the nation was able to achieve carbon-negative status through four steps: establishing a gross national happiness (gnh) index; creating a unique approach to sustainability; developing a strong environmental governance and policy; encouraging a diversification of the national economy. 

in a world that has become more interconnected and polarized simultaneously due to globalization, it is important to observe these bhutanese initiatives individually. first, and most significantly, is the unique way in which the nation tracks productivity: their gross national happiness.

1. gross national happiness 

the “gross national happiness index,” or gnh, is the measurement of the collective happiness in a nation. the concept entails a holistic approach toward economic progress while also asserting equal importance to non-economic indicators of development. essentially, the gnh is an alternative form of measuring national productivity to gross domestic product (gdp). 

despite the bhutanese government’s use of gnh as a main productivity factor, the government still holds productivity and economic success in high regard. however, the concept of gross national happiness set the precedent for environmental and conservation policy in bhutan. 

former prime minister of bhutan tshering tobgay conveys this sentiment in his 2014 ted talk when he admits that “economic growth is important, but that economic growth must not come from undermining our unique culture or our pristine environment.”

so how does the gnh index actually work? the concept of gross national happiness can be broken down into four pillars: good governance, sustainable and socio-economic development, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation.

good governance is how fair and responsible the government, both federal and local, is in leading the people of bhutan.

sustainable and socio-economic development is the process by which businesses and the well being of people improve over time. 

cultural preservation is the maintenance of buddhist values and traditions through government-sponsored initiatives. 

environmental conservation is how well bhutan’s forests, mountains, and wild-life reservations are protected through government and business policy. 

as of 2015 and the third iteration of this index, 43.4 percent of bhutanese are deeply or extremely happy and 91.2 percent of the people are sufficient in five or more of the domains. 

but how did this rapid increase in personal happiness come to be in just five years? 

environmental policy is encouraged and deeply rooted in the gnh concept. after all, one of the four pillars of gnh is environmental conservation. additionally, one of the nine domains in evaluating happiness is ecological diversity and resilience. 

a history of ethnic tensions between the buddhist, bhutanese majority and nepali minority have prompted questions about the gnh model. despite the controversy surrounding particular government decisions, it does not compromise the concept of gross national happiness today because controversy is measured on a number of indicators that safeguard any type of prejudice, be it along spiritual, religious, or ethnic lines.

in summation, gross national happiness is an effective socio-economic model because it provides public insight into policy. polling gathered from gnh indices encourages government institutions like the national environmental commission to pass environmental laws, all of which contributes to bhutan’s carbon-negative status. additionally, the indexes provided insight into potential sustainable development projects that could benefit bhutanese citizens struggling to find jobs. 

2. sustainable development 

sustainable development is economic development that does not compromise the current and future populations of a nation. this balance can be difficult to maintain when there are various interest groups that will endorse policy beneficial to their own agendas. for example, the american oil and natural gas lobby and the natural resource defense council (nrdc) will speak in the house of representatives to promote their own interests. in bhutan, there are various influences and contrasting opinions that have resulted in meaningful policy writing — but that will likely be swept under the rug, so to speak. 

in an article titled “bhutan: a review of its approach to sustainable development,” bob frame writes that “the strong, centralized, government-led agenda (rather than a donor-driven one) provides a secure sense of national cohesion on policy issues and one that donors respect and use as an example of good practice.” 

this allegation is easily justifiable. a government that entertains deals or treaties with foreign businesses and governments may be more susceptible to outside influence in domestic affairs. these international entanglements have led to conflict in the past. 

as frame puts it: “bhutan has been careful to maximise the benefits of its ‘brand image’ internationally and to reduce the impact of mitigating factors. as a result it maintains, for now, its reputation as a ‘shangri-la’ destination for tourism and for development, with the likelihood that this will continue to ensure a steady flow of donor and private-sector (including academic and student exchange) funds for some time to come.” 

instead, the bhutanese government centers its focus for sustainability investments into national programs and forge deals with particular nations in support of the aforementioned programs. 

one national project utilized nearly $13 million in funding from the asian development bank (adb) and germany. this project “will build new training centres, rehabilitate others, and strengthen links to the private sector including providing career counseling and job-placement services,” all of which benefited the bhutanese economy and the happiness of the bhutanese people. 

as previously mentioned, 98% of all bhutanese have some level of happiness for the government and its policies. additionally, the bhutanese government-led another project that invested in sustainable transport and subsidized the purchase of electric vehicles, according to the latest gnh index report. the government also subsidized the cost of led lights. environmentally friendly initiatives enacted in the past two decades have helped preserve bhutan’s carbon-neutral status and brought about its carbon-negative status. 

some critics are doubtful of these initiatives because of ethnic tensions between the government and the people. ethnic discrimination against certain social groups in bhutan, particularly on nepali-born bhutanese, have in the past led to turbulent social and political movements, as well as harsh international criticism. 

journalist joseph c. mathew critiques the anti-nepali propaganda fabricated by a previous bhutanese king and government in his article. former prime minister jigme y. thinley was, in the 1980s, a bureaucrat who endorsed a series of laws that restricted the rights of certain bhutanese citizens, otherwise known as the bhutanisation drive. he was known to have “articulated the stereotypical ‘nepalese aggressiveness’ which threatened the integrity of bhutan.” 

in spite of ethnic stereotyping, thinley helped usher in the gross national happiness index to help improve the quality of life for all of bhutan’s citizens. 

3. environmental policy 

environmental conservation is of utmost importance in bhutanese politics. in his 2016 ted talk, prime minister tobgay shared how the government’s environmental awareness translated into conservation policy. 

he announced, “today, more than half our country is protected as national parks, nature reserves, and wildlife sanctuaries. but the beauty is that we’ve connected them all with one another through a network of biological corridors. now, what this means is that our animals are free to roam throughout our country.” 

technically, tobgay was not completely accurate. bhutan’s official protected areas do not just make up 50 percent, but in fact, claim 70 percent of bhutan’s total land area. how is this possible? the bhutanese constitution explicitly enforces the protection of bhutan’s wildlife, incentivizing the government and businesses alike to uphold an environmentally conscious perspective. 

line three of article five of the 2008 bhutanese constitution states, “the government shall ensure that, in order to conserve the country’s natural resources and to prevent the degradation of the ecosystem, a minimum of 60 percent of bhutan’s total land shall be maintained under forest cover for all time.” 

this particular line, as well as all others in this article, prevent the government from pursuing policy that would destroy or harm protected areas. king jigme singye wangchuck, author of the 2008 bhutanese constitution, cared deeply about the future of bhutan’s wildlife and natural habitats. seeing the industrialization of developing countries and the toll it took on the quality of life for their people, the king wrote in the constitution a means to protect the land from mass industrialization.

a majority of the bhutanese people, many of whom live in urban areas, look highly upon stricter environmental and conservation laws. 

mani ram moktan, journalist for the international mountain society, submitted a report on the use of and transition from firewood as the people’s main energy source. in his report moktan said, “urban respondents overwhelmingly chose electricity as an oak firewood substitute because it was associated with clean energy, improved sanitation, and forest conservation.” 

this makes sense on numerous levels. a substantial byproduct of burning firewood is ash, a material that is hard to dispose of and can affect the air quality of local communities. more importantly, however, is that firewood is a large contributor to carbon emissions in bhutan, so reducing it is of top priority for the government and the people. clearly the practical option is to switch to electricity. 

however, later on in the report, moktan introduces an alternate perspective on firewood: the rural communities. the main professions practiced by those citizens are in the agricultural sector. firewood is an integral aspect of day-to-day life for bhutanese farmers, used as a means to heat their homes and power their tractors. moktan argues that even though firewood is necessary for many rural-based citizens, there needs to be some form of regulation on how much is being harvested and used. obviously there cannot be a total ban on firewood because that would ostracize many farmers and prevent them from properly working off their land, so calling for a transition to a predominantly electrical national supply with a ban on unnecessary firewood could be an acceptable approach for all parties. 

the implementation of environmental and constitutional policies led to bhutan’s carbon-negative status. the promotion of electricity and clean energy and the reduction of firewood production would incentivize local businesses to convert while maintaining a high quality of life in bhutan.

4. economic diversification 

a successful economy is a requirement for a healthy society. the peaks of economic and social prosperity, or “golden ages,” of empires throughout human history, including the roman empire in the fourth century and the polish-lithuanian commonwealth in the seventeenth century, were made possible by booming economies. what these countries had that bhutan does not is copious amounts of land and significant manpower to work off of it. bhutan’s meager population of nearly 750,000 people, about the size of poses a challenging question: how do the government and businesses increase the bhutanese gdp? 

despite having limited manpower, they have plenty of options to consider. foreign nations, such as germany, and non-governmental organizations, such as the asian development bank, have funded national sustainable development projects for bhutan in the past. investment, both national and international, in hydroelectricity and the diversification of the agricultural sector solidified bhutan’s carbon-negative status.

the bhutanese government has taken advantage of its fast-flowing rivers by investing in the hydroelectricity sector. tobgay notes how successful renewable energy is for the economy and environment of bhutan in his 2016 ted talk. he said: “we export most of the renewable electricity we generate from our fast-flowing rivers … by 2020, we’ll be exporting enough electricity to offset 17 million tons of carbon dioxide.” 

hydroelectricity is a dual-purpose investment for the bhutanese society, simultaneously contributing to a sizable portion of bhutan’s energy production, providing 14 percent of bhutan’s exports (2016), and enforcing stricter protections on bhutan’s rivers. it’s also been one way that bhutan has greatly minimized its own carbon emissions, and it will continue to work to that end for decades to come. 

separately, the agriculture sector in the bhutanese economy is one of the most lucrative and successful industries due to the prevalence of the agricultural sector in the country, historically. a combination of outdated farming techniques and antiquated technologies have restricted the nation from reaching its full agricultural potential. 

the solution to these problems is quite simple: national or international investment in technology. updated technologies are practical for bhutanese farmers, considering how “hand-operated diesel- or petrol-powered tilling devices similar to those developed for the terraced hills of japan have been tested in western bhutan with apparent success.” 

so if these “petrol-powered tilling devices” were utilized for agricultural means in bhutan, then production rates of the crops could skyrocket, in addition to the increase in quality of said crops. 

munro follows with how productive these machines truly are for farming purposes, explaining how they “require only one person to operate, in contrast to the two people and two livestock normally used in traditional ploughing methods, and are faster than the bullocks.” if every two farmers that were using one animal to gather crops each controlled their own tilling machine than production rates would more than double. 

if bhutan continues to improve its agricultural sector and expand its hydroelectric capabilities, both its economy and environment will be bolstered and empowered.

the bhutanese approach

bhutan, not the united states or any european nation, has championed and led the charge on cutting edge, comprehensive action against climate change. now is not the time to disregard meaningful policy that has functioned successfully for the people of an entire nation. now is not the time to invest in backward legislation that will engender more environmental catastrophes or harm against it. now is the time to consider the bhutanese approach to carbon-negativity. 

on nov. 23, we interviewed neera tanden, president and ceo of the center for american progress action fund, to discuss the importance of making climate change a front-and-center issue for the 2020 race. the event was hosted at the george washington university school of media and public affairs where students, academics, policymakers, journalists, and more gathered to learn about recent trends in voter behavior across the nation, how young voters could influence the 2020 election, and why voter turnout during this coming year will be so pivotal to address the climate crisis.

check out our conversation with tanden, below, and learn how the center for american progress is helping to persuade voters on the urgency of climate change.

—

more information: see a slideshow from our event.

tanden believes what’s best for the environment can also be best for the economy, so long as we begin to think about issue as a job creator. she pushed for an optimistic look at our future, one she hopes will be defined by a large-scale shift to renewable energy and infrastructure that helps the country move away from a carbon intense economy. tanden and sesno discussed how a reframing of the climate crisis as an economic opportunity, rather than simply a doomsday scenario, can create more interest in solutions.

“climate (action) can be a win-win for the country,” tanden said.

click through the slideshow above to read more about the event.

according to the oklahoma office of the attorney general, pruitt “​was a leading advocate against the epa’s activist agenda​” and filed multiple lawsuits against the agency. once at the helm of the epa, pruitt’s reign was overshadowed by questionable spending practices, and accusations of federal ethics violations as well as inappropriate professional behavior, as reported by numerous media outlets. oh, and he rolled back several energy and environmental regulations, too.

pruitt’s actions culminated in a whopping ​13 federal investigations​ after only 17 months as administrator. he resigned in july 2018, citing the “​sizable toll​” of the “​unrelenting attacks​” on him and his family from the media and environmental advocates as reason for his departure, according to pbs news hour’s joey mendolia and daniel bush.

in pruitt’s absence, former epa deputy administrator andrew wheeler, has stepped in as acting administrator. while pruitt made headlines nearly every week, wheeler’s tenure has been noticeably quiet. however, wheeler is continuing to deregulate the epa and rolling back once strong environmental policies more quietly — and effectively — than his predecessor. his role as acting administrator begs a few questions:

1. who is andrew wheeler?

according to his epa biography, andrew wheeler was born in hamilton, ohio, in 1964. he became an eagle scout in high school, and ​received his undergraduate degree​ in english and biology from case western reserve university. wheeler continued his education at george mason university where he ​received his mba​, and then ​earned his law degree​ from washington university in st. louis.

2. how did wheeler end up in the epa?

this is actually ​not the first time​ wheeler has worked for the epa. wheeler worked as a special assistant in the epa’s pollution prevention and toxics office during the george w. bush administration. he joined pruitt’s team as deputy director in 2017 when pruitt was appointed administrator.

after pruitt’s resignation, however, wheeler expressed ​disinterest in the administrator position. in an interview with the washington examiner, wheeler indicated “he had no interest in taking over his boss’s job. ‘i could have put my hat in the ring for administrator. i was not interested in that. i am still not interested in that,’ he said.”

3. what was he up to before working for the epa?

wheeler has been working in washington for more than 20 years​, primarily advocating for the interests of the fossil fuel industry. wheeler was the former chief of staff to oklahoma sen. james inhofe. inhofe is considered washington’s ​most prominent climate change denier​ (remember the guy who threw the snowball on the senate floor? ​yeah, that’s inhofe), with wheeler’s opinions of the environment and climate change closely mirroring that of his former boss’.

wheeler has ​worked as a lobbyist​ for multiple natural resource corporations including some of the united states’ largest chemical, coal, and uranium companies. he lobbied for energy fuels inc., the primary uranium company that ​supported the shrinking of bears ears national monument in utah.​ according to the center for responsive politics, the coal-mining company, murray energy, ​paid wheeler’s consulting firm, faegre baker daniels consulting, ​over $300,000 per year from 2009 through 2017.

in 2010, wheeler denounced the science presented by the scientists of the united nations’ international panel on climate change, claiming the ipcc “has functioned more as a political body than a scientific body.”

4. why haven’t i heard too much about wheeler?

wheeler purposely avoids the spotlight, and prefers to do his work legally, yet behind closed doors. ​according to a report from the new york times​, “mr. wheeler … avoids the limelight and has spent years effectively navigating the rules … ​his career was built around quietly and incrementally advancing the interests of the fossil-fuel industry, chiefly by weakening or delaying federal regulations.”

5. what is he going to do to the epa, and to the environment?

“(wheeler) knows much more about managing the agency and the technical side of the environmental statutes that epa is charged with enforcing than pruitt,” said myron ebell, head of the epa transition team, in an interview with the guardian. “undoing (barack) obama’s regulatory onslaught at epa is a key part of the president’s economic revival agenda, and therefore wheeler will be a point man for trump just as pruitt was.”

wheeler is going to push president trump’s environmental agenda forward quickly and effectively. he will do so by staying within the boundaries of law and ethics, pursuing coal and chemical industry interests, and staying out of the limelight.​ ​wheeler knows washington, d.c., knows how environmental legislation and law work, and avoids the spotlight.

6. as a fan of a healthy environment, is there anything i can do?

wheeler is competent and efficient. from working for climate change deniers and lobbying for mining companies and fossil fuel industries, he is a quiet, experienced, and formidable foe of the environment’s wellbeing.

however, a keyword in wheeler’s job title is “​acting​.” president trump still needs to officially nominate a new agency chief — one who must then be approved and confirmed by a senate majority vote. this is a process that could take months, and well past november, after the midterm elections.

q: tell me about your role as sweden’s former minister of the environment. were you drafting legislation, representing sweden at conferences, working with the u.n.?

a: i was appointed as minister in 2006-2011, and during those years sweden had the responsibility of being the presidency of the eu, while in the end of 2009, so a lot of my time was really set aside for preparing that great task of leading eu in international negotiations on climate change. but, domestically, my main agenda was to work on proposals to reduce sweden’s climate emissions and establish emissions targets for sweden. i was in parliament a lot to discuss with different parties and answer questions. i also traveled around the world to meet with other ministers, including eu ministers quite often.

q: how did you see sweden’s environmental politics, domestic and internationally, evolve as you were minister?

a: well first of all, domestically, the most important aspect was climate change, we set new national targets for sweden’s climate emissions and it meant that we are supposed to have net zero emissions by 2050, and that is still the swedish national target. another important target was to make swedish vehicles fossil independent by 2030, and again that is still the target, and sweden is working very hard on achieving that. added to that, we also work on the baltic sea, the planet’s largest body of brackish water. the baltic is one of the most intensely used seas on the planet with heavy environmental challenges, so that i think we worked hard on. finally, another domestic thing was really to make stakeholders — local communities — involved in keeping biodiversity in sweden.

q: sweden is clearly one of the most environmentally progressive nations in the world – how has sweden made that happen?

a: i think it’s very much in the swedish tradition, that’s one part of it. i mean swedish people, they are usually very close to nature, either we live close to nature or being close to nature by heart. but another aspect was that i think we learned early on first of all from rachel carson, the person who really introduced environmental issues also in sweden. another aspect of that was american scientists working closely together with swedish scientists in those years was absolutely essential. in the 1960s as environmental policy was introduced in sweden, we continued to establish these institutions to work further on science to motivate people to really make it part of everyday life for ordinary people. and i think now it’s not very controversial, it’s quite natural for people to be involved in sorting or separating waste in households or to use cars that don’t emit too much, which is also good for private economy. people save money by having less waste and by having, paying less for fuels that are not necessary.

q: would you also say that sweden’s decoupling of gdp and emissions played a large role? 

a: i think that the thing is, in people’s ordinary lives, you experience that you reduce your energy consumption thereby you save money, you reduce your waste and thereby you save money, you reduce your emissions from cars which also means less gasoline, and you save money. meanwhile, economy is still blooming in sweden, and it’s, of course, not just because of (the) environment, but those things usually go hand in hand. people really have to in their ordinary life experience that the economy is getting better. but yes, also on the statistical level, the overall national level, you can see that we have had really one of the best opportunities for economic growth in europe, meanwhile we have also seen our emissions being reduced in sweden.

q: what do you think the biggest challenge sweden faces in furthering its sustainability efforts?

a: there are many things to be improved and there are two great challenges for sweden. on one hand, the transport sector needs to change. sweden has a small population on a very large area of land, which makes it a sparsely populated country with need for a lot of transport. we must change the transportation sector to be independent of fossil fuels. the second challenge is changing consumption. even if we reduced our emissions here in sweden, we import so many things that require emissions in countries where they produce these things that we buy. that’s the other great challenge.

q: what can the u.s. learn from sweden?

a: first of all, it should be said that sweden learned from the united states in the beginning. but i think one different thing is that sweden has been moving forward, based on a growing extent, broad shared values. it’s not that the u.s. should use swedish values, but it’s important to inquire and explore the national values of (the) united states and based on those values, you can conserve nature and promote (an) environmentally friendly lifestyle by nurturing your own national culture. actions are defined in the roots of motivation and the commitment inside a country. that’s what we’ve done, and i think that’s why sweden has been so successful, even if there are still many things to improve.

q: with the u.s. expressing intent to back out of the paris agreement, has another country stepped in as a global environmental leader? how might america’s inaction affect the paradigm of global environmental politics?

a: well, that is difficult to answer. i think it’s quite unlikely, but it is sometimes speculated that china will step in and be the leader instead of the united states. i’m sure the chinese would be happy to do that and i think that americans should really be aware of that. for america to leave this to the chinese, is a great opportunity for china. but there are many reasons for i’m not sure that really will happen. first of all, china still has a large dependence on fossil fuels, even if their renewable energies are growing enormously. secondly, i think there is a need for a different kind of international cooperation, one based on the ideas of the nobel laureate elinor ostrom, the first female to receive the prize in economic science. her idea was not just one global agreement, but rather using that as a basis and added to global agreement are local level agreements and coalitions between cities and states. all of this could still be possible within the paris agreement – which was really from the beginning an american idea. the genius within the agreement is that it is not just built top down, but also from the bottom up. that possibility should be used more extensively, but i think it’s great that so many americans are really still “in.” it means really that there are so many states, communities, businesses, and others who are still part of the paris agreement by heart and are working toward the goals. this might be the great chance to mobilize people all around the united states to come out stronger in the end, which is what i’m hoping for.  

q: has the idea of the paris agreement been effective thus far?

a: i think first of all it is a great hope, because there is such a broad support behind it. i would never have dreamed of so many countries supporting it. now almost every country in the world has delivered their national plans. it entered into force much earlier than anyone could expect it to, now it’s under sort of a transitional solution. this is another sign that the agreement has stronger support than almost any other international agreement. there are reasons for hope, but there still needs to be much more delivered, which is really the great challenge here. nations must upgrade their emissions levels and, in a sense, support and push each other toward raising their ambitions. i would like a type of competition among countries where they try and push each other’s ambition levels higher to really take the lead in this race. i think it would be possible, though not the most likely right now. i think reality will require such ideas from us.

q: do you think the u.n. conference of parties (cops) are effective overall? how could the cops become a more effective tool in combating climate change?

a: there is a need for some reforms within the u.n. system, certainly. but they will take time and countries could come up with requirements for reforms that can’t be accepted by others, so i think it’s rather about releasing more positive forces in other channels as well as supplementing the main u.n. track with other supporting actions. a group of countries, could form a coalition to move ahead, regardless of what will happen with the paris agreement. such an action is not going against the paris agreement, but is rather supporting it. ngos could also push nations to upgrade national ambition levels since it’s easier to work on the local and national level than solely on the global level. i think that the local and the national commitments and engagements by people is enormously important.

q: what is the role of the younger generations in today’s era of accelerated technology and climate change? how do millennials and the younger generations – what can we do, what’s our role?  

a: it’s all about values. it’s extremely important that young people feel they can take the lead and express values like justice, community, and personal responsibility. we both have to work together, collectively in the community, but also there is a need for personal responsibility and certainly for greater justice. these values could be expressed by young people. additionally, we have to build sustainability into the dna of our own lives, and the global interconnected society. the values many young people have could really support and express sustainability, allowing them to be leaders of this new kind of lifestyle. finally, i think younger generations must act with hope. there is a difference between being just superficially optimistic and to be hopeful, however. hope is a much deeper thing and it’s also something where you start to act based on hope — in your local community or in a bigger shared community between different societies. everyone should trust that acting on hope leads to something. reality will start to change, and again, there’s a certain power in this. that power should be trusted. young people must feel that and trust in hope.

washington – a capitol hill hearing called to discuss the use of technology to address climate change quickly veered into a long debate about how much human activity has contributed to the country’s warming temperature.

the house committee on science, space, and technology hearing, held may 16, was led by its chairman rep. lamar smith, r-texas. 

in reference to climate change, rep. smith warned of “legitimate concerns that scientists are biased in favor of reaching predetermined conclusions that inevitability lead to alarmist findings wrongfully reported as facts.”

his skepticism was condemned by committee member rep. suzanne bonamici, d-ore., who said “we should not be using valuable time to discredit scientific facts,” and she encouraged a bipartisan effort to work quickly to address climate change.

“we can no longer sit back and debate the merits of taking action (on climate change),” rep. bonamici said. “the time is now.” 

while other lawmakers, such as rep. dana rohrabacher, r-calif., have expressed doubt as to whether climate change exists, a bipartisan group of members at the hearing concurred that mitigation and adaptation technology is necessary, with rep. eddie bernice johnson, d-texas, the committee’s ranking member, and rep. andy biggs, r-ariz., expressing support. 

“it is crucial that u.s. policy focuses on technology,” declared rep. biggs, who said a policy aimed at hydraulic fracturing to lower carbon emissions already has proven to boost the economy. 

even rep. rohrabacher supported some technology investment, speaking about the need to develop new technology to mitigate the amount of u.s. carbon pollution, such as a new battery to sustain solar and wind power technology.

rep. bill foster, d-ill., echoed the call for new technology, saying, “it is clear that we are underinvesting in technology for climate change, specifically for energy research, development and demonstration.”

but chairman smith cautioned against over-regulation.

“before we impose energy taxes or costly and ineffective government regulations, we should acknowledge the uncertainties that surround climate change research,” said rep. smith. “natural climate variability contributes to this uncertainty,” he said, citing solar cycles, volcanic activity, temperature fluctuations, and long-term oceanic circulation patterns.

he also said that other unknowns, specifically the future of energy production and consumption, create uncertainty when it comes to accurately predicting climate change.

congresswoman bonamici listed examples of how she says climate change has affected residents and the economy in her oregon district. she noted that devastating wildfires last summer resulted in “losses” for the timber industry, as well as high levels of carbon dioxide that has changed atmospheric conditions for fishers, wineries, farmers, and the tourism industry in general.

the full debate can be seen on the committee’s web page.

the culture there is much different than it is here in the united states. the way of thinking when it comes to the environment is integrated completely into society. recycling, for example, is a must. everyone knows to sort their recyclables and people are looked at strangely if they do not. it’s a way of life; here in the united states, not so much. there are many towns and cities in the states that do not have this well-maintained, secure infrastructure. similarly, like with public transportation, there are places in the united states where public transportation is not an option. it may be too expensive or the bus or train system may not even run enough or cover enough distance. i currently live in chicago, illinois, and i know that there are neighborhoods on the south side where, unfortunately, public transportation does not reach. in the grand scheme of things, mass transit can help in mitigating carbon emissions. how can this happen or even be considered when people cannot access these opportunities? this is a environmental issue, of course, but also a social issue.

it’s important to understand what environmentally conscious countries, like sweden, are pushing forward, socially and politically. that way, other countries can one day emulate these initiatives and eventually help save the planet. since the 1970’s, sweden has made progressive measures to ensure that the environment has been protected. even within the economy and industry, there has always been a common understanding that the environment is a crucial part of life. people there understand that the environment is necessary for life–it produces everything we have. additionally, many people believe in the intrinsic value of nature, spending much of their time outdoors. it just makes me wonder: what does that mean for countries like the united states, where we have time and time again put the environment second–or sometimes last? where do our priorities lie?

another county-wide effort to promote healthier citizens and environment is the orange county food council, which seeks to raise awareness of food insecurity in one of the wealthiest counties in the state, and provide direction in navigating those community resources that provide relief. formed in 2016 as a response to community requests, the council operates on many several fronts, including promoting economic partnerships among local farmers and businesses and connecting food-insecure populations with assistance. 

mayor tom stevens of hillsborough, the seat of orange county, believes that such initiatives do not exist in a vacuum, but actively inform each other and contribute to a holistic vision of health and wellbeing for citizens and the environment that we share. 

before becoming a state representative, rep. dyer worked in landscaping and forest management. being in that industry has allowed him to not only understand new hampshire values, but also gain real world understanding of the environment. while serving in the new hampshire house, rep. dyer also works as a graphic designer. “… working with various business owners and startups in new hampshire i have been able to… help their companies grow and become centerpieces of their communities,” rep. dyer said.

we chatted with rep. dyer shortly after new hampshire gov. chris sununu announced that his state would not be a part of the group of states planning to follow the guidelines of the paris climate accord. the reason for this is that new hampshire already has high energy prices, with new hampshire state director greg moore saying doing this deal “will hurt the economy, kill jobs, and drive up energy prices even further on families.”

as a libertarian and a member of the house, rep. dyer has a unique perspective on the environmental issues facing new hampshire, including climate change in a state economy that is reliant on carbon eminent forms of energy. what follows is an edited transcript of rep. dyer’s conversation with planet forward.

q: first, what do you think about your governor’s decision to not be a part of the paris climate agreement with states like california and virginia, etc.?

a: although i have my disagreements with gov. sununu, i actually support that. since the paris accord would focus still more on a lot of economic policy designed to combat climate change. and i don’t really think that new hampshire is in a position to afford those kinds of additional policies.

a policy that is openly discussed in the paris accord is the carbon tax that they wanted to implement, and you know that is going to cost (more) — especially for someone like myself; i heat my house with coal in the winter time. a carbon tax would disproportionately affect people who heat with carbon-based forms…

there are so many things that a carbon tax effects that (it) would make it hard for normal people to live. so, you know there are lots of parts of the paris accord that i just really couldn’t get behind… although i have my disagreements with trump and i have my disagreements with sununu, you know this wasn’t one of them.

q: federal guidelines, such as the clean power plan (cpp), have good intentions when it comes to saving the environment, but do you believe that the greater federal regulations and lack of free market control outweigh the good intentions?

a: i wish that they would do it in other ways. i think the best way is by tax credits. i think that if you incentivize companies to invest in clean energy by giving them tax credits that they can make use of, that would be the most productive use of policy, at least at the federal level.

certainly, i think we can have the discussion of tax credits at the state level, but one of the problems that exist is tax credits at both the federal and state level you start to have this disproportionate effect where the government is now starting to pick winners and losers in the market. and by the very nature of you having a tax credit, it’s almost acting as a subsidy to those companies — which is what it is designed to do, but by raising the cost of all the other forms of energy.

as a libertarian, i resist mandates that act as artificial controls in the market. but i understand why they exist, because if they didn’t exist then it would be very likely that new hampshire would become very reliant on one or two sources of energy, whereas realistically we cannot be so reliant on that. does it increase cost, yes, it does, but it has some value at least.

q: what policy can the federal government do that is environmental but libertarian in nature?

a: tax credits are one thing. the less money that the state takes from companies that are looking to invest in renewable energy is a good thing. does that mean that i think fossil fuel energy providers should be taxed at a higher rate? technically yes, but that’s the nature of tax credits. already the fossil fuel industry has a myriad of tax credits at their disposal that they can use to mitigate their business taxes, and other various taxes that they pay on their property and capital gains. you might as well extend and issue credits to renewable energy companies.

until we are out of the woods with the federal deficit we are not going to be able to make much headway on things that are important, like enabling investment in renewable energy… if i were to, say, go to congress and talk to my federal representatives they are all democrats. and say i want a renewable energy tax credit that’s broad based… they would probably say ‘that sounds like a great idea’ and then go to the congressional budget office and be very quickly disheartened to learn that they can’t afford to implement these types of credits…

q: do you believe actions that help the environment, recycling solar energy, etc., should be voluntary on the individual level, or are they so important that they should be mandatory?

a: obviously the only way that you can address the issue is to change things that you do in your everyday life, whether or not that’s recycling, making more efficient use of your land, growing your own food, buying less meat. there are so many things you can do in your everyday life that can reduce your carbon footprint that it’s really sad that more people don’t make those choices — but we can’t force them to and we shouldn’t. and the best thing we can do is educate people on what actions can reduce their carbon footprint.

“judge blocks trump’s travel ban.”

“democratic ags step up legal fight against trump travel ban.”

in the past few months, democratic attorneys general have emerged at the forefront of the anti-trump resistance, making waves by racking up legal victories against the two travel ban executive orders. but that’s not all they’ve been up to: democratic ags have taken legal action against the administration for delaying energy efficiency standards, are investigating exxon mobil for making potentially fraudulent claims about climate change, and have joined forces to urge congress to preserve epa funding. as the administration plans to curtail environmental regulations, democratic ags have stepped up to mitigate some of the damage.

this semester, i’ve had the privilege of interning for the democratic attorneys general association (daga), which aims to support and elect democratic ags and educate the public about the importance of ags in our political system. in this role, i’ve researched some of the actions attorneys general have taken on environmental issues, particularly as former oklahoma ag (and climate denier) scott pruitt has taken the reins at the epa. i’ve also helped curate social media content across facebook, twitter, and instagram for the organization, on a variety of issues. here’s what i’ve found.

during the obama administration, republican ags began to collaborate more often, and banded together to oppose environmental protections. most notably, republican ags formed coalitions to take legal action against the clean power plan, the waters of the u.s. rule, and the stream protection rule. they were aided by hefty donations from the fossil fuel industry, and koch industries in particular. when pruitt became epa administrator, emails released from his time as oklahoma ag showed the depth of ties between his office and big oil companies.  

unfortunately, over the past few months, president trump and congress have managed to roll back some of these protections. but all hope is not lost. building on the same legal tactics employed by republican ags, democratic ags are filing lawsuits and amicus briefs to safeguard important environmental and consumer protections. in the past few weeks alone, california ag xavier becerra filed a freedom of information act request seeking information about pruitt’s ties to the oil and gas industries, massachusetts ag maura healey scored a win in her investigation into exxon, and a coalition of ags filed a lawsuit accusing the administration of violating federal law by delaying the release of energy standards.

daga’s most engaged grassroots supports have noticed. our 150,000 and counting facebook followers have responded most enthusiastically to posts about environmental action – garnering over a thousand more likes per post on average than posts on other topics such as student loan reform, voting rights, and healthcare. on twitter, tweets and retweets from @democraticags generally receive more interactions than other types of content. and on instagram – a medium which can be difficult to build up for political organizations – posts about environmental issues have attracted respectable attention as well, in comparison to posts about other issue areas on our page.

as we approach elections in 2017, 2018, and beyond, democratic ags will undoubtedly play a key role in shaping the environmental policy debate. ensuring that the public knows about the responsibilities and powers of attorneys general will be critical as well. social media plays a vital part in shaping public awareness about these issues, and advocacy organizations should employ succinct, accessible, and honest messaging about the key actors and actions in policy debates to allow voters to make the best possible decision come election time.