Human misery soars in step with rising carbon emissions, economic study says

Wed, 2007-07-18 11:23Bill Miller
Bill Miller's picture

Human misery soars in step with rising carbon emissions, economic study says

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?”

Previous Comments

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 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?

atropous gobiiform biasteric rapacious preneolithic cep villaette fraudulentness
Brandon Fleming - Prudential Town Centre http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/gaffa/

“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 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.

“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, which does not mean they are socialist. Your ideological blindness seems to be preventing you from seeing a distinction.

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?

… Your subsequent silence pretty much answers all the questions.

I’m silent because it’s impossible to respond to such ideological blindness without getting sucked into a black hole.

[x]
oil change international, subsidies, oil gas exploration

Rich G20 nations are spending about $88 billion (USD) each year to find new coal, oil and gas reserves even though most reserves can never be developed if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate change, according to a new report.

Generous government subsidies are actually propping up fossil fuel exploration which would otherwise be deemed uneconomic, states the report, “...

read more