Every organic thing on planet Earth, by definition, is made of carbon. You, your pet, the potted plant in your hallway, everything. Carbon is how living things interact with the world. Humans exhale it into the air. Trees take it in, add sunlight and grow, letting out oxygen. When organic things die, they take their carbon matter to the grave. They decompose as they become food for bacteria and plants. And that is how the carbon cycle is supposed to work. It was completely changed, however, when humans found ways to exhume carbon matter from the dead to use as fuel. The trouble is when you burn organic matter for fuel, carbon doesn’t just go away. It interacts with the heat and the air to form carbon monoxide and dioxide among others. In the natural carbon cycle, these would be cleaned out of the air by trees and other plants. But we’re burning too much and there’s too much carbon for our plants to clean. (thought of it this way, the carbon in our air that haunts us now comes from our dead ancestors)

When we’re putting more carbon in the air than our system can clean, the system is said to be carbon positive. If you’re putting in just as much carbon as you can clean, you are carbon neutral. And the rare system that is capable of cleaning more carbon than it puts out is called carbon negative. Bhutan has a unique distinction of being (edit) one of only two carbon-negative countries in the world. According to a speech PM Tshering Tobgay gave at the UN in 2015, Bhutan’s forests remove 6.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air every year. Our people produce about 2.4 million tonnes. This achievement is no accident. It is the result of careful planning and philosophy, coupled with cultural respect for the environment. Where some think of nature as there for humans to exploit and make value out of — including when they talk about the green economy — the Bhutanese people think of it as a separate thing, with its rights and its value, beyond what humans cast on it. This is why some construction projects in Bhutan begin with rituals asking deities permission to develop the land. It is why we believe trees house deities. Why some mountains must not be climbed. When you combine this sort of cultural deference to nature with a philosophy developed from it, GNH, you get a country where the people instinctively watch their carbon footprint and actively keep nature alive.

A World Map Of Carbon Negative Countries (edited)

Here’s the thing though: It might not save the world. It might not even save us. Think about it this way: if the trees of Bhutan remove more carbon dioxide than its people produce, where do they get the carbon dioxide? From outside Bhutan. It may seem obvious and harmless, but this is a brutal truth: Nature doesn’t respect sovereign boundary lines. So, this idea of a “carbon negative” country is functionally limited. It can tell us the country and its people are mindful and respectful of the environment and its challenges. It can tell us the country is most likely sustainable and in tune with its natural environment.

Bhutan’s Carbon Negative Status Can’t Save the World

But overall, in terms of how the world will be saved from devastation by climate change, a “carbon negative country” is an empty epithet. We will still see a great deal of climate change in Bhutan. The differential in our production and sequestration of carbon dioxide is practically insignificant in the larger picture (below). And it’s not like we could use our model example to force others to become better, either. As long as there are governments and leaders unserious about climate change in power, no amount of good examples will work. Look, for example, at the Trump administration leaving the Paris Accord. Their excuse is that regulations from this agreement will not restrict China and India effectively, and that would give them a competitive edge over America.

Per Capita Emissions in 2014 (World Bank)

It is ignorant of historical contribution to the current carbon build-up (America is at ~25%), and of per capita calculations (an American has a carbon footprint 2 times larger than a Chinese’s and 9 times an Indian’s).

As well, these nations will not take the Bhutanese model seriously. And rightfully so. Bhutan’s political-economic structure is nowhere as beholden to vested interests. Socioeconomic development, which is often the argument of capital, is just 1/4th of the GNH model. Any government project or major economic venture must be vetted and considered for their effect on the environment, culture, and community (this pillar is listed as good governance but its domains and indicators are about people and community). Most other countries — and all the major countries — are so deeply beholden to the interests of capital that to suggest a consideration other than GDP growth or number of jobs created or managed inflation is a mortal sin. Look, for example, at China, whose impressive growth figures are partially down to a growing housing bubble. To keep their growth rate high, the government encourages the construction of new infrastructure, including cities. These projects are no doubt harmful to the environment (including their “ecocities”) and the truth is no one even lives in them (estimates are above 60 million empty apartment units across China).

Gross National Happiness Considers Many Factors

They are purely Potemkin structures meant to prop up the illusion of growth as measured by GDP. They exist only because China considers economic development inviolable to their cause. If a model like GNH was applied there, most of these projects would never be greenlit. Another example is the Keystone Pipeline, which was this week revealed to be leaking. Only a government bound to the interests of oil and money would allow the rights of its people to be exploited for a project as transparently problematic as the XL pipeline. Look at any environmental justice issue anywhere in the US or the world, and you would find it to be the result of a choice between environment/community and capital. They happened primarily because governments sided with economics. GNH is the antithesis of that. It forces governments to consider people and nature as they have money. Remember here that it is often money that picks who forms the government. And when that is the case, how likely is it that a government will choose to follow the antithetical? That is another large question but that’s not the point here, the point is that the model that makes Bhutan carbon negative is not likely to be adopted by others. If such a comprehensive policy that requires so much planning was suggested in the US, certain groups would die crying Red Tape.