This is another post that I felt had to be shared (I know…two in one week – unheard of from me before).
What’s interesting about this one if you read the data (or better still download it like I did) is that Bangladesh comes out pretty darned well and far higher than the UK. From an ecological point of view there is almost no country to beat it but overall it still does remarkably well.
Which just goes to show that wealth and abundance does not equate to good and perfect – in any way whatsoever.
What do you make of this report?
Yesterday the New Economics Foundation released their latest Happy Planet Index results. The index compares countries by measuring the wellbeing of citizens, and comparing it to environmental performance. What you get is an efficiency measure – a kind of ‘miles per gallon’ as creator Nic Marks puts it in the video below.
Some countries deliver good lives for people, but use vast quantities of resources and energy to do it. Others use few resources, but people are unhappy and unhealthy. The countries doing best are those that get the most out of their resources, that achieve high wellbeing with low consumption. Here’s a snapshot of the results, and you can explore them in detail here:
As you can see, the HPI has a different perspective on which countries are successful and which ones are failing. Both underdeveloped and overdeveloped countries come out badly. As a continent, South America seems…
View original post 92 more words