by 17% despite a population growth of 72% in larger metropolitan areas during the same period. Baum-Snow posits that, had the interstate highway system not been built, central cities’ populations would have increased 8%.

Firms followed the workers to the suburbs, but the highways system also created additional benefits for these firms. Cross-country road access freed manufacturing from ports and downtown rail hubs, while allowing economies to operate across larger distances, altering the dynamics of typical urban economies.

Faced with this new reality, inner cities struggled in years to come.

Inner Cities

The introduction of highways created an increase in the supply of land for development through faster commutes to outlying areas. In 1950, half of all jobs were located in central cities. By 1990, less than one-third of urban jobs were located in the core of American cities.

“Not TV or illegal drugs but the automobile has been the chief destroyer of American communities.” Jane Jacobs, Author The Death and Life of Great American Cities

Benefits of new development accrued to the outer areas while the construction of the highways in inner cities displaced largely low-income communities, segregated neighborhoods, increased the amount of air and noise pollution, devalued surrounding properties, and removed access to jobs for those without a car, further concentrating poverty.

Before and After: Six American Cities

A bird’s eye view of six American cities reveals what was and what is now. By overlaying existing highways over the neighborhoods they replaced, it becomes clear how much interstate construction drastically altered America’s urban landscape.

Oakland
Public opposition to the construction of I-980 was so strong that developers abandoned the project in 1971, only to complete it over a decade later.

Miami Highway
The I-95 carved through Miami’s largely black Overtown neighborhood. The construction of a single highway cloverleaf resulted in 20 square blocks being demolished, displacing over 10,000 people in that community.

Providence Highway
The I-95 comprised unconnected segments between 1957 and 1965 through the densest urban areas in a deliberate effort to prevent premature suburbanization and to revitalize the downtown core.

Cincinnati Highway
The I-71 cuts downtown Cincinnati off from its waterfront and a massive freeway interchange forced the destruction of dozens of blocks west of downtown.

Detroit highway construction
Freeway construction transformed Detroit between 1951 and 2010. Previously, its downtown had been surrounded by a high-density street grid. Today, it’s totally encircled by freeways.

Rochester Highway
Rochester is one of many cities opting to undertake freeway removal projects.

As the dotted line above shows, the “moat” surrounding downtown is slowly being removed. The city used reclaimed land from the Inner Loop freeway to construct three mixed-use developments that include below-market-rate units.

The Future of Urban Living: Do Highways Matter?

A new era of living is reconsidering the impacts of these highways on urban centers. As property values rise and existing housing stock is pressured, there are growing concerns over the environmental impacts of suburban life. As a result, urban planners and residents are looking to revitalize city cores and re-purpose land occupied by burdensome slabs of highway concrete.

Since 1987, there have been more than 20 urban highway segments removed from downtown cores, neighborhoods and waterfronts, mostly in North America. The pace of removals has picked up significantly and an additional 10 highways are now planned for removal in the United States.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, American cities have seen their traffic plummet. Rush-hour trips into cities are taking nearly half the time while some are not even commuting at all.

While this situation is likely temporary, it is offering a moment for reflection of how cities operate and whether the car should be at the center of urban planning.

*Hat tip to Shane Hampton, whose 60 Years of Urban Change compilation served as inspiration for this article. Visit that page for many more examples of highway impact on cities.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Continue Reading

Central Banks

The Anatomy of the $2 Trillion COVID-19 Stimulus Bill

A visual breakdown of the CARES Act, the $2 trillion package to provide COVID-19 economic relief. It’s the largest stimulus bill in modern history.

Published

on

The Anatomy of the $2 Trillion COVID-19 Stimulus Bill

The unprecedented response to the COVID-19 pandemic has prioritized keeping people apart to slow the spread of the virus. While measures such as business closures and travel restrictions are effective at fighting a pandemic, they also have a dramatic impact on the economy.

To help right the ship, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act — also known as the CARES Act — was passed by U.S. lawmakers last week with little fanfare. The act became the largest economic stimulus bill in modern history, more than doubling the stimulus act passed in 2009 during the Financial Crisis.

Today’s Sankey diagram is a visual representation of where the $2 trillion will be spent. Broadly speaking, there are five components to the COVID-19 stimulus bill:

CategoryTotal AmountShare of the Package
Individuals / Families$603.7 billion30%
Big Business$500.0 billion25%
Small Business$377.0 billion19%
State and Local Government$340.0 billion17%
Public Services$179.5 billion9%

Although the COVID-19 stimulus bill is incredibly complex, here are some of the most important parts to be aware of.

Funds for Individuals

Amount: $603.7 billion – 30% of total CARES Act

In order to stimulate the sputtering economy quickly, the U.S. government will deploy “helicopter money” — direct cash payments to individuals and families.

The centerpiece of this plan is a $1,200 direct payment for those earning up to $75,000 per year. For higher earners, payment amounts will phase out, ending altogether at the $99,000 income level. Families will also receive $500 per child.

There are three other key things to know about this portion of the stimulus funds:

  1. There will be a temporary suspension for any student loan held by the federal government. This means no payments required and no interest accrued until the end of September, 2020.
  2. Borrowers with federally backed loans can request forbearance on mortgage payments for up to six months.
  3. There will be an expansion of unemployment benefits, including a four-month enhancement of benefits. This plan includes freelancers, workers in the gig economy, and furloughed employees.

Big Business

Amount: $500.0 billion – 25% of total CARES Act

This component of the package is aimed at stabilizing big businesses in hard-hit sectors.

The most obvious industry to receive support will be the airlines. About $58 billion has been earmarked for commercial and cargo airlines, as well as airline contractors. Perhaps in response to recent criticism of the industry, companies receiving stimulus money will be barred from engaging in stock buybacks for the term of the loan plus one year.

One interesting pathway highlighted by today’s Sankey diagram is the $17 billion allocated to “maintaining national security”. While this provision doesn’t mention any specific company by name, the primary recipient is believed to be Boeing.

The bill also indicates that an inspector general will oversee the recovery process, along with a special committee.

Small Business

Amount: $377.0 billion – 19% of total CARES Act

To ease the strain on businesses around the country, the Small Business Administration (SBA) will be given $350 billion to provide loans of up to $10 million to qualifying organizations. These funds can be used for mission critical activities, such as paying rent or keeping employees on the payroll during COVID-19 closures.

As well, the bill sets aside $10 billion in grants for small businesses that need help covering short-term operating costs.

State and Local Governments

Amount: $340.0 billion – 17% of total CARES Act

The biggest portion of funds going to local and state governments is the $274 billion allocated towards direct COVID-19 response. The rest of the funds in this component will go to schools and child care services.

Public and Health Services

Amount: $179.5 billion – 9% of total CARES Act

The biggest slice of this pie goes to healthcare providers, who will receive $100 billion in grants to help fight COVID-19. This was a major ask from groups representing the healthcare industry, as they look to make up the lost revenue caused by focusing on the outbreak — as opposed to performing elective surgeries and other procedures. There will also be a 20% increase in Medicare payments for treating patients with the virus.

Money is also set aside for initiatives such as increasing the availability of ventilators and masks for the Strategic National Stockpile, as well as providing additional funding for the Center for Disease Control and expanding the reach of virtual doctors.

Finally, beyond the healthcare-related funding, the CARES Act also addresses food security programs and a long list of educational and arts initiatives.

Hat tip to Reddit user SevenandForty for inspiring this graphic.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Continue Reading
Get more Visual Capitalist with VC+

Subscribe

Join the 150,000+ subscribers who receive our daily email

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Popular