How do CO2 emissions correlate with happiness?

[Ivor the Engineer]

How do CO2 emissions correlate with happiness, both at a personal and national level?

If substantial limits are placed on CO2 emissions, do you think will it have a net positive or negative impact on your lifestyle?

In the long run, which populations will suffer and which will gain?

 

[Dancing David]

I would be really cold right now if I could not use the furnace. But other than that, a good public transit system would be nice.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here's an interesting study:

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/1270

Happiness, Low Co2 Emissions the Keys to National Success

A respected Monash University economist has devised a thought-provoking method of measuring countries' ability to achieve success in an environmentally-friendly way - and South-East Asian nations feature prominently.

Professor Yew-Kwang Ng's Environmentally Responsible Happy Nation Index (ERHNI) is calculated as the happiness of a nation's average resident, minus the number of years of unhappiness the nation inflicts on the global community as measured by its per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Malaysia achieved an ERHNI rating of 14.2, ranking it 13 in the world and second in the Asia-Pacific region, behind New Zealand (14.3). The third ranked nation in the Asia-Pacific region was Indonesia (10), followed by the Philippines (9.3), Mongolia (9.2), Singapore and Australia (8.9), Thailand (8.4), Sri Lanka (7.9), China (7.6), and Vietnam (7.3). (Rankings lists are attached to the bottom of this release).

Professor Ng said ERHNI was a true measure of a nation's success because achieving happiness was most people's ultimate aim and global warming was one of the biggest universal threats to well-being.

...

Under ERHNI, Professor Ng used accepted economic indicators for estimating happiness (such as health, safety, education, purchasing power, life expectancy and happiness survey data) and per capita CO2 emissions to estimate the disruption a nation imposed on the global community. For example, Professor Ng calculated that the average Malaysian enjoys the equivalent of 17.6 years of "perfect happiness" during their life and inflicts disruption costs equivalent to 3.4 years of unhappiness. This gives Malaysia its ERHNI rating of 14.2 years.

Many of the highest rankings under ERNHI are found in Western Europe, where countries have happy residents and low per capita CO2 emission. Switzerland rates as the best (22.8), followed by Denmark (19.3). In North America, Canada (11.3) ranks higher than the US (8.1) because although the countries have similar happiness levels, the US's per capita CO2 emissions are much higher.

Professor Ng said that by striving for a high ERHNI rating, a nation would not only make its own people happy, it would increase the ability of other countries to achieve sustainable happiness.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The graph on page 11 of this report indicates we're happiest why we're using the least amount of energy.

Perhaps energy consumption is a proxy for our level of dissatisfaction with our lives?

 

[Newtons Bit]

The graph on page 11 of this report indicates we're happiest why we're using the least amount of energy.

Perhaps energy consumption is a proxy for our level of dissatisfaction with our lives?

There may be correlation, but I doubt there's any more causality than the correlation between crime and ice cream sales.

 

[BenBurch]

DD, You can burn (a lot) less fuel and keep the same degree of warmth if you use modern insulation in houses...

Helps with cooling in the summer too.

Choice of fuel matters too.

Coal (which nobody uses in any quantity now) is the worst for CO2 emissions, and natural gas is the best.

And an efficient system is vital.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The graph on page 11 of this report indicates we're happiest why we're using the least amount of energy.

Perhaps energy consumption is a proxy for our level of dissatisfaction with our lives?

Forgot to provide link:

http://www.aist-riss.jp/old/lca/ci/...t/031212_document/oral/12/s2-2-hofstetter.pdf

 

[blutoski]

The graph on page 11 of this report indicates we're happiest why we're using the least amount of energy.

Perhaps energy consumption is a proxy for our level of dissatisfaction with our lives?

I wouldn't use this particular study as a discovery of a correlation. The scoring system itself has CO2 use as an input for happiness. It's basically saying that if they give people who use less CO2 a higher happiness score, then there's a positive relationship between CO2 and happiness.

Your question is whether their scoring assumption of a relationship between lower CO2 emission and happiness is valid.

 

[boooeee]

The graph on page 11 of this report indicates we're happiest why we're using the least amount of energy.

Perhaps energy consumption is a proxy for our level of dissatisfaction with our lives?

From Wikipedia: Energy Consumption Per Capita by Country

The lowest ten per capita energy consumers: Bangladesh, Eritrea, Senegal, Haiti, Congo, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Benin

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I wouldn't use this particular study as a discovery of a correlation. The scoring system itself has CO2 use as an input for happiness. It's basically saying that if they give people who use less CO2 a higher happiness score, then there's a positive relationship between CO2 and happiness.

Your question is whether their scoring assumption of a relationship between lower CO2 emission and happiness is valid.

ETA: The report I was referring to is linked to lower down (post #7), BTW. I think you think I was referring to the report in post #3.

I should probably say this thread is a slightly tongue in cheek.

What I want to investigate is why those people who dispute AGW and the proposed CO2 reductions to tackle it feel the way they do.

My initial hypothesis is that many of these people (particularly those who are not qualified or knowledgeable enough to appraise the validity of the scientific research - i.e. most of us) believe they will be less happy if the country they live in reduces its CO2 emissions.

If this is the case, I'd like to know how they coming to this conclusion when there are many positives that could come from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, such as improved health, less influence of OPEC countries on public policy, stimulating innovation in new technologies, etc.

 

[blutoski]

ETA: The report I was referring to is linked to lower down (post #7), BTW. I think you think I was referring to the report in post #3.

I should probably say this thread is a slightly tongue in cheek.

What I want to investigate is why those people who dispute AGW and the proposed CO2 reductions to tackle it feel the way they do.

My initial hypothesis is that many of these people (particularly those who are not qualified or knowledgeable enough to appraise the validity of the scientific research - i.e. most of us) believe they will be less happy if the country they live in reduces its CO2 emissions.

If this is the case, I'd like to know how they coming to this conclusion when there are many positives that could come from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, such as improved health, less influence of OPEC countries on public policy, stimulating innovation in new technologies, etc.

There's a mix of reasons, not the least of which is that some just sincerely think the AGW science is wrong, regardless of what it means for humankind. They're interested in the science.

Further assuming sincerity, there are those who believe that AGW would itself be beneficial, so are not disputing AGW so much as models of consequences.

More cynically, there are those who believe that even if AGW is bad for humanity as a whole, delaying change may be good for them personally. Shareowners of fossil-fuel extraction, processing, and distribution companies. I think they're correct in making this assessment.

Addressing the cost/benefit analysis: others may have a different criteria for 'happy'. They may believe that they would be 'happier' living under a bridge in a more free market state than in a mansion in a more socialized state. Perhaps they would.

 

[Dancing David]

DD, You can burn (a lot) less fuel and keep the same degree of warmth if you use modern insulation in houses...

Helps with cooling in the summer too.

Choice of fuel matters too.

Coal (which nobody uses in any quantity now) is the worst for CO2 emissions, and natural gas is the best.

And an efficient system is vital.

Oh sure, I know that but the lowest emission would be to keep the house at 50 degrees F. Which while better that the ambient air temp is sort of uncomfortable. I know about the rest.