washington — supreme court justices stumbled this week when hearing arguments about the most impactful environmental case in a generation. 

the problem, in part, is that the case concerns nothing.

“there isn’t really anything for the supreme court to consider,” said joe minott, executive director and chief counsel of the clean air council. “what’s interesting to me is why the court should have agreed to this case at all.”

west virginia v. environmental protection agency concerns an obama-era environmental regulation — the clean power plan (cpp) — that the court suspended in 2016 before it could ever take effect. then, the trump administration further squashed it, replacing it with the weaker affordable clean energy (ace) rule. 

but coal industry representatives and a bloc of red states are now calling on the court to say congress, under obama’s plan, didn’t authorize the epa to exercise “unbridled” power to regulate power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions. 

if the justices agree –– and at least five on the 6-3 conservative majority did voice some alignment — the agency’s ability to control power plant emissions overall could be ravaged. this would be bad news for president biden, who aims to cut the nation’s emissions in half by 2030. 

“electricity generation is a pervasive and essential aspect of modern life and squarely within the states’ traditional zone,” solicitor general lindsay see told the justices, speaking on behalf of state petitioners. “congress did not green light this transformative power.”

red states pulled evidence from the clean air act, particularly section 111(d), which instructs the epa to set emission standards, taking into account factors like cost, that consider the application of the “best system of emission reduction.”

“it takes an existing pollution source as a given and asks what emissions rate is achievable for that source,” said jacob roth, who represented private companies in the case. 

roth and fellow cpp opponents argued obama’s plan would impose such strict emission standards that the energy sector’s only option would be “generation shifting,” or transitioning away from dirtier options like coal to production technologies that use relatively clean natural gas and renewable energy to emit less. 

to some justices on monday, this argument walks an “inside the fence” line. 

“inside the fence” regulation would determine how a specific plant operates, which is how cpp opponents interpret the clean air act. “outside the fence” measures would regulate the nation’s electricity grid as a whole — stretching epa authority.

“traditionally, epa regulations under section 111(d) have concerned only what goes on within the fenceline of the sources,” said craig oren, professor emeritus of rutgers law school and clean air act expert. “epa’s clean power plan is a very extensive program that goes beyond what happens inside the fence line.”

to justice elena kagan, this argument has contradictions and bears no necessary relationship.

“inside-the-fence reform can be very small or it can be catastrophic,” she said. “there are inside-the-fence technological fixes that could drive the entire coal industry out of business tomorrow.” 

per justice clarence thomas’ example, this could look like the epa requiring a power plant to install such a costly technology that it would be unable to compete in the electricity market. 

applying the major questions doctrine

justices struggled on monday with whether this case applied to what’s called the “major questions doctrine,” which limits federal agencies’ power to affect consequential regulations. 

according to utility air regulatory group v. epa’s ruling, the court should block these regulations with “vast economic and political significance” unless congress’ statute very clearly gives the agency authority. 

“this is a major question because it allows epa to determine what the power sector as a whole should look like and who can be in it,” see argued.

many justices appeared to be fumbling through how to apply this vague doctrine to a defunct rule. 

“i think the potential surprise here…doesn’t go to regulating co2….but is using a cap-and-trade regime,” justice brett kavanaugh said. 

he suggested that the epa threatened to install such a “regime” for any state non-compliant with the cpp. while the epa issued a model cap-and-trade plan, it never formally imposed it on any states. 

justice sotomayor grappled with how the court could apply this doctrine given kagan’s explanation of the “fence” contradiction. 

“how do we define this major question?” she asked see. “it can’t be that what congress has chosen might lead in or outside the fence because there’s some out-of-fence activities that don’t necessarily lead to generation system-changing.” 

what happens next

at least five right-leaning justices appeared to voice some agreement with cpp’s opponents, increasing the likelihood the court may strike down the obama-era plan. 

only justice amy coney barrett expressed a mixed opinion.

“if we’re thinking about epa regulating greenhouse gases, well there’s a match between the regulation and the agency’s wheelhouse, right?” she said. 

the court is expected to rule on the case by the end of its term in late june or early july. until then, environmental advocacy groups will continue to rally in support of the clean air act. 

“if they do sort of move on this, then it’s to me truly a very political thing to do,” said minott of the clean air council. “that’s a really dangerous precedent.” 

from the paris agreement, in which most developed nations are failing to meet their 2030 emission reduction targets, to the many pledges made at cop26, world leaders have proven themselves excellent at making grand promises only to break them. luckily, we don’t have to accept this approach. the change to a better, more inclusive, more humble dialogue on climate change is not only necessary, but possible. 

as a 17-year-old student accompanying the american conservation coalition at cop26 in glasgow, i had the unique experience of being the least knowledgeable person in the room at almost all times. i got to meet brilliant individuals while seeing firsthand the relationship between policymakers, experts, and constituents. my involvement in acc has given me insight into the often polarizing nature of climate politics and i’ve been encouraged to promote action that doesn’t exclude realistic ideas. while i went to glasgow to represent young conservatives interested in combating climate change, i also learned that this issue requires a new, collective shift in approach from people on all sides and in all sectors.

though historically environmentalism has not always been a partisan issue, the left has typically been most present in the conversation on climate change over the past several decades in the united states. unfortunately, from what i have observed, the approach has generally utilized apocalyptic language, emotions like fear, and grandiose promises, as seen in proposals like the green new deal. while these radical proposals haven’t gone far legislatively, they have brought attention to the issue, especially when it comes to young people. the fridays for future march, attended by greta thunberg, during cop26 perfectly exemplified this, as many young people showed up to express their frustrations, yet marchers offered very little in terms of realistic, achievable solutions. the organization produced a petition, which achieves the necessary task of asking politicians to acknowledge the urgent nature of climate change and the fact that there are solutions, but gives only vague references to what those solutions could look like and no consideration of how they could actually be implemented. 

in recent years, many right leaning politicians and individuals, including myself at one point, have shown hesitancy when it comes to engaging on the issue of climate change for various reasons. fortunately, acc and the creation of the conservative climate caucus show the right starting to again play a role in climate solutions. in typical conservative fashion, the solutions aren’t always as emotionally appealing to young people, but they present market-based solutions which benefit both the environment and the economy. for example, the growing climate solutions act aims to aid farmers and ranchers who may want to participate in voluntary environmental credit markets in order to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. a history of climate change denial also causes justifiable mistrust among some young voters. while realistic solutions and technological innovations are crucial to a thriving global market and planet, from what i’ve observed at cop26 and other events, conservatives lack a public passion for resolving environmental issues, which would likely increase their credibility. 

if both sides are unwilling to change counterproductive tactics, there is no reason to expect change. fortunately, the first-ever global conservative climate summit (gccs) and cop26 marked small but significant changes to our collective approach. while the gccs provided conservatives a space in a conversation which has typically occurred without them, much of the discussion centered efforts toward bipartisanship and highlighted the necessity for inclusivity, regardless of which political party holds more influence over an issue. 

after listening to a variety of speakers, ranging from theresa may, former uk prime minister and leader of the conservative party, to van jones, left-leaning news and political commentator, author, and lawyer, i realized that i was wrong. before cop26, i expected, as i think many young people do, to see the areas in which different parties and ideologies contradict each other on the issue of climate. however, i realized that in some ways the left’s shortcomings are the right’s strengths, and the right’s shortcomings are the strengths of the left. i found that i was the most inspired and informed after listening to panels which included members from both sides. 

similarly, the typical relationship between experts and politicians was challenged during a panel discussion in which representative werani chilenga of malawi spoke on the challenges his country faced in this fight. after expressing an earnest level of concern about impediments to climate policy in malawi, he posed a question to the listeners and asked them for guidance, knowing the audience consisted of many economists and environmental experts. having been an observer of american politics, it was wildly refreshing to see a politician humble enough actually to ask the experts.

these experiences illustrate the need for changes in the dynamic between legislators and environmental scientists and politicians of differing political parties. young people want to be passionately engaged on the subject of climate change. still, we want to know that proposed solutions are realistic and that the commitments agreed upon by our representatives aren’t just performative stunts. if this issue is to be taken seriously, it requires a sincere focus on real, data-driven action. rather than seeking approval or popularity by making false promises, politicians and leaders must seek guidance from climate experts and innovators and let the youth see their genuine efforts. we don’t want to be told everything is ok to salvage our feelings; we want to know real action is being taken and how to participate in that action.

brooklyn brown is the president of the salt lake city branch of the american conservation coalition and a student at clearfield high school. 

arlington, va. — students usually worry about schoolwork and tests, but the looming threat of climate change adds additional stress to children’s futures.

“we need to educate, we need to step up and we need to really ensure that our planet is protected and we’re able to function in a sustainable and environmentally-friendly society,” student leader thomas brulay said.

with education being one of the largest public sectors in the united states, coalitions like aspen institute’s k-12 climate action plan and generation180 partner with schools to help them reach sustainability goals and net-zero energy.

“it’s really thinking about the school districts developing these local climate action plans and then how state and the federal government can really help support that implementation,” laura schifter, a k-12 climate action plan senior fellow, said.

schools in the u.s. occupy about 2 million acres of land and teach around 50 million students, according to schifter. generation180 program director tish tablan also said that schools emit carbon dioxide levels similar to that of 18 coal power plants and that switching to solar would reduce schools’ carbon footprint.

“in 29 states plus dc, you can go solar with no upfront costs, so the barrier of upfront costs can be removed for many schools around the country, and that really levels the playing field, so that solar is not a technology just for wealthy districts,” tablan said.

stockton unified school district in california championed green advocacy work by its quick production of electric school buses. energy education specialist gilbert rosas said their bus fleet acts as a model for other school districts and opens the students’ eyes to environmentally-friendly careers.

“not only do i understand the demographic of stockton unified, but i look like the demographic,” rosas said. “i think it’s important for kids to realize that we have cool green career path choices, and they have the ability to be anything they want to be.”

discovery elementary school in arlington, virginia is one of the many schools that are being catalysts for educating environmental activists. as soon as students enter primary school, they work on year-long mastery projects to help their school become greener.

“all of the projects that the students come up with are amazing. the way they get excited about growing lettuce, that i swear they won’t eat until they’re a part of the process, and how proud they are to have taken part in that is just really inspiring,” principal erin russo said.

from primary school to high school, students like holly thorpe and thomas brulay, join and form organizations to put what they learn into action. thorpe and brulay lead environmental efforts in green champions, a student-run club in florida’s miami-dade county school district. these groups help kids realize their impact on the planet.

“we’re running out of time, and the climate crisis keeps getting worse and worse, and if we don’t step up and do something about it, then it’s going to be irreversible effects to the environment,” brulay said.

what makes climate change so complex is that every country, every industry, and every individual is a stakeholder. governments, businesses, and nonprofits across the spectrum have differing priorities on how to tackle the climate crisis. climate change disproportionately affects global south countries who have contributed the least to the problem, also making climate change an equity issue. throw a catastrophic pandemic into the mix, and climate change becomes an even more complex issue that only worsens human health and survival. 

the clock is ticking, and every day vulnerable communities around the world face climate consequences that threaten their livelihoods––from droughts to hurricanes to rising sea levels. these consequences will only continue to spread and worsen, which is why cop26 takes place at such a crucial time. 

i hope that countries, especially the biggest players in climate politics, prioritize the planet over profit and develop drastically stronger national climate plans that highlight climate actions towards achieving the paris agreement. i hope that climate finance leverages the vast resources of the private sector to support a robust global transition towards greener technologies and processes. i hope decision makers will finally hear and amplify the voices of those most affected by the climate crisis––from coastal communities to youth activists to indigenous environmental defenders.

can these hopes become a reality in time, before it’s too late? i’m looking forward to finding out in a few weeks. as a young person deeply concerned about the state of our planet and its inhabitants, it’s an honor to be part of the conversation.

—

about the author:

francesca edralin is a 2021 planet forward comcast sustainable storytelling fellow, 2020-21 planet 世界杯欧洲预选赛免费直播 , and 2021 planet forward storyfest winner. she is in her final semester at the george washington university pursuing a b.a in international affairs with minors in journalism and mass communication and sustainability. although she grew up in new jersey, her family comes from the philippines, one of the countries currently most severely impacted by climate change and environmental conflict. her background led her to be passionate about environmental issues––especially looking at the climate crisis through a global lens and understanding how climate change disproportionately impacts the world’s poorest countries and communities.

washington—president joe biden said that the united states is facing “a climate in crisis” among other challenges in his inauguration speech wednesday, marking the beginning of a presidency that promises to take unprecedented action on the global emergency.

“we face an attack on our democracy and on truth. a raging virus, growing inequity, the sting of systemic racism, a climate in crisis, america’s role in the world,” biden said. “any one of these would be enough to challenge us in profound ways. but the fact is, we face them all at once.”

many environmental activists were relieved to hear biden reinforce his commitment to addressing the climate crisis after former president donald trump consistently played down the threat of climate change over the past four years.

“what a difference a day makes,” said john noël, a senior climate campaigner with greenpeace usa. “we are at a complete 180 from the trump administration that stressed a borderline criminal approach to climate action and total deference to the fossil fuel industry.”

biden backed up his rhetoric almost immediately, signing an executive order to return the u.s. to the paris climate agreement and renew its international commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the near future as one of first actions in office. biden also signed executive orders halting the keystone xl pipeline from canada to texas and putting a temporary moratorium on oil and gas leasing activities in the arctic national wildlife refuge, both of which were intensely opposed from environmentalists.

he also asked the department of interior to review the deteriorating conditions of the grand staircase-escalante, northeast east canyons, bears ears, and seamounts marine national monuments.

natalie mebane, associate director of united states policy at 350 action, an environmental advocacy political action committee, said she was very pleased with biden’s decisions to rejoin the paris climate agreement and halt the keystone xl pipeline. “i’ve been fighting keystone since it was proposed back in 2008,” mebane said.

however, the executive order to block the pipeline seemed to irritate sen. john barrasso, r-wyo., a potential forewarning of the backlash biden’s ambitious climate agenda may create among congressional republicans.

“my concern is, of course, some of the executive orders that are coming, specifically in regard to the keystone xl pipeline – it was a speech of unity and it’s important to govern that way as well,” barrasso said, referring to biden’s calls for unity in his inauguration speech.

the new president may also face opposition from progressive democrats and activists who want to see much more dramatic action and policy on reducing carbon emissions.

“rejoining the paris agreement is great, but that’s not the end of the story. a lot of work needs to happen to establish a new identity and then live up to it. revisiting pipeline decisions is fine, but we still have to decarbonize,” said daniel bresette, executive director of environmental and energy study institute.

biden will now embark on an unprecedented climate agenda to make progress on an issue that the president sees as the greatest challenge the country and world faces. his plan includes an investment of $2 trillion in renewable energy and overhauls of transport and manufacturing in the hopes of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

scientists have warned that the earth’s climate is close to reaching a tipping point known as the point of no return. in an interconnected climate system, passing one tipping point could trigger a flood of irreversible changes. if global temperatures rise past 1.5 degrees celsius, ice sheets could collapse entirely, leading to even higher sea levels. as the sea ice melts and mixes into warming oceans, which store massive amounts of carbon dioxide, the gas from deeper waters will be released. this chain reaction will create an enduring cycle of global warming. 

not only are anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions causing us to near the climate tipping point, but the united nations has reported that climate change exacerbates inequality. this disparity is caused by the three factors of increased exposure of disadvantaged groups to the effects of climate change, increased susceptibility to damage, and decreased ability to cope and recover. advantaged groups that are the most prepared for climate disasters are often the ones who live in safer areas or have the ability to move and rebuild their lives after a disaster hits. for them, the threat may not seem real. 

even amid the massive california wildfires, residents were not affected equally. as the sky turned an apocalyptic red, celebrities were criticized for hiring private firms to supplement state and local firefighters to protect their homes. meanwhile, housekeepers and gardeners continued to go to work in these homes out of fear of losing their jobs or because no one had bothered to notify them of evacuation orders. for some, the wildfires are a looming threat of losing everything they’ve worked for. others watch the destruction from the safety of their second homes. 

while the nation is busy debating whether climate change is real, a false dichotomy exists between climate change and equality. climate change is interwoven with racial injustice, gender inequality, and poverty, among other issues. these are not separate issues for policymakers to prioritize, one over the other. by creating awareness for the interconnectivity between the united states’ most pressing problems, people might be able to understand that climate change is tangible. if the nation cannot move past the argument of what is true and what is false, we are already past the point of no return. 

to overcome this argument, we need to believe in science. this may seem simple, but how many modern scientists have household names in the united states? scientists have become faceless in our society due to a lack of adequate communication between scientists and the public. the american media has a duty to become better equipped with reporting scientific news by listening to scientists and translating their quantitative findings into a language that can be consumed and understood by the general public. the pew research center has found that public trust in the government has hit record lows. if the media practiced science reporting that did not get entangled with american politics, trust in science and trust in the government could be renewed. 

in an electoral year, people voted based on the partisan issues they stand for and against. unless we can urgently return climate change to its status as a bipartisan issue, the conversations surrounding taxes, gun laws, or abortion rights won’t matter anymore.

there’s a new flashpoint to drive profits in the political war on climate.

michael shellenberger’s controversial new book, “apocalypse never: why environmental alarmism hurts us all,” describes how “climate change has been polarized between those who deny it and those who exaggerate it.”

there’s no denying that climate is a polarizing political issue. like abortion, guns, and immigration, climate is one of four wedge issues many partisan power-brokers never want to resolve. by amplifying every extreme assertion by either side, professional manipulators can keep republican and democratic voters far apart, in opposing media silos, where they can hate on each other. shellenberger’s new book not only documents the divide, but intensifies it.

that’s not all his fault. let’s face it: politics and media demand that climate change be cast as either a full-on catastrophe or a cynical hoax. to generate attention, print and online publishers tell environmental writers to hover close to one of these two hotspots. if we want to sell books or generate headlines, we need to stay as close to the heat as we can — even if that means falling into the sun and being devoured.

it seems odd to have to say this, but climate change is a looming catastrophe, scientists overwhelmingly agree. that other ecological problems may be even worse is no cause for comfort. we have an abundance of riches — if our objective is to sell the prospect of catastrophe. 

but solving environmental problems requires rational action, not panic or denial. shellenberger is right in one respect: crisis or not, our movement’s overwhelming focus on imminent disaster is not helpful if we want to actually avert disaster. constant gloom-and-doom exhausts our supporters, funds our opponents, and makes the war on climate change so profitable to cynical political and media manipulators that they’d prefer to risk the end of the world, rather than sacrifice a crisis they can exploit for years.

the result is a big setback for effective action before catastrophe is upon us.

we contemplated a similar strategy when we began writing our new book. to sell our case for bipartisan climate solutions, we could either pander to the right with an attack on fear-mongering, or pander to the left by attacking skepticism and denial. instead, we took the riskier approach: tell a more complicated truth that doesn’t fit either narrative or congratulate either side. 

our book, “in this together,” is not another shocking expose of the conniving left-wing statists or evil right-wing corporatists that must be stopped. it is an honest look at how to end the politically co-opted, media-friendly “war for the planet,” and save the environment instead.

such earnest objectives grate on the nerves of most sophisticated political observers. like the boy scouts and league of women voters, bipartisan efforts like ours seem quaint, quixotic, and hopelessly naive. as veteran climate journalist david roberts wrote of one of our favorite initiatives, the bipartisan climate leadership council, “this is the way of the very sensible centrist, an american political creature that rarely produces tangible results, but always garners heaps of praise. many center-left dems view it as the sine qua non of politics. but it’s utterly disconnected from anything going on in u.s. politics right now. it’s a fantasy, a trip to la-la land. it amounts to a kind of enforced naivety that centrists too often mistake for virtue.”

roberts is a fine journalist, but his political analysis is self-defeating. true, centrist solutions are dead-on-arrival in today’s political industry. they are a threat to the gridlock that maximizes revenue for lobbyists, pollsters, communicators, media, and the elite strategists who keep voters divided so they keep their policy-making power. so long as climate protection is owned by one party, it will forever be held hostage for political gain. rational policy will never be rational politics. only competition between the parties — a battle for how and not whether to solve the problem — makes saving the world a sensible political strategy.

the political war on climate change — pitting progressives against conservatives — pays off quite nicely for the entrenched partisan power-brokers who keep us fighting. they make money by selling protection to vested interests. the best way to drive demand for protection is to create danger. by keeping the left and right in battle, each side intensifying the hatred and extremism of the other, they not only dominate the policymaking process — they also harvest an abundance of risk that they can deliver to their clients, and squeeze vested interests for maximum profits.

the only losers are, in the end, everybody.

here is the simple truth we all know. climate change is real. it is human-caused. and combined with devastating destruction of oceans, forests, and biodiversity, it is a threat to our prosperity, security, and lives — if not today, then soon, by any reasonable standard.

the political media industry has set a trap for all sides in the climate debate, and every one of us has fallen in. we’re engaged in a war that leads only to more war. the $17 billion our donor friends have allocated for climate and ocean protection won’t end the hostilities — it will drive even more dollars to our opposition, and push resolution further into the future. ultimately, our endless war will turn a potential catastrophe into a real one — no matter how long it takes.

there is one way out, but it’s so radical few will entertain it. end the war. join forces with past enemies. engage in radical collaboration.

more than 7 in 10 of us can come to agreement even on the most divisive wedge issues. the political party that appeals to that 70% first will win most every race they enter — no need to raise and spend billions with that level of support.

let’s end the war and save the planet.

here are 10 traps environmental donors and activists are lured into, and ideas on how to free ourselves to get the job done:

mistake no. 1: selling catastrophe 

it seems to work every time. catastrophes blamed on evil villains generate more money and media coverage, compared with narratives of hope and optimism. but these benefits come with hidden costs. catastrophism exhausts our support base. it numbs the public to our calls-to-arms. it alienates those concerned but not alarmed.

a better way: cultivate hope and optimism. optimism does not raise as much money or media coverage, but it rejuvenates and broadens our base. and new methods of digital outreach can multiply the power of optimistic problem-solvers. 

mistake no. 2: demonizing too many enemies 

demonization builds opposition to our proposals. every dollar devoted to demonization generates an opposition dollar. the more demons we target, the more enemies we attract. corporate leaders are trapped in the debt-and-consumption machine, just as much as you and i are. they exploit it, as do we, and they profit more than most of us. but they can’t change it alone.

a better way: the enemy isn’t corporations, capitalism, government, or consumers. the enemy is the entrenched system that drives overproduction and overconsumption. we’re all part of that system. we need to engage stakeholders across the system to understand our mutual struggles and work together for change.

mistake no. 3: speaking only to the left 

the right and left are natural partners. their differences are real, but resolvable—and often complementary.

trying to persuade conservatives to adopt progressive points of view is often futile.

a better way: speak with conservatives in their own language. understand their worldview. respect their desire to protect what we have. develop policy options that reflect their priorities. it won’t generate as much media, and the power brokers will threaten to abandon you, but that’s the cost of earning broad support.

mistake no. 4: dismissing conservation and stewardship 

the left, believing that people are selfless and nature is supportive, tends toward a preservationist agenda that treats humans as invaders of nature. hunters, fishers, farmers, and ranchers are often regarded as enemies of nature, when considered from this point of view.

the right, believing that people are selfish and nature poses risks, tends toward a conservationist agenda that treats humans as stewards of the land. hunters, fishers, farmers, and ranchers are good stewards who love the land and know it more intimately than most coastal progressives. they are the overlooked half of the environmental movement, only recently being rediscovered.

a better way: celebrate hunters and fishers. learn how many farmers and ranchers are shifting to regenerative agriculture. their forebears fed ours for millennia. invite them to be central players in reducing damage to nature.

mistake no. 5: condemning climate denial 

a wedge has been driven deep between the right and left because it’s profitable for the media and political industries. the fear and hate they are generating is extreme. we feed into it, when we focus on fear, and drive hatred of our adversaries, even those who deny climate change.

a better way: the best remedy for climate denial is respect for conservative principles and acknowledgment that overconsumption threatens both our ecological and economic foundations. denial will dissipate when our solutions are economically sustainable.

mistake no. 6: aligning tightly with democrats 

over 70% of the public is with us. aligning with either party turns our majority into a minority. it makes victory impossible. any cause or community dependent on just one party is a slave to that party. the democratic party will delay effective climate action until after the next election. there is always a next election. the only way to win is with a bipartisan coalition.

a better way: grow an authentic bipartisan coalition where conservatives are free to advance their ideas for meeting the climate crisis, without sacrificing the economy. challenge conservative donors to join the cause, and match their commitments to climate actions that respect conservative principles.

mistake no. 7: opposing corporatism with statism 

big corporations have too much-concentrated power. the federal government does too. corporations and governments grow together. conveniently, the warrior left fights corporate power by building government power, while the warrior right fights government power by expanding corporate power. power brokers on both sides just smile.

a better way: use markets before mandates. support effective corporate campaigns. mobilize activists and consumers to avoid companies that aren’t part of the solution. when companies step up, reward them, with clear positive recognition their competitors will notice. above all, use prices to prevent pollution. support revenue-neutral carbon prices, as advocated by groups like climate leadership council and citizens climate lobby.

mistake no. 8: just buying access and influence 

it’s tempting to play the inside game, and buy access and influence so politicians will vote for clean energy. some of this will likely be necessary. but too much can backfire in two ways. first, the cost of democracy will rise. when clean energy bids up the cost of access, their competitors can match their bids. the result is a more expensive stalemate. second, the inside game is rigged in favor of the entrenched. it’s not just the fossil fuel sector that’s opposing change. it’s hundreds of powerful players and the political pros who take their money. they can overwhelm any team we field. our democracy is rigged to resist change, not encourage it. buying access can protect past gains, but it can’t win many new ones. 

a better way: end-run the power-brokers. invade from two directions at once. organize the left and right together.

mistake no. 9: suing the bastards 

fossil fuels aren’t like tobacco. they helped build the industrial economy, overcome the depression, and defeat fascism. they spawned the technologies that can gradually replace them. suing the tobacco industry didn’t destroy tobacco. it simply drove the industry into less democratic nations. it feels good to sue the bastards. but it just creates more bastards.

a better way: stop creating bastards. challenge fossil fuel companies to put real resources behind their commitments — lobbying resources that can shift the republican party’s position on climate, and compel democrats to collaborate on real solutions. champion bp for its historic shift from energy products to energy services — a business model that could change everything. support the carbon pricing proposals of exxonmobil and conocophillips — a policy coalition that could break the stalemate.

mistake no. 10: declaring war on climate change 

war is supposed to be the last resort. but we’ve made it the first. war is built into our political genes. whenever we’re serious about attacking a problem, we declare war on it. we’ve declared wars on poverty, cancer, drugs, terror, and hunger. now we’ve launched a war on climate change. wars are profitable for media and campaign strategists, but they rarely solve problems. and the war to save climate is doing just the opposite. it is exhausting our base, discouraging recruits, and increasing the size and power of opposing armies. climate change is not a challenge that can be won by war. its systemic cause is an economy and culture addicted to overconsumption. the remedy is the very opposite of war. we need to come together to create, not destroy.

a better way: stop the war. start creating. engage capitalists, activists, conservatives, progressives, and libertarians. explore solutions that apply the best ideas from all of them. end-run the debt-and-consumption machine. create evolutionary change.

what can you do to help?

you can start by signing our declaration of interdependence. then let’s compete as our founders intended, to bring the best of the right and left together, meet the climate challenge, and move america forward.

—

about the authors:

trammell s. crow is a dallas, texas-based businessman, philanthropist, entrepreneur and innovative leader in business development and operations. he is the founder of earth day texas, and is on the center for climate and energy solutions (c2es) board of directors.  

bill shireman is a social entrepreneur, environmental policy innovator, and rare san francisco republican. he brings together people from all sides of the political spectrum. he is president of the nonprofit future 500 and teaches leadership and negotiations at the uc berkeley haas business school.

“is everything of plastic? almost, ” a video advertisement for the futuristic dream house boasts. 

we are past that future now. so where is the house?

well, depending on the type of plastic, pieces of the house may have ended up in different places around the world. since plastics can take anywhere from 20 to 500 years to break down, elements of the house are likely still somewhere on this planet, negatively affecting animals and plants alike, and likely ending up on our plates.

microplastics have been found everywhere, and are now thought to be ubiquitous in the environment.

microfibers from house of the future’s synthetic fabrics could be falling out of the sky with snow and rain. microplastics have now been found to undergo transportation via the atmosphere and be deposited back down to earth.

some of the synthetic materials, once weathered into smaller pieces by other forces could easily be ingested by all sorts of wildlife, especially since research shows that plastics immersed in ocean water emit a chemical signal that seabirds smell and easily mistake for their other sources of food.

some of the more dense plastics from the house might more easily sink in aquatic environments, like this high-density polyethylene bucket at the bottom of the ocean.

even if the entirety of monsanto’s house of the future was properly disposed of in a landfill, it could still be wreaking havoc on the environment. landfills have been found to leach chemicals and have the potential to contaminate groundwater sources. or, like the scene shown in this photo, the elements can weather away at the manmade features and eventually wash them out to sea.

how can we change?

while we cannot undo the creation of the house of the future, all of us can pursue actionable everyday steps to help curb the deleterious effects of plastic on our environment and its inhabitants.

• before you buy something made of plastic or packaged in it, try to find a secondhand or zero waste alternative to it. always have your bottle or mug on you and think ahead for food or snacks so that you don’t catch yourself in a pinch having to purchase plastic-wrapped food.   
• contact companies you support about reducing their plastic footprint. this handy guide walks you through how to go about contacting businesses—complete with a script!
• if contacting businesses is not up your alley, call them out on social media about excessive packaging. outreach is key to solving the plastics problem
• contact your representatives and urge them to support the break free from plastic pollution act of 2020.

twitter: @pod4theplanet instagram: @pod4theplanet 

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.