The Happy Planet Index measures what matters: long-term happiness for all. It reveals how well societies are doing at achieving long, fulfilling lives that are sustainable.
Can happy lives be had without harming the environment?
It is, indeed! Only 27% of nations consumed within the bounds of the environment. Discover the nations that demonstrate there are more environmentally "efficient" methods to produce long and fulfilling lives.
The common assumption that the world is progressively getting better has persisted for a long time. How content is the globe, before and after the pandemic?
Surprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a small rise in the overall Happy Planet Index (3 points). Worldwide, both life expectancy and ecological footprint decreased. While this was happening, the pandemic's effects on subjective well-being around the world were mixed.
According to the Gallup World Poll, many nations did not experience a sharp decline in wellbeing at the time of data collection (between July and December 2020), and in fact, well-being even rose in some nations.
Why is the Happy Planet Index necessary?
Our economies are set up, regulated, and measured to prioritize short-term economic gain above long-term social welfare, which is the root cause of the crises we are currently facing, including persisting inequality, accelerating climate collapse, and rapid biodiversity loss.
Governments all too frequently place faster economic growth above all other considerations. They overlook the importance of long, fulfilling lives for individuals all throughout the world.
High-ranking nations on the Happy Planet Index demonstrate that it is feasible to live long, happy lives with a far less ecological footprint than those found in the world's greatest consumers. Additionally, several countries receive "green lights" for each of the Happy Planet Index's separate components, demonstrating that these goals are actually attainable.
Consider what really makes life worth living..
“A good way of defining waste is the use of planetary resources that don’t improve quality of life. Instead of environmental effectiveness being based on the restrictive view that we should simply ‘use less’,” we should instead ‘use well’. This offers the intersection of environmentalism and human aspiration."
"To what extent do we – as individuals and as a culture – prioritise what really makes life worth living?"
"How many resources are we wasting – both as individuals and as a culture – on things that don’t even improve our lives? If we made a rule of targeting resources only at things that delivered quality of life, we would end up automatically saving the planet.” – Colin Beavan, No Impact Man, February 2009
Source: HappyPlanetIndex.org
