The Happy Planet Index measures what matters: long-term happiness for everybody. It shows how well societies are doing at achieving long, fulfilling and sustainable lives.
Is it possible to steer a comfortable life without harming the environment?
Indeed! Only 27% of nations consumed food inside environmental limits. Discover the nations which have proven that there are more environmentally “efficient” methods of ensuring a protracted and fulfilling life.
The common assumption that the world is step by step recuperating has long persevered. How satisfied is the world before and after the pandemic?
Surprisingly, the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a slight increase in the general Happy Planet Index (3 points). Globally, each life expectancy and ecological footprint have declined. During this time, the impact of the pandemic on subjective well-being all over the world has varied.
According to the Gallup World Poll, on the time of information collection (between July and December 2020), many countries didn’t see a pointy decline in well-being and in some countries even increased.
Why is the Happy Planet index essential?
Our economies are configured, regulated and measured to prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term social well-being, which is the basis explanation for the crises we face, including persistent inequality, accelerating climate breakdown and rapid biodiversity loss.
Governments too often put faster economic growth ahead of all other considerations. They ignore the importance of long and fulfilling lives for people all over the place.
Countries rating high on the Happy Planet index show that it is feasible to live long and comfortable lives while leaving an ecological footprint much smaller than that of the world’s largest consumers. In addition, several countries have been given the green light for every of the separate components of the Happy Planet Index, demonstrating that these goals are indeed achievable.
Consider what really makes life price living.
“A good way to define waste is use of the planet’s resources that does not improve the quality of life. Instead of basing environmental efficiency on the restrictive view that we should simply “use less,” we must always as a substitute “use well.” This offers an intersection between ecology and human aspirations.”
“To what extent do we – as individuals and as a culture – prioritize what truly makes life worth living?”
“How many resources do we waste – both as individuals and as a culture – on things that don’t even improve our lives? If we adopted the principle of directing resources only to things that provide quality of life, we would automatically save the planet.” – Colin Beavan, Man Without Influence, February 2009
Source: HappyPlanetIndex.org
