Talk:Environmental Performance Index

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

--Alex 13:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add more indexes to article

The scope of this topic should be widened to include other indexes so as to maintain a Neutral point of view WP:NPOVD. There are many Environmental Indexes and this particular index is Yale's Environmental Performance Index.
Below is a list of some deficiencies:

Mono focused to one index which is name claim staking a broader topic which is arguably monopolization
Environmental Sustainability Index is self-referential and is likely an artifact of a merge
Paragraph 2 Wikipedia links have too many primary source warnings
There EPI calculation formulae are not revealed which is a clear lack of transparency
Historic year over year performance lists are invalid when variables change which makes them candidates for removal
Broken links to data references pre 2016 are further support for removal

All of this is up for discussion, so add your comments and help make this article worthy of a Wikipedia award TheKevlar 22:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixing Deficiencies:

I am replacing obsolete historic tables with links to the history TheKevlar 11:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

2018 full report did not include a world scoreboard so I left 2018 in TheKevlar 14:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:RenatUK The idea of adding a Template:Talk header as a way of narrowing this article's scope without a discussion is not in the Wikipedia spirit. It should be discussed first. TheKevlar 14:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK has 10% forest area, one of the lowest in planet this index is a scam

Uk has only 10% forest surface. While most sustainable countries are 60 to 70% forested. Uk has no biodiversity, Uk is by no means environmentally sustainable, it is overpopulated, and Uk surface is devastated by building and agriculture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.149.137.167 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A 12 position ahead of countries keeping more than half planet biodiversity and buffering more than half the pollution overpopulated countries like Uk produce, make this index look like a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.149.137.167 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yale's Environmental Index is biased towards European countries. Specifically, it uses percentages to remove wilderness areas from the calculation. Canada has more wilderness area than the whole of Europe. Russia, Brazil, and China would also float to the top too. If we add other indexes the bias gets revealed. TheKevlar 22:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

release date

There seems to be a contradiction between this article and the article Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index. The problem concerns the release date of the report. Since I just merged the two articles I copied the paragraph here for further discussion:

 The report, released on 26 January 2006 at the World Economic Forum, was authored by Yale and Columbia Universities. It was done in collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

In my opinion it is unlikely that a report with data for 2006 can be released already at the beginning of that year. However, the collaboration with Columbia University and the European Commission may be correct. Anybody knows more about this? --Spitzl 11:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1

Yeah NZ rules! thats about it.... (♠Taifarious1♠) 10:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well well, it seems us Swiss are kicking the crap out of everyone else now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.58.149 (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking updated on 23 Jan 2008

The new ranking for 2008 is available, any volunteers to work on the update. Suggestion: What about keeping a table with at least the top 5 for each year for the article to keep a historical record. Info available at http://epi.yale.edu/Home Mariordo (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was updated on 25 January, 2008.Mariordo (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

In the introduction it sais, the EPI measures the performance of a country's policies. I find that misleading, since the EPI does not look at policies. It rather uses indicators that assess the state of the environment I suggest rephrasing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markheuer (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Environmental Sustainability Index

The Environmental Sustainability Index was the precursor of the Environmental Performance Index. It's not the exact same subject, but the EPI is a natural evolution of the ESI. Moreover, the ESI article does not meet GNG (not a single secondary source about the index) and therefore does not merit its own article. I think it is only natural that we include some info on it in this (EPI) article, and keep the other one as a redirect. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Environmental Performance Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan and lack of criticism

The EPI ranks Bhutan among the lowest in the world for environmental performance, especially on metrics related to carbon emissions (all the way down to 143rd on that mark), when Bhutan is the only carbon negative country in the world.^[1] Despite such an unbelievably glaring error, this article has no mention of criticisms over methodology or other factors. Going forward, this lapse in NPOV should be addressed. It isn't hard to find scholarly reviews and critiques of the EPI online after all. Mewnst (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Bhutan is the world's only carbon negative country, so how did they do it?".

Only 32 Countries in list of 100?

The section that lists the 2022 countries only ranks 32, with the section being labeled 100 96.81.35.145 (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Bhutan is the world's only carbon negative country, so how did they do it?".

[1]