Well, I suppose that not expending resources gained from environmental efficiencies on war is bound to make people happier. But unless we know what a country does with an efficiency it gains by having people buy, say, expensive energy-saving light bulbs, I don’t see any link between that ‘efficiency’ and its citizens’ happiness. In Canada, promoting such bulbs was followed this summer by 3 provinces increasing taxes on consumers’ electricity use from 5% to 13%. Neither the light bulbs nor the tax have increased happiness. Before this increased tax was introduced, the federal government justified it by saying the increase would go to exporters to increase their competitiveness. But now that the increase is in force, it’s not going to them or anything that makes people happy.
I listened to the video and was impressed. It made me happy! Then I took the "Happy Index Survey” which is really a test with questions whose answers are used to judge your own personal 'happiness' level by what you give to the planet. It’s at:
http://survey.happyplanetindex.org/index.php
Now I AM unhappy. This test’s results told me to reduce meat in my diet although I did the test twice, each time answering that I’m fully vegetarian (and have been since long before environmentalism taught that vegetarianism is a ‘sacrifice’ we ‘should’ make. I never regarded it that way.)
The test judged my level of eco-responsibility to a significant degree on whether I frequently spent money buying “energy-saving light bulbs and appliances” which lowers one’s ecological footprint. Or whether I spent money on what it manipulatively and disrespectfully calls “ ‘stuff’- such as electrical and electronic equipment, furniture, hardware, and jewelry but not clothes”. Thus, the purchases I made to restore and renovate what I already own (eg. a sewing machine to mend clothes and linens, boxes to store thread, a lamp to see what I’m fixing, a kitchen knife, oven mitts) plus a replacement towel rail and a $200. camera threw me into the second worst bracket as an abuser of world resources by having spent more than $800. on these items! Buying anything not hyped as ‘green’ raises your footprint! The results of my test told me to stop buying everything in sight and to make do with my old pans although my 15-year old ones which we maintain and look almost new are our only pans. Who do environmentalists think they’re kidding?
No credit was given for using public transport other than for getting to work; for not owning a car, for taking up just 53 sq. ft of living space my whole life, for not buying packaged and processed foods and ready-meals or for not buying appliances that most people consider necessary. Neither did cooking from scratch earn me ’green’ points. This highly politicized version of environmentalism is indistinguishable from good old consumerism. Doing what you can to hold onto what you have seems to have no place in this ‘ism’. I felt like I’m on another planet because real ‘environmental efficiences’ just don’t count. Happiness is still largely based on what one buys. All that’s been tweaked is the definition of which consumables bring status to…..environmentalists.
Clothing is specifically excluded from the survey probably because textiles are small fry compared to where the big money lies for enviro-consumables. Nowhere in the test are things needed for babies or children. So if you have a child for whom you need to buy a crib, you better not also need a new mattress yourself if you want to have a green-worthy eco-print on this test because both count as your own furniture purchases. I don’t see how killing your back and potentially going on disability due to that is going to protect future generations’ or anyone’s well-being or our natural resources.
The test said that my only flight per year, to Buenos Aires, had rocketed my carbon footprint by about 6 times (ie. just London to Athens one way once would have doubled it). It told me to stop using 'planes so often, to find alternative transport, lengthen my trips (what-beyond 5 weeks?) and to forego my indulgent and numerous week-end jaunts! No one's so stupid to misjudge the distance to BA that badly and so, clearly, the so-called 'environmental' objective here is to isolate we do-gooders and instructors of the world's poor on how to save the earth, from having physical contact with people whose societies already live far more moderately than we will ever implement. Remain isolated and we can continue believing that the West is best at leading the way.
I ended up with the footprint of a resident of Croatia which the test said was only just so-so okay. And not on account of my own efforts but merely by the happenstance of my living in North America! A true personal test would judge an individual's success on its own merits and not dole out a handicap excusing your society's notorious wastefulness.
Nothing in the test acknowledges or rewards the value of finding individual solutions that don't stick to what the environmental movement and its industries dictate. This discourages individual creativity by discounting it which worries me when it’s so needed to cope in a worldwide recession. Regarding ‘recycling’, the test asks only how often you recycle. It doesn't increase your green-score to do more than turn off the TV when you’re not watching it and put your empty cans in the right box. Develop a social plan that inspires cartoneros to design very modern jewelry from the tons of waste they collect and you’ll fare no better eco-wise on this survey.
The test is sneaky. It mingles the questions that have always been asked to predict one's longevity and assess one’s well-being with what clearly is a marketing tool for environmental industries. It is not a ‘happiness’ test at all. It’s merely collecting data on how people spend their money. I thought buying more was the problem that environmentalism purported to address in the first place!
After seeing how the test manipulates a stunningly narrow conformity, I looked again at the country-list. But this time I saw the countries named as mostly ones held back by the West, or exploited or ignored by it. I suppose it's hard to claim you’re the most planet-caring unless you can contrast yourself with the poor abroad and around you who unlike yourself can’t afford to buy solar panels or who have nowhere to mount them, and who can't afford to replace functioning fridges.
If Argentines are happy, it’s because they regard social connections as very important and are creatively free to develop methods of recycling where everyone can contribute, and where you don’t need to be wealthy or compete for a badge or carry a bag that blares how much you-especially love the planet.
