Add your ideas for happy planet living

Posted by Daniel Franks on 4 Mar 2010 at 5:03pm

Using myself as a guinea pig and the world as the judge I have started on the antonym of 'super-size me'; starting from regular Joe to happier, heathier me. With the HPI and Maslows Hierarchy of needs as a base tool, I aim to experiment with health, happiness and confidence and analyse the data with statistics to find correlations. Your site is a wonderful benchmark for happiness but to my current knowledge there is no theoretical formula for happiness or confidence, pre-defined variables useful in a dataset. Gathering as much data as I can I hope to find something useful, perhaps reducing it all to a simple all-in one smiley rather than 100 check boxes each time I undertake an activity. Keep up your great work and I shall build on mine. Perhaps in time there will be more fields available for inclusion in sample analyses.

Posted by oliver King on 15 Feb 2010 at 5:39pm

We need a leading champion for the HPI. This project should aim to secure support from sporting or media cultural heroes. What about trying to get the Eastenders script writers to take it on with a new family? You can see where I am going. Managing our ecological footprint and our aspirations for happiness is something that many people understand and would get involved with. Behavioural science would indicate that we just need a few leaders to help us change. Rock on NEF. Keep pushing us forwards.

Posted by Mal Williams on 3 Feb 2010 at 0:48am

Work in the UK has been plagued by rigid thinking ever since the concept was created back in the industrial revolution. We have X% employed and Y % unemployed. The employed are assumed to be willing, eager wage slaves and the unemployed are assumed to be unfortunate non-volunteers, forced by circumstance or lack of qualification/experience into a non-contributing ghetto. What if we thought outside the box and created flexibility in the "working situation" by legislating to create a situation where those "in work" were entitled to volunteer to take a sabbatical every "N" years. "N" being determined by a simple calculation that would take up the "unemployment" slack inthe UK workforce. If unemployment became voluntary in this way the whole ethos of it would change. You could study for a new career, take time out to raise your new born, or parent his/her second or third year of life. The options are endless. The sabbatical would be unpaid by the current employer but tax and benefit arrangements/educational entitlements coupled with mortgage or rent holidays could be designed to ensure that anyone knowing that they would be taking 2012 off for a sabbatical could plan for it quite easily so that they wouldn't need to worry financially. To re-inforce it the legislation could limit a working life to say 45 years so that if you did not volunteer to take your sabbatical entitlement you would be required to retire earlier pro rata. We would then have a more flexible working environment. People could switch careers more easily, taking sabbaticals to try out new things or gain qualifications to enter a new career path. Once up and running and being used, the "N" could be adjusted to ensure a fairer share of the number of paid jobs available, effectively establishing a measure that designs a full employment policy into the system. ASs far as the economy is concerned it offers new areas of operation in supplying the needs of those taking sabbaticals. The holiday season would be more evenly spread, organisations providing locum workers for smaller companies, new educational or vocational course for career changers etc etc. Altogether a much less fraught situation all round. I imagine that it would also reduce crime and reap many other social benefits as work became more accessible to the whole population. Mal Williams

Posted by David Ketchum on 11 Jan 2010 at 6:39am

I live in Phnom Penh, Cambodia and alternate between cycling and using a small motorbike to commute to work. The motorbike gets about 56 km/l (131 mpg). As such, my average weekly petrol use is less than 2 liters. Although my work schedule sometimes makes cycling difficult, I am happy to substitute the motorbike (110 cc) for a gas guzzling car. :)

Posted by John Rozzo on 9 Jan 2010 at 0:53am

Wonderful - and useful! Please get going on a Facebook Page to spread the word ...and more happiness! :-)

Posted by Mr. Jan Hearthstone on 7 Jan 2010 at 3:35pm

As John Scharr is quoted on your "Sign up to the happy planet charter": [quote] The future is not the result of choices among alternative paths offered by the present, but a place that is created – created first in the mind and will, created next in activity. The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them changes both the maker and the destination. [/quote] This has to actually be done-- 1) we have to conceive as detailed ideas as possible of what we want the life on Earth to be like, and then 2) we have to reconcile our differences among our ideas of what life on Earth should be like into one, by all optimally acceptable design that we can 3) strive to realize! More on the subject at www.ModelEarth.Org/donella-vision.html and http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Envisioning.DMeadows.pdf Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .

Posted by Frederick M McEwan on 7 Jan 2010 at 3:07pm

I've just discovered nef and commend it's purpose, consciousness and activity in service to humanity and the natural world in which we live and move and have our being. I would suggest that the focus necessary for the happiness and well-being is in one's continuous growth and development toward fulfilling one's purpose in life. In terms of systems, an education system dedicated to that discovery, growth and development is the center piece for humanity's evolution. nef rightfully identifies and works within a context of systems - government, economic, ecological, societal. I submit to you the appropriateness of identifying the education system - individual and collective - as the focal point of purpose for governnental, economic, societal, and cultural systems. From my perspective as Sustainability Director in Higher Education in the US, I view the education of a sustainable citizen be the root of well being for humanity - individually and collectively. It is vital we be educated to our human being's right relationship with one's natural world environment, leadership, economic, societal, cultural and spiritual systems. I am interested in sharing these emerging Sustainable Education system concepts and initiatives with nef and anyone interested in sustainable well being through education - focused on the growth and development of a fully consciousness, integrated, interdependent human being.

Posted by Alejandro Moctezuma on 31 Dec 2009 at 1:39am

Along our research work we analized sustainability of production systems, based on native species in wetlands. I feel our results would be useful to many people, and your organization may be a way for anyone interested. Next is the abstract of my PhD thesis. if you wish I can send the full document. Abstract Production systems based on the utilization of native species are options for extensive production, which may fit to social, economic and environmental frames. Rational use of these resources must be based on a holistic management of the community, within a conservation and wise use approach. The objective of this study was to establish an experimental and diversified extensive multicultural production system applied to the local irrigation ponds environment, considering the native aquatic community as a homeostatic system. Assays were performed to evaluate breeding performance of some potentially productive species. Using sustainability indicators, the system was compared to the predominant monoculture system of ponds at the Lerma River high basin, where wetlands are suffering a desiccation process. Experimental cultures were grouped under five headings. Waterfowl: A resident population of Mexican duck Anas diazi was evaluated, eggs were collected and incubated, and ducklings were bred and nested successfully in captivity. Amphibians: Leopard frog Rana spectabilis was raised in tanks and a small pond, with little success. Fish: Small whitefish Chirostoma riojai were successfully captured, transported, and reintroduction was efficiently achieved. Invertebrates: Potentially productive and currently harvested species were identified: the crayfish Cambarellus montezumae and water fly Consella mercenaria, were evaluated. Orchards: The cultivation of water yam Sagittaria latifolia, water cress Hydrocotyle ranunculoides and spade Typha latifolia were successfully achieved. Present and potential use as well as marketing of these species is described. Experiment results supported the hypothesis regarding the technical and economical feasibility for the culture and utilization of native species. Application of sustainability indicators to wetland management is an objective and trustworthy methodological tool. Indicators show that diversified native species culture is a viable, profitable and self-sufficient conservation alternative.

Posted by Charles Alban on 24 Dec 2009 at 4:07am

We need self-sufficient communities. We need to learn how to take care of ourselves instead of allowing corporations and governments do it for us. This means a return to the land. A new Jeffersonian agrarian revolution. There are examples--Krishna Valley in Hungary and Ruizizi Village in Congo are already doing it. Young people need to be taught craft skills, not computing. There is enough land for everybody to live in self-sufficient rural communities. The Chinese could support over 3,000 people per square mile like this in 1900 (see Farmers of Forty Centuries). If the US had a population of 1 billion, it would still be half this density. No fossil fuels are required at all to live this way. Plant forests for fuel. No cars required, no television or advertising required, no unemployment, no misery, no poverty, no sickness. What are we waiting for?

Posted by Michael Dawson on 4 Dec 2009 at 10:21pm

Capitalism's gotta go! Quite simple. www.consumertrap.com

Posted by Jerry on 3 Dec 2009 at 8:43am

A few more thoughts on having a vegetable garden at home. Besides giving good exercise and tasty, vitamin-rich food (which should raise ones happy life years) a vegetable garden at home can also reduce ones global foot-print. Previously, when I rode my bike to town, the engine (my body) was being fueled by food with a relatively high fossil-carbon input. Now with my own vegetable garden my bicycle engine runs with a much lower carbon footprint. The success of my garden (no pesticides or commercial fertilizers) is based on ideas that I have gleaned from reading many gardening books and magazines. It just shows how important it is that everyone in the world is literate enough to be able read and understand such information. Universal literacy is necessary (but not alone sufficient) to drag the world out of poverty. Give to a charity that promote education.

Posted by Rob Beasley on 14 Nov 2009 at 4:00am

1. America becomes the 111th signatory to the ICC's Rome Statute. Cost: 1 Signature 2. Adopt DeSoto's Economic strategy. Cost: change two laws. 3. Invest in Solar Islands, Cost: Nil, Its an investment decision. www.solar-islands.com. 4. Act.

Posted by Bojan Z. on 12 Nov 2009 at 1:54pm

Spread your words and promote your page on Facebook!

Posted by Tom on 7 Nov 2009 at 8:27pm

To make the world a better place and enhance your wellbeing try making a regular donation to charities. Choose at least three, to help people, animals and the planet.

Posted by Tom on 7 Nov 2009 at 5:57pm

It is true that poorer populations and developing nations do not consume nearly as much of the worlds resources as developed nations. The problem is that we need to tackle climate change and global poverty at the same time. As poor populations increase their wealth, they consume more, so if we are successful in reducing world poverty it will have an adverse effect on our efforts to reduce global warming and other environmental problems. Population "control" would be very unethical but education and availability of "family planning" would be a welcome asset in developing nations.

Posted by Kenyon on 7 Nov 2009 at 1:03am

The only places on earth where I can see population reduction slowing or even reversing our current carbon footprint trend would be the developed world. Poorer populations and developing nations don't consume enough of the world's resources. Population control of these people wouldn't have a profound enough impact on the environment to implement.

Posted by Tom on 28 Oct 2009 at 0:10pm

With regard to the population issue, the consumption levels / carbon footprints of the Western world cannot be reduced significantly enough in the time available so we must see both population size and lifestyles as the problem. It seems to me that it's rather hypocritical to "manage" populations of all other species but not our own. In britain, for example, we are culling the Grey Squirrel in some regions because it is a threat to one other species, the Red Squirrel. Meanwhile the unchecked human population continues to threaten a large percentage of the diversity of the planet. We must concentrate on the bigger picture.

Posted by Tom on 28 Oct 2009 at 9:08am

We need a new political system in which ethics comes before economy.

Posted by Jerry Leverenz on 22 Oct 2009 at 9:21am

Interesting about lowering the working hours. A few years ago in -Denmark, people were given 5 days of flex-holidays. They could take time off or work and get extra pay. Almost everyone took the money. This was even though they almost universally complained of not having enough time for their families, because of work! A second note: With the wages earned by many in the developed world one can save quite a lot by living more frugally. Walking or riding the bike to work, buying a smaller car, and a smaller house, learning to cook good meals from cheeper foods. Then one can afford to retire earlier. Its nice.

Posted by Angela (again) on 20 Oct 2009 at 1:33pm

Just did the survey and found it a bit frustrating. I wanted to differentiate spending with local businesses rather than multi-nationals but couldn't. I wanted to count giving money to charity (I don't have spare time at the moment) but couldn't. I wanted to count writing to councillors and MPs and supporting petitions but couldn't. I understand that it shouldn't be too long otherwise people won't do it but it does seem to miss out quite a few ways of engaging in our society.

Posted by Angela on 20 Oct 2009 at 1:22pm

Personally: Buy locally to support your local economy. This will benefit your neighbours and friends. Make a fuss if you find something is wrong. Grow your own food, even if it's just some peas and carrots in a tub. If you have too much then give it away. Go for a walk and pick up one piece of litter.

Posted by Angela on 20 Oct 2009 at 1:13pm

Government: Limit the working week to an average of 35 hrs combined with reducing the cost of employing people. This will increase productivity and reduce sick leave (as shown in France). It will also improve health and well-being of individuals and families by providing a better work: life balance, giving us more time for the important things in life.

Posted by Andrés Benavente on 16 Oct 2009 at 0:50am

Obviously, over population isn't the biggest responsible on our present situation. The main issue is how each of those citizens consumes and wastes. If 6000 billion people consume as Bolivia, we are still fine. If those 6 billion consume as U.S., we are in extreme troubles. Only when we change the volume of our daily "needs" and the ways we satisfy that needs, we'll start to have a chance. For a while, we persist on the same philosophy of "looking for happiness through consumption". Our real chance will only start the day we realize that those models don't conduce to happiness or realization. In this sense, the HPI is a perfect gift to the present world, showing altenative models that produce happy people without costing the planet. I'm from Chile but live in Costa Rica since 7 years and I see this daily. The real change must begin on peoples perception about life and needs...

Posted by Tom on 13 Oct 2009 at 9:09pm

Make a significant and positive change to your lifestyle about once a year. Give something up or start something new. It will transform you and your wellbeing will improve.

Posted by Jerry Leverenz on 8 Oct 2009 at 8:07am

Yes that was a nice article to read. I have read it several times, but I am doubtful about the idea that a significant proportional of the worlds population are not consumers and thus population growth is not a significant problem. It looks like I am out numbered in this discussion group on this point. I fully agree a fairer access to the world's resources would enhance the happy planet index over the world and less consumption on our part would significantly reduce the threat of climate change problems. How to achieve that is the crux. I am wondering if one could initiate an international holiday or period every year (day , week, month?) where people promise to be vegetarians. A little like the practice of Lent in the Christian church. In this case one takes a pause from high consumption for the sake of a healthier planet. One should try to make it festive: restaurants could offer special menus. Competitions for the best vegetarian recipes could be made. It might be a way to gently introduce more people to good tasty vegetarian food.

Posted by Kenyon on 1 Oct 2009 at 10:33pm

Thank you for that article Saamah. It explains in detail what I'm trying to say. Obviously, humans can't go on increasing population numbers forever. The planet only has so many resources. However, the main point is that the population cap is determined by distribution and use of resources. If everyone on Earth lived like Westerners do, we would have run out of resources long ago. For example, the United States can and does produce enough agriculture to feed the entire world. However, a significant portion of that agriculture is used to raise cattle to support the U.S. demand for beef. All the while, 1 billion people will go hungry across the planet this year. Population is far from the culprit.

Posted by Saamah Abdallah (nef) on 1 Oct 2009 at 1:34pm

Interesting discussion. George Monbiot has written an interesting piece on the matter here: www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

Posted by Jerry Leverenz on 30 Sep 2009 at 8:20pm

I have come around to the opinion that both population size and consumption must be important for limiting the human impact on the earth. For China it is the size of the population, for the US and western Europe it is the level of consumption. Both aspects should be addressed. Here in western Europe we should undoubtedly be putting more emphasis on the level of consumption. Has anyone made a study of the environmental impact and cost of condoms? Its just a thought. What about the effect of population density on happiness. I have a feeling that it must have an effect. Perhaps its just because I prefer to live in a small town; I feel one has more time to think and relax.

Posted by indra on 30 Sep 2009 at 10:59am

read here http://www.apfanews.com/media/ghn_report_nov_2008.pdf thx

Posted by Kenyon on 25 Sep 2009 at 1:38am

First of all, overpopulation doesn't deserve nearly as much blame as overconsumption does. The numbers vary depending on what study you look at, but they will all pretty much show that a small percentage of the richest people in the world consume a majority of the world's resources, while the poorest half of the world's population consume significantly less. If you want to educate yourself more on the population issue, check this out: http://www.newscientist.com/special/population. As industries go, the food industry produces more emissions than any other. Ways that you can help curb some of this damage is by buying locally rather than at grocery stores or supermarkets, eating less meat, especially beef, and plant your own food. The physical work from gardening also provides health benefits, especially for those that don't get much other physical activity.

Posted by Jerry Leverenz on 21 Sep 2009 at 9:18am

I am surprised that there is not more discussion on this site. Anyhow, I am still thinking about the idea that people should be getting more sleep as suggested by another contributor. Perhaps good advertisement campaign (on late night TV) about all the benefits of a good night's sleep would have a useful impact? Including that a good nights rest helps one to look and feel younger, healthier and more attractive? It is human nature to want to look attractive. Any other ideas?

Posted by Jerry Leverenz on 16 Sep 2009 at 6:52am

Getting more sleep is a good idea! But how do we achieve it in the "developed" countries? Ban late-night TV? Go back to limited store opening hours? Does Costa Rica limit TV viewing and late night shopping by law? I must admit that I often stay up too late watching TV. Not enough self discipline on my part.

Posted by Melissa on 12 Sep 2009 at 10:21pm

Get enough sleep. Working adults in my country (U.S.A.) get less sleep than is healthy at alarming rates. Since we're not using resources when we sleep, just this one action could have an impact.

Posted by Jerry Leverenz on 3 Sep 2009 at 3:40pm

I agree that a reduction in population is a good idea but it is not a quick solution, if done humanly. While we should consider how to reduce the worlds population, we need a quicker fix if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe. Of course the latter might solve the population problem as agricultural production is hit hard. I think that dividing people's energy use into 3 categories: food, transport and shelter would help to organize how to reduce our ecological footprint. For example, according to the insulation company, Rockwool, a well insulated house gives a far greater reduction in CO2 than leaving the car at home and riding a bicycle. I still ride my bike but is this so? Perhaps governments and the news media should put much more emphasis on energy efficient housing and less on cars and car fuel. Cars seem to take up too much of the debate. I have an organic vegetable garden on 144 square meters. It provides my wife and I with more than all the vegetables and potatoes that we can eat throughout the year. It also gives good contact with my neighbors who often look over the fence and ask what I am growing. People here have been very friendly. We exchange plants, seed and garden tips. I get garden waste from some that helps me build a good soil and keeps them from driving it to the public composting site. However, I can not judge how much CO2 I am shaving by growing most of my own food. It must be considerable, but is it as much as the 20 cm of insulation on the outside of our house? To summarize I think that it would be useful to organize our thoughts into the costs of transport, food, and housing.

Posted by donata on 29 Aug 2009 at 3:32am

I believe that if we want to make a real difference to the planet's sustainability, we need to reduce our population. Each of us, no matter how big or small consumes energy on the planet. Like it or not, earth has a limited supply of resources and, as humans we cannot cantinue to grow at expedential rate and expect resources to be sustained ad infinitum. I subscribe to Sustainable Population Australia Inc,. newsletter; its August edition published a speach given by Andrew Mc Namara at the July QLD Conservation Council. In it he quotes James Lovelock recent book " The Vanishing Face of Gaia-A Final Warning". The book focuses on people being highly responsible for global warming. James Lovelock words as quoted say that: "the exhalations of breath ans other gaseous emissions by nearly 7 billion people on earth, their pets and their livestock are responsible for 23per cent of all greenhouse emissions". According to Lovelock, when these emissions are added to those of growing, packaging, transporting and selling the food, people are responsible for nearly half of total greenhouse emissions. Something to think about...

Posted by Tom Barefoot on 26 Aug 2009 at 4:52am

Buckminster Fuller used to say, " If I have a dollar and you have a dollar and I give you my dollar and you give me your dollar, we each have a dollar. If I have and idea and you have an idea and I give you my idea and you give me your idea, we both have 2 ideas." We need to learn to seek the limitless world of ideas and spirit rather than collect the limited material things.

Posted by HF on 15 Aug 2009 at 9:44am

I just patented a new turbine blade design for use on a hydrokinetic power barge which will generate electricity on just about any river in the world - big or small, and need help licensing the use of the patent in as many countries as possible. The barge can be small for a village, or utility size. There is no more need to build any dam for power generation. Please send me an email to hf1057@gmail.com and tell me about yourself, how you think you can help me, and I will send you more information.

Posted by Vincent Dupuis on 13 Jul 2009 at 4:09pm

That's a really good idea. I love new indicators which allow us to see the world and the development in an other way with other glasses...Would it be possible to developp this indicator for companies in order to see which one has the most "sustainable" employees, sustainable way of working?

Posted by Aris on 9 Jul 2009 at 1:14pm

Congratulations for the great work. My point of view is that the matter of veganism and animal rights should be upgraded as a main component of your manifesto.

Posted by Bryan Deker Carlos Dugay on 8 Jul 2009 at 7:32am

First of all, congratulations to Costa Rica, a very small country yet rich in flora and fauna, who made it to the top of the list. Be proud of it! "Poor as it may seems, there is no other best place to live better than your home." That is my motto when it comes to the HPI issue. Well, HPI do very well in selecting countries who are considered "happy" and "satisfied." All of us deserves to be happy, yet many of us must do better that our best to win the struggle against the perils in life. We have no right to say to other country that they are unhappy because they are poor or a rich country contributed dangers to our planet because of their being highly industrialized. We are not pretty sure that a country with a stable political conditions is happier compare to that with a political turmoil. As far as HPI is concerned, it is evident that even a corrupt nations, in economic and political sense, can be happier than that of a stable. Even those who experienced civil wars, natural calamities, and political instability yet they are doing their best to recover can belong to the top ten list. Happiness here is not about how a country are well-off or stable, but how the people uses their own resources in order to satisfy their needs and wants, as well as their pleasures in life.

Posted by Russ on 7 Jul 2009 at 9:31pm

I am reading the 2.0 report mentioned above and the NEF is very right. The current system is unsustainable, there is no point denying it and we must switch to a sustainable system with sustainable objectives for nations, companies and individuals. Each one of us has the power to do something. My suggestion is simple enough for anyone to implement and would save precious resources, while not inconveniencing you one bit. Replace your hot water tank with an instantaneous heater. Your hot water tank constantly reheats water all day long when no one is even home to use it. A heater that heats water instantly upon demand uses much less energy and only when necessary. This winter, turn up your thermostat a few degrees or more. Use a sweater or warm up suit to stay warm. Look for other simple ways you can recycle or reduce your footprint, anything that saves energy or reduces consumption will help everyone. Pura Vida! Russ Martin, Coronado, San Josë, Costa Rica

Posted by David on 7 Jul 2009 at 8:36am

The ecological part doesn't make sense, maybe because of what my job is, I can't take a chance on public transportation, and since I have to be to work at a moments notice can't wait for anybody else. On the other hand one could say that it'll be more beneficial to maove closer to the job, but the futher into the city you move the more it will cost. It's America, the setup is all screwed up, and it's contributing heavy to the destruction of its self.

Posted by yorlene on 6 Jul 2009 at 9:31pm

Know yourself!. The knowledge and intimate relationship with one self automatically creates understanding, respect, tolerance and awareness not only about your own needs, but also the needs of other and the needs of Earth.

Posted by Ayub Tariq Barquet on 6 Jul 2009 at 8:28pm

If you own a car, you are the problem, even if you work for NEF The car is the comun enemy Wipe off the cars, and it wont be any more problems. Admitted, And say no to cars TODAY¡ TODAY¡ TODAY¡

Posted by Anonymus on 6 Jul 2009 at 4:35pm

Stop playing games with people and the earth via: manipulating for profit and then spinning the idea that we all should go green now which is of itself a profit driven gimmick. Just BE ! Use what it gives us naturally to increase man and earth's potentional. You will profit even more- Law of reciprocity.

Posted by phillip on 6 Jul 2009 at 1:02pm

how did the eastern caribbean do in your report i guess we islands are too litttle to check huh

Posted by Eleanor Molloy on 5 Jul 2009 at 11:29pm

As a paediatrician I am interested in morbidity and mortality of children and infants. The countries with highest HPI have relatively high infant mortality rates compared with most European countries. Perinatal, neonatal, infnat and child mortality need to be included in a meaningful quality of life index. Best wishes eleanor

Posted by B Mutia on 5 Jul 2009 at 6:26pm

Share your DIY ideas to clean up the planet. My IT company funded a research to clean up car emissions: http://www.greenfuelbooster.com