 |
| Jon Kudelka |
 |
| David Rowe |
 |
| Matt Golding |
 |
| Cathy Wilcox |
Saturday, 30 March 2024
Friday, 29 March 2024
Is the rental property or properties you own or manage capable of killing your tenants?
Are you on the board of a not-for-profit organisation that provides social or affordable rental housing? Do you have a residential property portfolio or do you just own a second home your rent out?
Then this post is written for you to consider.
Is the rental property or properties you own or manage capable of killing your tenants?
ACOSS Heat Study 2024, 1 March 2024, excerpt:
Hotter days and homes with poor energy performance create hot boxes that cannot be cooled
People variously described living in hot homes that they cannot cool as “awful”, “unliveable”, “miserable”, “unbearable”, “torture” and “a prison.”
Of the 1007 people who completed the survey, most (80.4%) said their home gets too hot in the summer.
Over half the people surveyed (56.7%) said they struggle to cool their home.
At a state and Territory level, more than half of people in Western Australia (67.2%), Queensland (66.1%), Australian Capital Territory (64.3%) and New South Wales (55.0%) said their home gets too hot and they struggle to cool it. Nearly half of the people surveyed in Victoria (45.8%), South Australia (45.7%) and the Northern Territory (45.5%) also had this experience. Tasmania was the only jurisdiction where all people surveyed said either their home was comfortable, or they are able to cool it when hot.
Some groups were more likely to struggle to cool their home:
• people renting in social housing (78.3%)
• people receiving income support (60.8%)
• people renting directly from a real estate agency (68.6%) or landlord (56.7%).
People in social or private rental properties have very limited control to make changes to their home to make it more energy efficient and resistant to extreme temperatures. They have limited control to install insulation, draft proofing, shading, fans or air conditioners, regardless of whether or not they can afford these changes. Of the 558 people living in social housing or private rental, most (69.7%) said they struggle to cool their home. [my yellow highlighting]
“I rent and there is no air con. Though I have fans, that can’t compete with high temps.
My apartment is north-west facing at top of the block.”
- Judith, New South Wales
People who indicated that they were in insecure housing (3%) also spoke of having limited control to cool their home when it gets too hot.
Healthy Futures, media release, 26 March 2024, excerpt:
Heat-related illnesses kill thousands of Australians every year (1) and roughly one-third of these deaths can be attributed to climate change (2,3). Heatwaves increase the risk of dehydration, kidney failure, heart attacks and strokes. Older people, children, people with pre-existing health conditions and people unable to afford air conditioning are most vulnerable. [my yellow highlighting]
Currently, many social housing dwellings are poor quality and prone to temperature extremes (4-6). A 2023 survey of people on low incomes by the Australian Council of Social Services found that 94.5% avoided using air conditioning because it is too expensive (7). Solar panels can significantly reduce air conditioning costs, and while 30% of Australian homes now have rooftop solar, rooftop solar coverage on social housing in New South Wales, for example, is only 7% (8).
Energy efficiency retrofits and renewable-powered air conditioning will not only protect people from extreme temperatures and drive down costs of living; they will also mitigate climate change and its health impacts in the long term by reducing dependence on polluting fossil fuel-based electricity.
Nature Climate Change, 11, pages 492–500 (2021)
Published 31 May 2021:
The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent human-induced climate change
A. M. Vicedo-Cabrera, N. Scovronick, F. Sera, D. Royé, R. Schneider, A. Tobias, C. Astrom, Y. Guo, Y. Honda, D. M. Hondula, R. Abrutzky, S. Tong, M. de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coelho, P. H. Nascimento Saldiva, E. Lavigne, P. Matus Correa, N. Valdes Ortega, H. Kan, S. Osorio, J. Kyselý, A. Urban, H. Orru, E. Indermitte, J. J. K. Jaakkola, N. Ryti, M. Pascal, A. Schneider, K. Katsouyanni, E. Samoli, F. Mayvaneh, A. Entezari, P. Goodman, A. Zeka, P. Michelozzi, F. de’Donato, M. Hashizume, B. Alahmad, M. Hurtado Diaz, C. De La Cruz Valencia, A. Overcenco, D. Houthuijs, C. Ameling, S. Rao, F. Di Ruscio, G. Carrasco-Escobar, X. Seposo, S. Silva, J. Madureira, I. H. Holobaca, S. Fratianni, F. Acquaotta, H. Kim, W. Lee, C. Iniguez, B. Forsberg, M. S. Ragettli, Y. L. L. Guo, B. Y. Chen, S. Li, B. Armstrong, A. Aleman, A. Zanobetti, J. Schwartz, T. N. Dang, D. V. Dung, N. Gillett, A. Haines, M. Mengel, V. Huber & A. Gasparrini
Abstract
Climate change affects human health; however, there have been no large-scale, systematic efforts to quantify the heat-related human health impacts that have already occurred due to climate change. Here, we use empirical data from 732 locations in 43 countries to estimate the mortality burdens associated with the additional heat exposure that has resulted from recent human-induced warming, during the period 1991–2018. Across all study countries, we find that 37.0% (range 20.5–76.3%) of warm-season heat-related deaths can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change and that increased mortality is evident on every continent. Burdens varied geographically but were of the order of dozens to hundreds of deaths per year in many locations. Our findings support the urgent need for more ambitious mitigation and adaptation strategies to minimize the public health impacts of climate change. [my yellow highlighting]
The Lancet, Planetary Health, Volume 5, Issue 7, E415-E425
Article published July 2021, excerpts:
Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study
Prof Qi Zhao, PhD Prof Yuming Guo, PhD Tingting Ye, MSc Prof Antonio Gasparrini, PhD Prof Shilu Tong, PhD Ala Overcenco, PhD Aleš Urban, PhD Alexandra Schneider, PhD Alireza Entezari, PhD Ana Maria Vicedo-Cabrera, PhD Antonella Zanobetti, PhD Antonis Analitis, PhD Ariana Zeka, PhD Aurelio Tobias, PhD Baltazar Nunes, PhD Barrak Alahmad, MPH Prof Ben Armstrong, PhD Prof Bertil Forsberg, PhD Shih-Chun Pan, PhD Carmen Íñiguez, PhD Caroline Ameling, BS César De la Cruz Valencia, MSc Christofer Åström, PhD Danny Houthuijs, MSc Do Van Dung, PhD Dominic Royé, PhD Ene Indermitte, PhD Prof Eric Lavigne, PhD Fatemeh Mayvaneh, PhD Fiorella Acquaotta, PhD Francesca de'Donato, PhD Francesco Di Ruscio, PhD Francesco Sera, MSc Gabriel Carrasco-Escobar, MSc Prof Haidong Kan, PhD Hans Orru, PhD Prof Ho Kim, PhD Iulian-Horia Holobaca, PhD Jan Kyselý, PhD Joana Madureira, PhD Prof Joel Schwartz, PhD Prof Jouni J K Jaakkola, PhD Prof Klea Katsouyanni, PhD Prof Magali Hurtado Diaz, PhD Martina S Ragettli, PhD Prof Masahiro Hashizume, PhD Mathilde Pascal, PhD Micheline de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coélho, PhD Nicolás Valdés Ortega, MSc Niilo Ryti, PhD Noah Scovronick, PhD Paola Michelozzi, MSc Patricia Matus Correa, MSc Prof Patrick Goodman, PhD Prof Paulo Hilario Nascimento Saldiva, PhD Rosana Abrutzky, MSc Samuel Osorio, MSc Shilpa Rao, PhD Simona Fratianni, PhD Tran Ngoc Dang, PhD Valentina Colistro, MSc Veronika Huber, PhD Whanhee Lee, PhD Xerxes Seposo, PhD Prof Yasushi Honda, PhD Prof Yue Leon Guo, PhD Prof Michelle L Bell, PhD Shanshan Li, PhD
Introduction
Earth's average surface temperature has risen at a rate of 0·07°C per decade since 1880, a rate that has nearly tripled since the 1990s.1 The acceleration of global warming has resulted in 19 of the 20 hottest years occurring after 2000 and an unprecedented frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme temperature events, such as heatwaves, worldwide. Exposure to non-optimal temperatures has been associated with a range of adverse health outcomes (eg, excess mortality and morbidity from various causes).2, 3, 4, 5, 6 All populations over the world are under certain threats from non-optimal temperatures, regardless of their ethnicity, location, sex, age, and socioeconomic status. For example, in China, 14·3% of non-accidental mortality in 2013–15 might have been related to non-optimal temperatures, with 11·6% of deaths explainable by cold exposure and 2·7% explainable by heat exposure.7 In the USA, the risk of mortality increased by 5–12% due to cold exposure and 5–10% due to heat exposure between 2000 and 2006.8 An association between ambient temperature and mortality risk has also been reported in India, Australia, the EU, South Africa, and other countries and regions. 9, 10, 11 [my yellow highlighting]
Figure 1 Average daily mean temperatures of the 750 locations from the 43 countries or territories included in the analysis
The colours represent the different ranges of average daily mean temperature during the data collection periods shown in the appendix (p 4).
Daily minimum and maximum temperatures between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2019, were collected from the Global Daily Temperature dataset (grid size 0·5° × 0·5°) of the Climate Prediction Center. This dataset was developed, by use of a Shepard algorithm with observational data from 6000 to 7000 weather monitoring stations worldwide,15 as a benchmark for a range of reanalysis products and climate change models. Daily mean temperature was calculated by averaging daily minimum and maximum temperatures.
Energy and Buildings
Volume 272, 1 October 2022:
Integrated assessment of the extreme climatic conditions, thermal performance, vulnerability, and well-being in low-income housing in the subtropical climate of Australia
Shamila Haddad, Riccardo Paolini, Afroditi Synnefa, Lilian De Torres, Deo Prasad, Mattheos Santamouris
Abstract
Social housing stock worldwide can be characterised by poor indoor environmental quality and building thermal performance, which along with the increasing urban overheating put the low-income population at higher health risk. The dwellings’ thermal performance and the indoor environmental quality are often overlooked in the context of social housing compared to the general building stock in Australia. In the present study, the synergies between urban microclimate, indoor air temperature, housing characteristics and quality of life of residents have been investigated by employing subjective and objective assessment of indoor environmental quality in 106 low-income dwellings during the winter and summer of 2018–2019 in New South Wales. It further examines the impact of urban overheating and levels of income on indoor thermal conditions. The subjective method involved assessing the links between the type of housing in which low-income people live, energy bills, self-reported thermal sensation, health and well-being, and occupants’ behaviours. The results show that many dwellings operated outside the health and safety temperature limits for substantial periods. Indoor air temperatures reached 39.8 °C and the minimum temperature was about 5 °C. While the upper acceptability limit for indoor air temperature was 25.6 °C for 80 % satisfaction, periods of up to about 997 and 114 continuous hours above 26 °C and 32 °C were found in overheated buildings, respectively. Indoor overheating hours above 32 °C were recorded up to 238 % higher in Sydney’s western areas compared to eastern and inner suburbs. Similarly, residents in westerns suburbs and regions experience more outdoor overheating hours than those living near the eastern suburbs. This study highlights the interrelationships between ambient temperature, housing design, income, thermal comfort, energy use, and health and well-being in the context of social housing. The evidence of winter underheating and summer overheating suggests that improvements in building quality and urban heat mitigation are required to minimise the impacts of poor-performing housing and local climate. [my yellow highlighting]
Thursday, 28 March 2024
Well now the Chicken Little's of Australian journalism have moved on to other topics, here is another perspective on that latest Newspoll
Well the headlines this week ran a particular pessimistic line.....
Fresh Newspoll suggests Labor spiralling towards minority government at next election in worst result since Voice defeat [Sky News, 25.03.24]
Newspoll: Labor on slide as new year reset fades [The Australian, 25.03.24]
Newspoll: Worst result for Albanese gov since referendum backlash [The Courier Mail, 25.03.25]
Federal Labor's Popularity Slips In Latest Newspoll [10Play, 25.03.25]
Voters’ harsh verdict on Labor as cost of living bites [The Daily Telegraph, 25 March 2025]
So what exactly did the latest Newspoll survey results show?
NEWSPOLL, Sunday 24 March 2024
Newspoll was conducted by YouGov from 18-22 March using a survey pool of 1,223 participants.
Federal Primary Voting Intent:
ALP 32 (-1)
L/NP Coalition 37 (+1)
Greens 13 (+1)
One Nation 7 (+1)
Other 11
Federal Two Party Preferred Prediction:
ALP 51 (-1)
L/NP Coalition 49 (+1)
 |
Click on image to enlarge |
Better Prime Minister:
Albanese 48 (+1)
Dutton 34 (-1)
Approval Rating
Anthony Albanese: Approve 44 (+1) Disapprove 51 (0)
Peter Dutton: Approve 37 (0) Disapprove 52 (+1)
By way of context
On 24 March 2024 the nation was 61 weeks out from the last possible date for next federal general election, 17 May 2025.
This 24 March the two party preferred outcome of 51-49 in Labor's favour mirrored past Newspolls on:
28 April, 5 & 12 May 2019
12 Jan, 23 Feb & 15 March 2020
25 April, 16 May & 27 June 2021.
In Newspoll on those same dates the Coalition had the higher primary vote on:
28 April, 5 & 12 May 2019
12 January, 23 February & 15 March 2020
25 April, 16 May & 27 June 2021.
With the 16 May 2021 Coalition primary vote lead being a 5 point advantage making it an identical voting intention & prediction poll with this week's 24 March 2024 poll.
At approximtely 61 weeks out from May 2022 federal election, Newspoll was showing a two-party preferred prediction outcome of 52-48 in Labour's favour and, a primary voting intention outcome of somewhere between 40-38 & 42-37 in the Coalition's favour by 2-5 points.
It would seem this is a road well travelled and this far out from an election gives no real indication of the mood of a national electorate in May 2025.
Wednesday, 27 March 2024
Healthcare workers gathered outside Parliament to send the Federal Government a strong message that heat and climate change are harmful to health, and people need protection now
“As GPs, we know that increasing extremes of heat can have an impact on the health of the community – especially on the very young, and the very old. In primary care, we need to help our patients plan for heatwaves, which might include discussing staying cool, using air conditioning, or including this in chronic disease management plans, but we also need to advocate for broader interventions that can reduce climate change.” [Associate Professor Rowena Ivers, representing the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Healthy Futures media release, 26 March 2024]
 |
| IMAGE: @RACGPPresident |
Health professionals gathered at 11am on Tuesday, 26 March 2024 outside Parliament House in Canberra to deliver an open letter signed by 25 organisations representing over 50,000 health professionals, including the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and the Australasian College of Sports and Exercise Physicians (ACSEP), calling for funding commitments for rooftop solar on social housing to protect vulnerable people from the health impacts of extreme heat and climate change.
Led by Healthy Futures1, the letter warns that heat-related illnesses kill thousands of Australians every year.
The letter requests that the Federal government commit to installing rooftop solar on at least 30% of Australian social housing, to be completed by the end of 2026, provide access to affordable renewable electricity where rooftop solar is impractical and install reverse cycle air conditioning and implement other energy efficient retrofits to achieve safe temperatures in all social housing.
Key facts:
Heat-related illnesses kill thousands of Australians every year (1) by increasing heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure and other health impacts.
Roughly one-third of heat-related deaths in Australia are attributable to climate change (2,3).
Many social housing dwellings are poor quality and prone to temperature extremes (3-5).
A 2023 survey of people on low incomes by the Australian Council of Social Services found that 94.5% avoided using air conditioning because it is too expensive (6). [Healthy Futures, media release, 26 March 2024]
Text of the Letter
To: the Hon Chris Bowen, Federal Minister for Climate Change & Energy
Cc: the Hon Jenny McAllister, Federal Assistant Minister for Climate Change & Energy
& the Hon Mark Butler, Federal Minister for Health & Aged Care
& the Hon Jim Chalmers, Federal Treasurer
& the Hon Julie Collins, Federal Minister for Housing
& the Hon Amanda Rishworth, Federal Minister for Families and Social Services
Dear Minister Bowen,
As healthcare workers and community members, we request that the Australian government protect people in social housing from the increasing health impacts of climate change by ensuring that their homes are kept at safe temperatures through building retrofits and affordable, renewable-powered air conditioning.
Heat-related illnesses kill thousands of Australians every year (1) and roughly one-third of these deaths can be attributed to climate change (2,3). Heatwaves increase the risk of dehydration, kidney failure, heart attacks and strokes. Older people, children, people with pre-existing health conditions and people unable to afford air conditioning are most vulnerable.
Currently, many social housing dwellings are poor quality and prone to temperature extremes (4-6). A 2023 survey of people on low incomes by the Australian Council of Social Services found that 94.5% avoided using air conditioning because it is too expensive (7). Solar panels can significantly reduce air conditioning costs, and while 30% of Australian homes now have rooftop solar, rooftop solar coverage on social housing in New South Wales, for example, is only 7% (8).
Energy efficiency retrofits and renewable-powered air conditioning will not only protect people from extreme temperatures and drive down costs of living; they will also mitigate climate change and its health impacts in the long term by reducing dependence on polluting fossil fuel-based electricity.
We therefore request that as part of the next federal budget you commit funding to:
Roll out rooftop solar on at least 30% of Australian social housing, to be completed by the end of 2026
Ensure access to affordable renewable electricity for social housing where rooftop solar is impractical, e.g. via power purchasing agreements and/or battery storage
Install reverse cycle air conditioning and implement other energy efficient retrofits to achieve safe temperatures in all social housing.
Sincerely,
Signed by 25 organisations representing over 50,000 health professionals, including the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and the Australasian College of Sports and Exercise Physicians (ACSEP)
References:
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
[2]
[3]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01058-x
[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378778822005205?via%3Dihub
[6]
https://www.shelterwa.org.au/stuck-in-the-heat/
[7]
https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Heat-Survey-Report_20230228.pdf
[8]
“Extreme heat can trigger heart attacks, kidney failure, strokes and even death,” said Ursula Alquier, Healthy Futures Campaigner. “We want to see a commitment to ensure people living in social housing are able to live in safe and healthy homes”
“As healthcare workers, we are concerned about the health of our patients and our climate. People in social housing need energy-efficient homes with cheap renewable-powered air conditioning to protect their health” said Dr Harry Jennens, general practitioner and Healthy Futures Co-ordinator. [Healthy Futures, media release, 26 March 2024]
 |
| IMAGE: @RACGPPresident |
NOTES
1. Healthy Futures is an affiliate of Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Climate and Health Alliance.
Tuesday, 26 March 2024
A shallow dive into a deep pool to look at the 2024 World Happiness Report
SPOILER ALERT: Australia has an overall score of 10th in the Top 10 of Country Rankings by Life Evaluation 2021-2023. However, in Australia personal happiness is not growing but falling. More females than males are likely to express negative emotions or be classified as having lower life satisfaction. Those people under 30 years of age & those 30 to 44 years of age are the least happy. With the winners in the happiness lottery being Australians 60 years of age and older who - despite increased frequency of health problems & dwindling social interactions with the wider community - were found to be the happiest. In fact we belong to a sad little group of countries - United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - where our young & younger mature adults no longer appear to be travelling through life as well as is anticipated in a first world country with the 12th largest economy.
Gallup-University of Oxford Wellbeing Research Centre-UN Sustainable Solutions Network, World Happiness Report 2024, March 2024, excerpts:
Happiness
Happiness has generally increased for all age groups in East Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and the CIS, and fallen in South Asia, the NANZ group and the Middle East and North Africa....
Inequality in the distribution of happiness reflects inequalities of access to any of the direct and indirect supports for well-being, including income, education, health care, social acceptance, trust, and the presence of supportive social environments at the family, community and national levels. People are happier living in countries where the equality of happiness is greater....
This is the first report to consider equality of happiness by age group, set in a global environment of increasing inequality. At the global level, averaged across all ages and regions, inequality of happiness has increased by more than 20% over the past dozen years.
For the world as a whole, the average frequency of the selected negative emotions is higher for females than males, with the gender gap growing slightly from the young to the old.....
Happiness fell significantly in the country group including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, by twice as much for the young as for the old.....
For the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, happiness has decreased in all age groups, but especially for the young, so much so that the young are now, in 2021-2023, the least happy age group. This is a big change from 2006-2010, when the young were happier than those in the midlife groups, and about as happy as those aged 60 and over. For the young, the happiness drop was about three-quarters of a point, and greater for females than males....
The group including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand shows a quite different pattern than elsewhere. Negative emotions are at all ages more frequent for females than males, especially for those under 30. In this region, unlike anywhere else except Western Europe, negative emotions are more frequent among the young and least frequent for the old....
Changes in emotions between 2006-2010 and 2021-2023.
As shown in Figure 2.8, negative emotions are more frequent now than in 2006-2010 everywhere, only slightly so in East Asia and Western Europe. The big exception is in Central and Eastern Europe, where there has been a drop in the frequency of negative emotions in all age groups, in contrast to the rest of the world, but consistent with the happiness convergence taking place within Europe.
Increases in negative emotions have been most frequent in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, especially at higher ages. In Latin America there has been no increased frequency of negative emotions among those under 30, but a substantial increase in the older age groups. The CIS countries show a similar but somewhat muted pattern.
There is the reverse pattern in the NANZ countries where negative emotions have increased more for the young than for the old. No other region shows negative emotions increasing more for the young than for the old.....
...positive emotions, which include laughter, enjoyment, and doing interesting things, are based on experience the previous day, are almost everywhere more frequent in the youngest age groups, and are gradually less frequent at higher ages. The only exception is in the NANZ group of countries, which show a U-shape in age, with those 60+ having about the same frequency of positive emotions as those under 30....
Loneliness
Loneliness, when measured on the same scale as social support, is in all regions generally half as prevalent as social support. It displays somewhat matching patterns, being low where social support is high, and vice versa. Only in Southeast Asia, Western Europe and the NANZ countries is loneliness significantly higher for the Millennials than for the Boomers, a pattern that is reversed in Central and Eastern Europe.
An earlier study found age to be the most important factor in explaining loneliness differences among survey respondents in the United States. They found a peak in loneliness at age 20, with a steady age-related decline thereafter. This same phenomenon is evident in the Gallup/Meta data for the group of four countries including the United States. Although overall levels of loneliness are not unduly high in global terms, there is a significantly different pattern across the generations. Loneliness is almost twice as high among the Millennials than among those born before 1965. Millennials also feel less socially supported than Boomers in those countries, another place in which these countries look different from the rest of the world. This is despite the fact that actual social connections are much more frequent for Millennials than Boomers, and about as frequent as for Generation X.
Do the high prevalence of loneliness and the lesser feelings of social support help to explain the very large ranking disparities between the old and young for the NANZ countries....
Another interesting feature of the Gallup/Meta results, applicable in all global regions, is that the oldest members of the population, those in the boomer and earlier generations, feel more socially supported and less lonely than those in the younger generations despite having less frequent actual interactions with all groups except neighbours. This ability to gain more perceived support with fewer interactions likely helps to explain why life satisfaction so often rises after middle age even as the frequency and seriousness of health problems increases.....
Note: In 2022 loneliness averaged 27% across all countries, and 21% for the four-country group including the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Child and Adolescent Well-being
• In most countries life satisfaction drops gradually from childhood through adolescence and into adulthood. Globally, young people aged 15-24 still report higher life satisfaction than older adults. But this gap is narrowing in Western Europe and recently reversed in North America due to falling life satisfaction among the young. Conversely, in Sub-Saharan Africa life satisfaction has increased among the young.
• Overall, globally, young people aged 15-24 experienced improved life-satisfaction between 2006 and 2019, and stable life satisfaction since then. But the picture varied by region. Youth wellbeing fell in North America, Western Europe, Middle East and North Africa, and South Asia. In the rest of the world it rose.
• Turning to younger ages (10-15), evidence is limited. In high income countries, life satisfaction has declined since 2019, especially for girls. For East Asian countries, life satisfaction increased in 2019. Before 2019, the evidence on trends is mixed.
• Girls report lower life satisfaction than boys by around the age of 12. This gap widens at ages 13 and 15, and the pandemic has amplified the difference. These points apply only to high-income countries since data on these young ages is rarely gathered elsewhere. For ages 15-24, global data shows no global gender differences from 2006 until 2013. But from 2014, females began reporting higher life satisfaction than males, although the gap has narrowed after the pandemic. This global gender gap masks regional differences, and is more pronounced in lower-income countries. There are no gender differences in high-income countries.
A breakdown of Australia's Happiness Ranking
2.1 Country Rankings by Life Evaluations in 2021-2023
Australia (7.057) in 10th position with a 95% confidence interval, in a field of 143 countries.
Note: National average life evaluations and measures of positive and negative emotions (by country and year) were established in terms of six key variables: GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, freedom to make life choices, generosity, and freedom from corruption.
2021-2023 Country Rankings
The top countries no longer include any of the
largest countries. In the top ten countries only
the Netherlands and Australia have populations
over 15 million. In the whole of the top twenty,
only Canada and the United Kingdom have
populations over 30 million.
.....the four countries in the NANZ group -
the United States, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand - all have rankings for the young that
are much lower than for the old, with the biggest
discrepancies in the United States and Canada
where the gap is 50 places or more....these gaps have
mainly arisen since 2010, and probably involve
some mix of generational and age effects.
2.2 Ranking of Happiness - the Young (Age below 30): 2021-2023
Australia (7.013) ranked 19th in a field of 143 countries, with a 95% confidence interval.
Table 2.2: Ranking of life evaluations by age group, 2021- 2023
Australia's ranking
All ages — 10th
The Young (under 30 yrs) — 19th
Lower Middle (30-44 yrs) — 14th
Upper Middle (45-59yrs) — 10th
The Old (60+ yrs) — 9th
Happiest — The Old
Least Happy — Lower Middle
2.4 Ranking of Happiness - the Old (age 60 and above): 2021-2023
Australia (7.304) ranked 9th in a field of 143 countries, with a 95% confidence interval.
2.5 Changes in Happiness: from 2006-2010 to 2021-2023
Australia (0.273) negative change ranking 102nd in a field of 134 countries, with a 95% confidence interval. Being the 33rd highest fall in happiness score ranking, the highest being Afghanistan (2.599).
The full 2024 World Happiness Report can be read and downloaded at:
https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2024/WHR+24.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
