TIL Bhutan is the world's only carbon negative country. The constitution demands at least 60% of the country covered in forest, making it a sink of over four million tonnes of CO2 per year.

View original post [climatecouncil.org.au]


22 Feb 2018 20:00 - +6496
Also the only country in the world to govern using the principle of Gross National Happiness. Although some cynics call it Gross National Hypocrisy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness
22 Feb 2018 20:25 - +4586
Turns out Google has street view in some roads in Bhutan. The roads themselves look really scary but everywhere I randomly dropped the views were [amazing](https://www.google.fi/maps/@27.4165305,90.4952095,3a,75y,162.76h,78.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBIHzr_kkCRhLXKD9w38M_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DBIHzr_kkCRhLXKD9w38M_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D343.6966%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-GB).
22 Feb 2018 20:56 - +3582
Bhutan is also the only country in the world where the sale of tobacco products is completely prohibited.
22 Feb 2018 20:35 - +1603
Their flag also has a dragon on it because they are so bad ass
22 Feb 2018 20:14 - +1090
Looks like a nice place to live and breath
22 Feb 2018 20:00 - +879
So you're telling me the fix for global warming is just planting a shitton of trees?
22 Feb 2018 20:53 - +628
"The economy of Bhutan, one of the world's smallest and least developed countries, is based on agriculture and forestry, which provide the main livelihood for more than 60% of the population. Agriculture consists largely of subsistence farming and animal husbandry. Rugged mountains dominate the terrain and make the building of roads and other infrastructure difficult and expensive." Per-capita GDP: $2800. (The US: $58,000, for comparison.)
22 Feb 2018 20:39 - +403
This made me look up the percent of land covered by forest in the US. I was surprised it was only 33%, I thought it would be higher.
22 Feb 2018 21:17 - +305
Apparently Japan is covered 67%, so forest alone doesn't do the trick unfortunately... :-/
22 Feb 2018 20:33 - +228
I see Bhutan, I press Bhutan.
22 Feb 2018 22:03 - +145
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_in_Bhutan People on the internet always talk about how “charming” Bhutan is but the reality isn’t great. They have a sound environmental policy because their people are poor and live in an underdeveloped economy, and they (shockingly) score really well in an arbitrary metric they made up called “gross national happiness”
22 Feb 2018 21:25 - +141
With a population of less than 1M people and one of the lowest GDP on the planet, I'd say they are carbon negative by default.
22 Feb 2018 21:43 - +138
Went to Bhutan last year. CLEANEST country i have ever seen. Even the dirtiest of places are better than the most of cleanest parts of Tokyo. Its pretty cheap to Travel there, by Western Standards. If you cant afford Switzerland, Bhutan at Winter will be a really good backup. Some photos i took while moving in the car with my damn 3 year old phone was just mesmerizing
22 Feb 2018 21:55 - +129
bhutanese passport
22 Feb 2018 21:48 - +74
Also the genocide against non-Bhutanese ethnics is super charming.
22 Feb 2018 21:42 - +58
In case you didn't already know this, the queen of Bhutan is eye-poppingly gorgeous. https://www.instagram.com/queenjetsunpema/?hl=en
22 Feb 2018 22:47 - +39
By the way, for those of you reading this thread and wondering about some of these anti-scientific explanations, do not be fooled by the deliberate confusion of carbon and carbon dioxide. One is an element. The other is a molecule. They are two **totally** different things. It is true that plants store carbon, but compared to the amount of carbon dioxide they cycle into sugar and oxygen during their lifetime, what is stored in the structure of the plant is insignificant. **Plants are CO2 negative**. Plants cause CO2 to cease to exist. This is undisputed, proven scientific fact and has been for 239 years. Nothing on this planet is carbon negative. Carbon is not being destroyed, nor is it being created. If there were such a thing as "carbon negative," Earth would run out of carbon and everything would be dead. Do not be misled.
22 Feb 2018 22:42 - +36
They also expelled 20% of their population for being ethnic Nepalis. You can downvote but it's an unfortunate truth.
22 Feb 2018 22:09 - +32
<1 million people over 40k square km. this is the only reason they can do this. population density is so small that having so much undeveloped land is possible.
22 Feb 2018 22:12 - +26
Trees are carbon neutral.
22 Feb 2018 22:14 - +14
This shows how big a of a joke carbon neutrality is. Only third world countries with literally zero production of any kind can achieve it. So if you want to live like your ancestors did in 600BC then banning CO2 is a great idea.
22 Feb 2018 22:16 - +11
With a GDP less than $3,000 per individual in 2016 I can understand why it's carbon negative...
22 Feb 2018 21:16 - +9
Had a professor who went over and studied these ppl. The ted talk from them is pretty freaking interesting.

Current top posts:

When I was asked how my Saint Patricks day party went (50 comments)
"Boop! Pass it on" (55 comments)
Don't get cocky kid (175 comments)
Using a car window as a mirror (135 comments)
Using a car window as a mirror (80 comments)
My Grandpa, circa 1950, with his pet raccoon, Stinky (215 comments)
Sleepy London woman snuggles up to total stranger (113 comments)
My windblown wife and this baby goat. (87 comments)
How close up shots of birds are filmed (93 comments)
Earth from 100,000 miles away - taken by the crew of Apollo 10 (208 comments)