So some Yalies have an enviro scoring system and Nepal is 139.
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Nepal+clinches+139th+position+in+environment+index+&NewsID=404149
I am reminded that the Kuznet’s curve on environmental quality which is subject to some debate, but makes sense.
Quality of environment will improve with progress of the society, and when wealth and standards of living improve.
Maybe that explains why the mediocrity of socialist economies delays improvements in environmental quality.
You might note that the US has been the most successful at meeting goals of Kyoto.
I wouldn’t say that’s all good, but it does demonstrate the advantage of a generally robust society and economy.
Europe is an example of a fine museum, but the welfare state is such a burden.
Primitive low density economies were not always good for the environment or nature.
Most nomadic societies moved because they would devastate the local food supply (plant and animal) and had to move on or starve.
As nature always does, the areas they left gradually recovered, but not because of any “caring” for the land or any special compact with nature, as often attributed to “indigenous” peoples by progressive social scientists.
A modern capitalist society does a lot more to preserve nature than the primitives ever did.
It’s a problem of putting genies back into bottles. If all the worlds population was primitive and low-density, then it would be as you say. The issue is not so much advanced vs. primitive as rich vs. poor. Poor countries, whether overpopulated or not, will all rich countries to export environmental damage by selling off plentiful resources in exchange for scarce ones. It is therefor in the rich countries’ best interests to keep the poor countries in need.
The following is a perfect example.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/25/how-environmental-organizations-are-destroying-the-environment/
Primitive economies are fine for the environment IF population densities are very low. Given sufficient resources, primitive humans will breed until resources are strained. When resources are scarce relative to population size, the environment degrades, particularly in primitive societies. Modern economies are better at managing resources. Modern societies reduce population expansion rates. Wealthy societies can and do chose to clean up their environments.
There’s bell curve for environmental degradation. Small primitive populations of humans do no harm to the environment. Large primitive populations of humans severely degrade the environment. Large advanced populations of humans moderate their impact on the environment, when they can afford to do so.
Some enviros want to move society back to the good old days of the third world.