Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To add to that, most European cities have developed an extensive public transportation system which reduces car usage, most countries are also looking more and more towards renewable energies. Energy consumption per capita is also far lower on our side of the pond (although it's still outrageously high in the Benelux and Nordic countries), national parks also make a higher percentage of country area is also higher in most Western European countries (Italy, France, Denmark, UK ) despite them being denser
National parks aren't the best comparison, as European national parks aren't the same level of protection as American ones. American national parks are mostly development-free except for certain tourist spots. Obviously, there are historical reasons why, but it's not the best indicator.
National parks aren't the best comparison, as European national parks aren't the same level of protection as American ones. American national parks are mostly development-free except for certain tourist spots. Obviously, there are historical reasons why, but it's not the best indicator.
So are our national parks, it's just nature if you exclude the main tourist center from where most of the paths usually start. Maybe you can go more in deoth to explain me your point.
So are our national parks, it's just nature if you exclude the main tourist center from where most of the paths usually start. Maybe you can go more in deoth to explain me your point.
Ok. I was wrong about Italian national parks, but British national parks have villages and farmland inside, assumed Italian parks are similar.
I wonder how the results would be if we dropped the word "natural" and just compared "scenery". Italy would blow CA out of the water. The OP just keeps going on and on about "natural" because he knows CA can never beat Italy in beautiful scenery. Probably no state in the US can match Italy. But keep in mind this is an American forum, and Americans are totally biased about the US. Most haven't even been out of the country so you can understand.
That would be an entirely different discussion then . Feel free to start your own thread. I don't care as much about non-natural scenery, it's just not my thing.
Ok. I was wrong about Italian national parks, but British national parks have villages and farmland inside, assumed Italian parks are similar.
I had no idea they did, must be because large parts of Great Britain are more densely populated than the Appennine and the Alpine ranges where most of our National Parks are.
I run the whole thread hoping none had posted it yet
Scala dei Turchi, in southern Sicily
I've said it already, as Italy's the best country in Europe as California's the best state in North America
Ca has something I envy:
less popolutaion
more organization
San Francisco and the Bay Area
the Redwoods
the desert
but overall Italy is better
I wouldn't trade my country for Ca, as regard natural beauty
That rock is cool, but I hardly see how that makes Italy better than California. That woman has a stunning backside though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Feel free to start your own thread. I don't care as much about non-natural scenery, it's just not my thing.
