Forget the 'Paris Climate Agreement'. Forget the 'Green New Deal'. The environment is not the focus there. Money is. When we want to improve our habitat and the environment we shouldn't be looking in to our wallets. We shouldn't be looking at Europe, The United States, India or China. We should take a good, hard look in the mirror. And then, when we've seen that we, ourselves, are the problem, then there is one other place in the world we should look at. Bhutan. The only CO2-well in the world.
Bhutan is the only country in the world, that has a nett negative CO2 emission. All the other countries are producing more CO2 than they are taking in. This needs to change. And we can change this. In order to do so, we need to understand what it is that Bhutan does, find possibilities to adopt their concept, to make our own countries change to the concept and implement it, as soon as possible.
It really is that simple
Eventhough the Kingdom of Bhutan is just a small country, with just about 800.000 inhabitants and a Gross Domestic Product of just about 2 billion dollars, the kingdom doesn't focus on economic growth. Eventhough it recognizes the importance of economic growth, the focus lies with Gross Domestic Happiness. They value their culture and their environment and have taken action to protect both.
The most simple and important thing they could have done, to protect the environment is exactly what they did. They decided that, no matter what, atleast 60% of the surface of Bhutan must contain forrests. In 2018 this percentage was around 71%. This is the main reason as to why Bhutan has a nett negative carbon emisson.
More trees, more forrests = more carbon storage. It really is that simple. Ofcourse there is a bit more to it than that. The Kingdom of Bhutan however proves there definitely is a truth to it. It shows this, when you compare Bhutan to an wealthy western country.
Comparing Bhutan to the Netherlands
When we look at a densly populated European Country we see something completely different. The Netherlands is one of the most densly populated countries and it's GDP is about 450 times that of Bhutan, when it's landsurface is similar to that of Bhutan. They utilize their land in a completely different way. Which is the biggest difference.
Where the landsurface of the Kingdom of Bhutan consists for 71% out of forrests, the similar sized landsurface of the Kingdom of the Netherlands consists out of forrests for a whopping 2.89%. Less than 3 percent, which is a shockingly low percentage.
Looking at the numbers, you might say that this makes sense. The Netherlands has about 26 times more citizens than Bhutan and it has a forrest-surface percentage that is about 25 times smaller. But, looking that the country itself, there is an incredibly large surface that is not utilized, which could be utilized for for forrestry.
Finding smart solutions
The Dutch, all through history, have found smart solutions for everything. Many inventions have been made by the Dutch, leading to great economic wealth. If we can do that for money, then we can do that for the environment aswell. In this case, making enough space available for forrests should not be an issue. Not when about 54% of your land consists of farmland.
Over the past decades forrestlands and farmland has been sacrificed for housing projects and creating more living space. But, is that really necessary? Why not build higher and higher, instead of wider and wider? Why not incorporate nature within these housing projects? The Dutch have shown to be able to find smart solutions for everything. Finding a way to create more space for forrests without sacrificing living space should be an easy task.
There is no excuse
With an economy about 450 times larger than that of Bhutan, the Netherlands and other wealthy countries with strong economies have no excuse, for not improving their own environment and with it compensating for their own CO2 emissions.
Look at the climate accords of the wealthy countries. The focus lies in 'reducing CO2 emissons'. But that is useless as long as your emissions exceed your compensation. The only good these agreements do, is filling the wallets of those who play the game the best. Those who know how to deal in CO2 quota, those who find loopholes in rules.
This needs to stop and there is no excuse for not stopping these practices. As long as the focus lies on 'making money' the environment will be hurt. We need to focus on the environment, instead of money. And the wealthiest countries have the power to do both. Reduce CO2 emissions and increase the size of forrestland for CO2 compensation.
According to scientists 1.7 billion trees need to be planted worldwide. The richests countries alone can do this, but they depend on less economical countries to do so. If a country like Ehtiopia can plant over 353 million trees in 12 hours, then why can't rich, densely populated European countries find the space to plant an immense amount of trees aswell? Can't they, or won't they?
Follow the Bhutan directive
The small country of Bhutan has shown the way. All we have to do is follow the Bhutan directive, it doesn't have to be that hard. It's three simple steps.
Determine a minimum percentage that needs to be forrestland, for each country.
Protect the percentage by making an amendment to the constitution of those countries.
Increase the amount of forrest per country until the constitutional minimum is reached.
As stated, there is no excuse. Constitutions can be amended, thats what amendments do. No constitution was perfect and complete after the first implementation, that's why amendments exist. We need to follow the Bhutan directive and take action now!
Comments