Unbeatable Quality of Life…

A little while back I was interested to read the below article about the best places to live in the world.

My ears tend to prick up at these sorts of surverys. I've lived in two countries, and visited many, mostly as a child. I enjoy travelling, and would do it more if finances and time (and the environment) allowed! It’s also an interesting discussion to consider what it means for most people – that elusive “better quality of life

Having visited all four countries in Scandinavia when I was still fairly young, and re-visiting Norway in spring 2006, I find myself nodding along to this article which lists not one but THREE Scandinavian countries in the top four countries for “taking the greatest care of their environment and their people”. Having seen the odd documentary about Iceland, however, I do wonder। No doubt though that one must at least actually visit a country to make one’s own mind up. Tourists will consistently meet only one side of a country. My recent trip to Norway did however reinforce what as a child I sort of “felt” years ago – here is a country that knows how to milk the best from its resources (and cows) – apparently pretty sustainably (I admired their in-store recycling facilities, for example) and treats its people very well. Apart from the food. And apparently, it’s not great to live there not if you happen to fall foul of the stringent laws. I have no experience of the latter and hope not to, but it’s a point worth examining – no good having a nice life generally if you occasionally got locked away for parking in the wrong spot! Laws are set up to protect the majority, who don’t step out of line, but everyone messes up sometimes.

Best way to get to know a country is obviously to live there for a while (and work presumably, unless you are a lucky person). Ok say it’s beautiful. Being surrounded by beauty is nice, and certainly helps with your general spirits, getting up in the morning etc. but it doesn’t help if you can’t get along with the people, for example. So, what are the people really like, once you get to know them, their attitudes to you new people/foreigners/strangers (you), and what about the food, what about those little things that add up on the bad days, what about the services? Beauty doesn’t pay the bills. Conversely, and an extreme example to make this point - I have friends and family who’ve visited some of the most poverty-stricken places in the world, like the Favelas (slums) of Rio, and noted a wonderful sense of community and bonding, even optimism. To many kind, charitable people that sort of thing might even outweigh the downsides and fill their hearts more with happiness than sadness. I reckon it might break my empathetic (pathetic?!) spirit. Anyway I digress. The point is, what if you get to your chosen new country and find you can’t work in your chosen profession, or there simply isn’t a market for the wind-vanes that you wanted to make in your retirement?

If we are talking purely about the look of a place, I find Scandinavia really picturesque, some of it truly stunning. Surely Norway must be one of the most beautiful places on earth. I long to visit there again, next time with snow! I love the classic christmas/faerytale look, the spectacular swooping hills, mountains and valleys, the glassy lakes and fjords, the lush green fields. I feel warmly about the architecture that’s full of slopes, nooks and crannies, and natural wood.

When it comes to environmental considerations - that is, how a country treats its environment, I was surprised to see Australia there at spot number eight। With the amount of large and old vehicles, no MOT requirements last time I checked, and long distance journeys that are almost a requirement, not to mention the considerably cheaper fuel, I wondered if the survey was really taking the environment that much into account. Surely Australia won’t suddenly be meeting its Kyoto targets, and it has a very high carbon footprint per capita. Then there’s the diminishing coral reefs, and massive drought problems all over, resulting in issues such as salinity, for example in the Murray-Darling Basin. However, Australia is without doubt a fairly low-stress, low cost, chilled out place to live, with most places offering relatively traffic- and queue- free living with a lot of access to reasonably priced nice things, for example, individually styled houses, sports facilities, and international dining, particularly in Melbourne. I think Australia must offer some of the best climates in the world in certain pockets, but being huge, obviously it’s not the same all over. For my tastes Tasmania has nice weather.

Finally, no surprise to see Asian mega-cities in the worst positions. But has air quality (which is by all accounts atrocious in those places) swayed results considerably in one direction. How do places like ex-Eastern block countries fair? Also, how would poor but happy places fair? Back to my earlier point, to some tourists, the sight of families lining the slum streets of Rwanda, waving and smiling at tourist buses flying by, and your arms aching from waving so much, opens up a can of worms: a new way of living life that could prove more captivating and engrossing than anything a comfortable life can offer.

I do suspect there are a lot of places that slip between the cracks in these surveys, sometimes the classic “standout” holiday destinations might monopolise the results somewhat in their favour, whilst humbler hosts keep their their secret gems quiet.

For more randomness in the form of thoughts, stories, music and videos, visit imaginaryband.com or duncanalex.com

Can’t beat quality of life in Scandinavia, says world ranking Thu Sep 20, 11:18 AM ET
PARIS (AFP) - Nordic countries take the greatest care of their environment and their people, according to a ranking published on Thursday by the publication Reader’s Digest.
Finland comes top of the 141-nation list, followed by Iceland, Norway and Sweden, and then Austria, Switzerland, Ireland and Australia.
At the bottom of the list is Ethiopia, preceded by Niger, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso and Chad.
The United States comes in 23rd, China 84th and India 104th.
The ranking combines environmental factors, such as air and water quality, respect for biodiversity and greenhouse-gas emissions, as well as social factors, such as gross domestic product, access to education, unemployment rate and life expectancy.
The statistical basis is the UN’s Human Development Index and the Environmental Sustainability Index drawn up by Yale and Columbia universities and the World Economic Forum.
European countries — again, led by Scandinavia — also top the Reader’s Digest assessment of 72 cities for their quality of life. The criteria for this include public transport, parks, air quality, rubbish recycling and the price of electricity.
The winner is Stockholm, followed by Oslo, Munich and Paris.
Asia’s mega-cities fare the worst. At the bottom is Beijing, preceded by Shanghai, Mumbai, Guangzhou and Bangkok.

Also pertaining to this article is one about women in Norwegian companies…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7176879.stm

As background to the first article, I thought I’d check, because it is interesting to see who shapes the opinions of the world - who owns Reader’s Digest?It is Ripplewood. Ripplewood is an American private equity firm that manages more than $10 billion in capital. Ripplewood was founded by its current CEO, Tim Collins. The company’s main interests range from telecommunications to banking to entertainment.It has recently purchased the Power systems division from Alcatel and has renamed it SAFT Power Systems. It is the holder of widely-recognised brands of industrial products such as Harmer+Simmons, AEG SVS, SAFT, etc. In November, 2006, Ripplewood led a private-equity consortium (a “club deal”) in the $2.4 billion leveraged buyout of Reader’s Digest.
The company is currently active in European markets as well, where it owns (amongst others) HONSEL INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES S.A.
In Japan, Ripplewood is known for its acquisition of Seagia in Miyazaki, Japan, the successful turn-around and IPO of Shinsei Bank and the acquisition and quick turn-around sale of Japan Telecom. Aside from its Shinsei Bank success, the firm’s other investments in Japan are considered to require longer-than-expected holding time