In the last article, we started with The OECD Better Life Index which is the elaboration of the results of research aimed at capturing the different dimensions of social life and economic progress, going beyond traditional indicators.
In the previous part of the article, we looked at the quality of life in Poland through the prism of work and security (based on OECD results). These data show that Poland is doing well in terms of employment — most people of working age have jobs, and long-term unemployment is not widespread. This is important because work not only provides income, but also affects the sense of meaning, stability and belonging.
On the other hand, the level of wages still deviates from the average level in OECD countries. This indicates structural differences and the potential to further increase the quality of life, especially when it comes to the financial possibilities of Poles.
In the context of personal security, Poland does well in terms of real crime levels, but the subjective sense of security — especially in public spaces at night — could be higher. It reminds us that quality of life is not only hard data, but also our daily experiences and emotions — whether we feel safe or have a sense of stability and control over our lives.
We can summarize it this way: Poland presents a positive image in many key areas, but challenges related to income and subjective comfort of life remain important topics for the future.
And how is it in the area of well-being? It's a good idea to start by looking at work-life balance. Compared to other OECD countries, Poles relatively rarely work above the norm, which can protect us from chronic stress and burnout. This is good news — an excess of work responsibilities not only takes away time for loved ones, but also negatively affects mental and physical health.
On the other hand, the amount of time we spend resting, socializing and taking care of ourselves on a daily basis is slightly less than the average in OECD countries. This may suggest that while we don't overwork ourselves, we still lack the space to regenerate and build well-being.
Today we will look at the research Happy Planet Index - we will see what our level of sustainable prosperity is in the context of different countries in the world.
Happy Planet Index
We live in a time of deep, rapid and incessant climate change, which is the result of excessive exploitation of the Earth, the unregulated capitalist economy and the lack of effective legislation to hold the richest to account for the generation of CO₂ emissions. This is a fact of particular concern, especially in the context of the fact that the Earth is our common good — our home — and the highest price for the effects of climate change is and will be borne by the poorest.
Unfortunately, we see these consequences today. Countries around the world are coping with this challenge in very different ways, with some taking concrete action, others remaining passive in the face of a growing threat. Meanwhile, environmental damage knows no bounds and affects everyone — though not equally.
The Happy Planet Index (HPI) shows how effectively countries support the well-being of their people in a way that does not harm future generations. It links the length and quality of life with environmental impact, measuring how many “happy years of life” are per unit of resources consumed. Thus, the HPI becomes an indicator of socio-ecological efficiency. Equitable emission reductions are crucial here — 3.17 tonnes of CO₂e per person per year are assumed to be the limit, sustainable level.
In the report we can see a quote from the well-known and respected naturalist Sir David Attenborough:
The Happy Planet Index and others like it encourage a broader debate about the overall purpose of all of humanity's efforts on Earth.
Attenborough shows that the topic of climate change concerns us all because it speaks of responsibility for our common home.
The report is divided into sections on: life expectancy, self-assessment of well-being, carbon footprint and total HPI (Happy Index Planet).
Lifespan
Life expectancy is the projected number of years a newly born person can live if they have such health conditions and mortality throughout their lives as at the time of their birth. In the study, a map was created marked with colors that correspond to life expectancy. Green indicates the highest life expectancy, yellow indicates the average, and red indicates the lowest.
Green — countries with a high life expectancy (75 years or more):
This group is dominated by rich countries. Hong Kong, with a per capita GDP of $60,037, ranks first with a life expectancy of 85.5 years (2021). It is closely followed by Japan, Australia, Switzerland and Malta — all with GDP above $40,000.
Interestingly, this group also includes some lower-income countries, such as Algeria (76.4 years of age, GDP: $11,029), Sri Lanka (76.4 years, GDP: $13,251), Thailand (78.7 years) or Greece (80 years).
Yellow — countries with average life expectancy (65-74 years):
Although this part is not exactly mentioned in the text, we can assume that this includes countries that do not yet reach the threshold of 75 years, but perform better than the lowest indicators. These are probably developing countries that have made progress in health care but still have limited access to medical care or infrastructure.
Red — countries with low life expectancy (under 65):
Twenty-eight of the 30 worst-performing countries are in sub-Saharan Africa. The lowest score was recorded in Chad — only 52.5 years. The example of Botswana shows that a higher GDP does not always mean a longer life — despite higher incomes than Sri Lanka, the average life expectancy in Botswana is only 61.1 years, or more than 15 years less.
Poland on the HPI map belongs to the countries marked in green, which means a relatively high level of sustainable well-being. However, it is worth remembering that our society is rapidly aging, and demographic forecasts are not optimistic. Life expectancy can, on the one hand, be enjoyable, but on the other — cause anxiety. With the current neglect of public health services and a deepening demographic collapse, we will face serious challenges in the future related to the care of the elderly and the functioning of intergenerational relationships.
Wellbeing
Is a rich country or one that enjoys longevity at the same time a country of happier people? Not necessarily. The study shows, for example, that although Asian countries achieve good results in terms of life expectancy, this does not go hand in hand with the declared level of well-being. At the same time, countries with a good standard of living and social welfare, i.e. the Nordic countries, dominate the category of high level of well-being - all five were at the top of the ranking, followed by Israel, New Zealand and Australia. Let's remember that the Happy Index Planet 2024 was compiled mostly on data from 2021 - today, knowing the situation even from the war in Palestine, probably the well-being index in Israel would have changed significantly.
A surprise in the ranking may be the presence of Vanuatu in 10th place — despite its low GDP, residents rate their lives at 7.1 on a 10-point scale. The Czech Republic and Lithuania also stand out with a score of 6.9. On the other hand, Latin America, once at the forefront of prosperity, has fallen markedly, with Panama (27th) coming in at the top. The lowest levels of well-being were recorded in Lebanon, Afghanistan and India. It is also worth paying attention to Turkey, where despite higher incomes than in some other countries, well-being is estimated at only 4.4.
As you can see, the relationship between income and well-being is not clear; much also depends on social relations, the attitude of the state towards society as a whole, as well as external threats such as war in neighboring countries or the participation of the country in the war.
Carbon footprint
To understand the significance of the carbon footprint in the context of the entire report, it is worth taking a closer look at its definition. On the one hand, it is an indicator illustrating the negative impact on the environment — the sum of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly CO₂) generated by an individual, taking into account the daily consumption choices, transport, energy, lifestyle and infrastructure of the country. On the other hand, in practice, the carbon footprint also says a lot about accessibility — whether people can move, communicate, commute, travel or use public services.
For less affluent people, the ability to use transport can be a necessity — for example, work in another city or access to education or health care. For the richest, on the other hand, it is often a question of lifestyle choices, such as air travel for leisure purposes, which could be replaced by less emissions-intensive forms of travel, especially over short distances. These differences show how diverse social conditions, needs and habits are — and how much national averaged data may not give the full picture. Therefore, when assessing the carbon footprint, it would be useful to supplement national analyses with cross-sectional studies, taking into account the social position and the level of wealth of citizens.
The map of CO₂ emissions paints a very different picture than that of well-being.
Green color: countries that care the most about the environment and are located in the so-called Fair consumption space (that is, with emissions of less than 3.17 tons of CO₂e per person per year). Only 49 countries meet this requirement.
Red color: countries that exceed twice this threshold are marked in red — and they dominate among the countries with the highest life expectancy. The record holder is Qatar, where the average emissions per person are as much as 42.2 tons per year — 13 times more than what is considered fair.
Not all countries with a large carbon footprint are rich or happy. An example is Mongolia — despite its low GDP and average prosperity, its emissions are very high. However, there are positive exceptions: Chile, Sri Lanka or Algeria achieve a high life expectancy with a relatively low carbon footprint.
Similarly, Vanuatu or several Central American countries (such as El Salvador or Guatemala) offer quite good living conditions with little consumption of resources.
- However, we could argue with this passage. These countries achieve relatively high levels of declared well-being with a low carbon footprint - even though the material and infrastructure conditions in these countries can be difficult.
When we look at the data holistically - combining life expectancy, happiness and environmental impact - we see that a larger carbon footprint does not always translate to a better life. The threshold of 10-15 tons of emissions per person per year seems to be the limit beyond which the quality of life no longer improves. Do we have an example of a state where there was an almost perfect balance? A small carbon footprint and a high level of well-being. In 2021, the only country that came close to this was Vanuatu - a symbol of life consistent with planetary boundaries.
summary
The second part of a review of quality of life research shows that social well-being and ecological responsibility do not always go hand in hand — high life expectancy is often linked to a large carbon footprint, and feelings of happiness do not always depend on income. The Happy Planet Index encourages thinking about quality of life in terms of intergenerational justice and efficient use of the planet's resources.
Sources
Polski (PL)
English (EN)
Español (ES)
العربية (AR)
Українська (UA)