The findings, based on the foundation’s Happy Planet Index, show Europe’s per-capita carbon footprint has risen by 70% since 1961, while life expectancy has increased by about 8% and self-reported happiness hardly at all.
Iceland had the highest ratio of wellbeing to emissions, with the UK 21st out of 30 countries assessed. A recent BBC survey showed that Britons were happier in the 1950s than they are today, despite a threefold increase in wealth.
A report last year rated Vanuatu as the happiest nation on Earth.
"These findings question what the economy is there for," said Foundation policy director Andrew Simms. “What is the point if we burn vast quantities of fossil fuels to make, buy and consume ever more stuff without noticeably benefiting our wellbeing?"
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
This post is the second of a two part series. Read the first installment, Unreported Emissions From Natural Gas Blow Up BC's Climate Action Plan.
Methane leaks from British Columbia's natural gas industry are likely at least 7 times greater than official numbers increasing the entire provinces' carbon footprint by nearly 25%. That's like putting 3 million more vehicles on BC's roads.
As...
read more
Comments
Green On The Outside, Red On The Inside
From the Wikipedia description of "The New Economics Foundation":
"The group's goal is to promote their progressive view of welfare economics and environmentalism."
No further comment really necessary, however it is amusing to note that their so-called "happiness index" lists basket-cases like Cuba (ranking 6), Venezuela (26), Haiti (85), and Mexico (38), as being "happier" than the U.S.A. (150!).
At first glance this seems utterly preposterous. But then I suppose it explains all those unhappy Americans risking life and limb on flimsy homemade rafts on shark-infested waters, or death by exposure in the desert to flee to happier lands like Cuba and Mexico.
Oh, wait. It's the other way around, isn't it?
The Green propaganidsts seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to lay the groundwork for their dreamed-of dystopian future, to resort to citing ridiculous "studies" of this calibre.
It's really just amazing to
It's really just amazing to see such an irrational argument. Bringing in "red herrings" and ideologically-blind "Socialists suck" ramblings. It's hard to believe that you have the brainpower to tie your own shoelaces.
?
Could you put that in laymen's terms?
Duncan Branch
atropous gobiiform biasteric rapacious preneolithic cep villaette fraudulentness
Brandon Fleming - Prudential Town Centre
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/gaffa/
How is that a "red herring"? It's actually quite blatant.
"Bringing in "red herrings" and ideologically-blind "Socialists suck" ramblings."
So you are saying that promoting a "progressive view of welfare economics and environmentalism" is not a socialist agenda?
Please explain.
Attempts to improve the
Attempts to improve the less-fortunate's lot in life or the environment is not a "socialist scheme". It is a way to better the planet and the lives of those who call the Earth home.
Those who advocate this are not necessarily trying to engineer a Communist revolution. They are simply trying to leave this planet in better shape than it was when they came into this world. There's nothing "socialist" about it. It's purely common sense and morally sound.
But, seriously ...
"There's nothing "socialist" about it."
So, just for the record, to be very clear on this, you actually believe an organisation who's avowed goal is to promote their progressive view of welfare economics -- is not socialist?
Is that what you are telling us?
Yes. They are progressives,
Yes. They are progressives, which does not mean they are socialist. Your ideological blindness seems to be preventing you from seeing a distinction.
Please explain, then?
If you review the past several comments, you will notice something interesting:
At no point did I ever say this group are socialists -- In fact, it was you who first introduced the term "socialist" to this thread. You then followed up by hotly denying that this group are socialists. Several times, actually.
Your repeated agitated denials of socialism seem rather bizarre, particularly in light of the fact that I never made any such claim to begin with.
Now, why is that, I wonder?
Yup ...
... Your subsequent silence pretty much answers all the questions.
I'm silent because it's
I'm silent because it's impossible to respond to such ideological blindness without getting sucked into a black hole.