Abstract 

Our global economy, driven by the pursuit of material wealth and overconsumption, is destroying nature and human health. The three main causes are climate change, habitat destruction and pollution. Though these problems have distinct sources, they are interconnected and so, to build a healthier world, we must address all three at once. This can be achieved by building a new economy with the goal of restoring nature. We will call it the "nature positive" economy, the bioeconomy, or the livable state. 

Not only do we have an ethical imperative to address the decline of wildlife, we must do it for our own preservation. As nature declines, resource scarcity will continue to drive up prices and conflict, making life on this planet increasingly more difficult for the average person. if we continue with business as usual, any gains in quality of life and human prosperity that have been achieved since the industrial revolution will be reversed over the coming decades. This dire situation is completely unnecessary, since we can use human ingenuity to satisfy the needs of humans without destroying nature. 

So far, our efforts to mitigate environmental harm with regulations, laws, and conservation have merely slowed the damage, but have not fixed the problem. The reason? With spending on nature negative practices currently outpacing conservation by a ratio of 30:1, these incremental efforts cannot fully counteract the impacts of an inherently unsustainable economy. The authors of this document believe we must deliberately and fully change the way we do business, and we must do so at an accelerated pace. 

Our solution, therefore, is not incremental or gradual, it is a complete change of direction. We demand a full speed ahead transition rooted in three foundational rules from which all future economic activity should arise: polluters are responsible for their mess, nature (including human health) is at the center of the economy, and waste is no longer acceptable. To shift our practices, the authors of this document are recommending a primarily capitalist-style solution that requires some mandates, but operates on non-tax incentives. Simultaneously, lateral efforts must include improvements in energy efficiency, localization,  and preserving human labor. 

To fully understand our plan it is necessary to explain what we mean by "polluters". In our opinion this includes almost everyone, and so our plan does not aim to shame. It is an "all hands on deck" approach with an emphasis on collective responsibility. Historically, however, businesses have benefited the most from outsourcing their environmental destruction to the commons. Therefore, their modern counterparts must shoulder the majority of the fix. 

Our "polluters pay" law, which is one of a few seminal laws that will be necessary to achieve a rapid transition, reflects this axiom. In our plan, it relies upon the creation of a non-tax fund, called the Livable State Fund (LSF) that collects money from polluting companies and redistributes it, in the form of grants, to non-polluting ones. In this way, good behavior is incentivized, and the resources to do so do not come from the tax-payer. 

In order to find out who the "polluters" are, it is necessary to develop a mandatory objective rating system (ORS), that determines who must pay, how much they must pay,  and who is eligible for grants. This is achieved by establishing a company's baseline polluting score, adjusted for company size, and allowing them to take in-house offsets to lessen their burden. Though the LSF is the central incentive driver in our plan, it does not rule out other tools. Livable State Loans (LSLs), for example, which themselves will be incentivized, can be made available to businesses that are interested in shifting to nature positive practices. 

Examples of in-house offsets that companies can take to reduce their financial obligation to the LSF include, but are not limited to: diversifying their business to work for the nature positive economy, or taking what we will call "grounds based offsets" (GBOs). GBOs include actions such as upgrading facilities for energy efficiency, installing renewable energy and on-site waste treatment systems (OWTS), increasing wildlife habitat, or using biodegradable or infinitely recyclable materials (BIRM). To facilitate this, a robust, convenient  recycling infrastructure must be fully incentivized by the LSF, providing many opportunities for local entrepreneurship and offsets.. 

In addition to the "polluters pay" law, our plan also calls for a phase out of all pesticides and non-safety, non-motion outdoor lighting (NSMOL), a strengthening of our wildlife laws, and strict regulations placed specifically on hyperscale data centers. 

There is no sector of the economy that will not be impacted by our plan. However, certain sectors will be incentivized to undergo massive change. The "big five" are: energy, agriculture, development, waste management and healthcare. The authors of this document believe that changing our economy will, in turn, change our culture.  A localized nature positive economy will produce more compassionate, responsible citizens and improve human health and happiness. 

Below are a list of twenty-five very ambitious goals that will drive change. 

Our target is January of 2050, though some of our goals will need to be achieved before then. 

Twenty-five Goals*

*Any numerical measure that is included in the goals is arbitrary and is merely standing in for whatever sensible statistic can replace it. However, the ambitious number does reflect the authors' opinion that lofty goals should be set in order to supercharge the nature positive effort. Half-measures are no longer acceptable. 

Section 1: The Fundamentals

Polluters are responsible for their mess

Nature (including human health) is at the center of the economy

Waste is no longer acceptable. 

Section 2: The Mandates 

Primary shift: 

From a government that defends polluters 

to one that defends the commons. 

Goal #1: 

Achieve most of the goals of the nature positive economy with incentives and localization rather than mandates.

Goal #2

Supportive laws for the nature positive economy must be passed immediately. This includes, but is not limited to: an "endangered nature" law, "polluters pay" law, a pesticide phase out, data center regulation law and dark skies legislation. 

Section 3: Energy 

Primary shift: 

From fossil fuels, energy inefficiency and nuclear

 to renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electrification. 

 Goal #3: 

By 2050, 80% of New Hampshire's  energy will be supplied by renewable sources and 80% of the state's infrastructure will be electrified.

Goal #4: 

A viable system of  modern public transportation and electric private transport that is truly competitive will be in place by 2050.

Section 4: Waste Management 

Primary shift: 

From extract, consume, dispose mindset 

to a circular economy based on biodegradable and infinitely recylable products and a local recycling infrastructure to handle it. 

Goal #5: 

All products sold in the state will be infinitely recyclable or biodegradable by 2050.

Goal #6: 

By 2050, all manufacturing companies that operate in the state must have a plan for their product through its entire lifespan. 

Goal #7: 

All food waste produced in the state of New Hampshire must be routed to a customized system that converts most of it to fertilizer. 

Goal  #8: 

To manage sewage, 80% of our residential and commercial buildings must have installed nature positive On-site Waste Treatment Systems (OWTS) by 2050. 

Section 5: Agriculture 

Primary shift: 

From intensive farming with a reliance on pesticides, large land use and chemical fertilizer that ships most of the food (97%) our of state. 

 to small scale, organic, regenerative outdoor farming, along with indoor vertical farming and lab-grown animal products that supply 80% of our local food economy. 

Goal #9: 

All pesticides, agricultural and otherwise, must be completely phased out by 2040. 

Goal #10: 

At least 80% of animal farming (dairy, eggs, seafood and meat) will be phased out by 2050 and replaced with lab-grown alternatives.

Goal #11: 

By 2050, all farming  in the state will employ nature positive techniques and will supply 80% of the food for the people of New Hampshire. 

Goal #12: 

By 2050, 80% of the inventory of all grocery stores and 80% of all restaurant menus must be obtained locally.

Section 6: Nature and Land Development

Primary shift: 

From nature negative development and anemic conservation goals to 

nature positive development and robust conservation goals that employ integration along with traditional conservation/restoration practices. 

Goal #13: 

The amount of large habitat conservation land in permanent protected status will be increased to 40% by 2050.

Goal #14: 

In addition to traditional conservation land, 500,000 acres of public small habitat parks (SHiPs) will be created by 2050. 

Goal #15: 

80% of businesses involved in "alteration of terrain" will do so in a nature postive fashion by 2050. 

Goal #16: 

By 2050, The number of people living near urban centers will be increased from approximately 50% to 90%. 

Goal #17: 

All Non-safety, non-motion outdoor lighting (NSMOL) will be removed or replaced with motion lighting by 2030. 

Goal #18:

All electronic billboards will be phased out in one year after a law is passed to ban them. 

Goal #19: 

Any structure that requires cement, concrete or asphalt will be fully replaced with non-polluting materials by 2050. 

Goal #20: 

80% of companies in lawn care industry will shift to nature positive practices by 2035. 

Goal #21: 

By 2035, 80% of the inventory at all garden centers will be native plants. 

Section 7: Healthcare 

Primary shift: 

From a global centralized treatment model that discards humans later in life

to a local decentralized prevention model with an emphasis on home care and facilities built to preserve human dignity and thriving. 

Goal #22: 

By 2050,  80% of healthcare services in the state will be preventative. 

Goal #23: 

By 2050, 80% of healthcare delivery will shift to local and residential settings that emphasize designs for human dignity and thriving. 

Section 8: Education 

Primary shift: 

From an educational system that suppresses biophilia and trains for nature-negative jobs 

 to one that stimulates biophilia and trains for the nature-positive economy. 

Goal #24: 

100% of K-12 public and 60% of private K-12 curriculums will include age appropriate nature oriented course work in all grades by 2035. 

Goal #25: 

80% of colleges, universities, technical and career schools will provide bioeconomy training programs by 2040. 

Section 9: Other sectors

Other sectors of the economy such as manufacturing, retail, arts/entertainment, technology, and travel and leisure would operate with new guiding principles, incentivized by the LSF model: 

1. Take responsibility for the pollution caused by your products and services. 

2. Make, sell, distribute and use the necessary materials for the nature positive economy

3. Buy local

4. Have a recycling plan

Section 10: Side Effects 

More nature means...

Improvements in human physical and mental health

Improvements in human happiness

Less conflict

Less crime

Less war

Less hate

More compassion

More opportunities

More community

More equality

More democracy

Energy and food security 

Energy and food independence

For more information, please read the full text of the Nature Positive Agenda below. 

Introduction

Why do we need a nature positive economy now?

The answer to this question is simple: because the global economy has surpassed seven out of nine planetary boundaries (NC). It is unsustainable, and if we continue with "business as usual" then human caused environmental damage will usher in an age of prolonged catastrophe. Therefore, unless we are willing to accept this fate, we must change how our economy operates and we must do so at lightning speed. 

We are the cause. We are using up earth's resources faster than they can be restored (NC). It is not only climate change that is the threat. Biodiversity loss is also proceeding at an alarming rate. Pollution, too. The three of these crises are ominously called the "triple threat". They have distinct causes though they overlap and, according to the UN Environmental Programme, should be addressed together (NC).  

The nature positive economy is a way of fixing these crises all at once. The focus on nature instead of pollution or climate change is because nature is an indicator of planetary and, therefore, human health. If nature is thriving then we are thriving along side of it. To build the nature positive economy we must address pollution and climate change, since these environmental crises are also affecting nature. 

Let's begin by defining "nature", a word we are using interchangeably with the word "biodiversity."  For the purposes of this document, nature is being defined as  all living organisms that exist on our planet outside of Homo sapiens. Of course, humans are also nature, but, through a combination of greed, curiosity, inventiveness, and arrogance,  we have spent the last two centuries extricating ourselves.  Therefore, we will not include ourselves in the definition for now, even though it is the goal of the nature positive mindset to embrace our interdependence and to reconnect ourselves to the web of life. In other words, after the transition to a nature positive economy is complete, we can include ourselves in the definition, but, for now, we won't. 

While our society has been industrializing and growing over the last two centuries, our technological and geographical footprint and all the material wealth it created has been accruing a massive debt to nature (NC). Despite our attempts to mitigate it through conservation efforts, the "nature negative" trend continues  with even common species declining year after year (NC). It is the goal of the nature positive movement to halt and reverse this trend.  Of course, we could ignore this debt and carry on with business as usual, but, for two main reasons, the authors of this document argue that the time has come to pay up. 

The first  reason, and we would argue the most important, is simply a matter of ethics.  Nature exists with us, it does not exist for us. There is nothing beyond the biased stories we tell ourselves that gives humans any intrinsic right to sacrifice nature in order for our species to prosper.  Even if we could find a way to survive on this planet without the many free services that nature provides, we would still have to live with the knowledge that our survival came at the deliberate and unnecessary slaughter of millions of other species.  

We can also view this through the lens of social justice. All living things, present and future, have a right to reach our full potential on a livable planet. We cannot do so under our current conditions. If we continue with business as usual it seems obvious that this basic right will be violated. We're referring to  the rights of non-human animals as well as the rights of people. 

The second reason, for people who need another, is practical. The fate of nature is also our fate, since it is unlikely that we can survive easily without these free services (NC). One side effect of our nature negative economy is that we have forgotten this important fact and we are proceeding as though planetary resources are endless. Even for those of us who, sadly, lack an intrinsic connection to nature must confess that the most logical course of action is to preserve the system we already have instead of inventing ways to protect ourselves from the consequences.

If this document were written  fifty years ago, a payment plan for this debt may have been reasonable. However,  decades of inaction has brought us to the brink without meaningful change, and so now we must pay in one lump sum. In other words, we must build the nature positive economy without delay. 

So what is the nature positive economy? Strictly speaking, it is an economy that results in increases in nature diversity and abundance instead of declines. It is also a very specific goal, to return biodiversity to 2020 levels by 2030 (nature neutral) and be fully nature positive by 2050 (NC). For us, though, it is also an economy that places nature and human health at the center of decision making instead of the almighty dollar.

 For our economy to become nature positive, we all must become nature positive. This is an "all hands on deck" approach. 

The four main players  

For the purpose of this discussion, we must define who the players are. There are four: the citizen, the consumer, the polluter, and the government. 

It is important to note that these terms are abstractions, not actual people and are being employed as a device for discussion. In our nature negative economy we are all polluters, we are all citizens and  consumers, and, in a democracy,  we are all the government.  In other words, we are all complicit. We must stop blaming one another and/or denying our culpability and start taking action. 

The citizen and the commons 

The citizen's role in a democratic society is to vote for effective leaders and pay taxes. When we put nature and the physical and mental health of the citizen together, we have what we will call "the commons". This may be a little different than the traditional use of that word. 

In our current economic system, it is presumed that it is the citizen's job to bankroll and clean up any damage to the commons caused by polluters.  In fact, polluters often become very wealthy in part because they are not held accountable for the cost of their mess. The citizen is also stuck with the burden of proof, since polluters are allowed to pollute up until the moment the citizen catches them and successfully holds them accountable.  Therefore, the poor citizen must be in a constant state of awareness and must "fight" for the rights of the commons. 

Efforts to hold polluters accountable have mostly resulted in long fights with disappointing results for the citizen. A citizen might set out, for example, to get a particular class of pesticides completely banned and have to settle for a few restrictions. A group of citizens might launch an effort to protect an entire forest and end up with a much smaller area. A citizen might get a law approved and then watch as it is watered down, circumvented or entirely undone. 

Making the protection of the commons the citizen's job has also resulted in a lot of resentment from the business community. Environmentalists are viewed as sour pusses who want to rain on everyone's parade, petty obstructionists or NIMBYs. They are "anti-progress". They hold up entire job creating, economy stimulating projects for some "stupid owl"  

In a nature positive economy it is no longer the citizen's job to fight for the right of the commons and the burden of proof is on the polluter, not the citizen. 

The polluters 

What comes to mind when one uses the word "polluter"? Perhaps toxic chemicals, carbon dioxide emissions, or microplastics.  While those are all forms of pollution, for the purposes of this document this definition will be greatly expanded. When we use the word "polluter" we are referring to any nature negative practice or product. Therefore, some  industries are polluters not because they dump their toxic waste into a local river (though that would also be pollution) but because their business is inherently polluting. 

For example, polluters include any business that makes, distributes or sells processed or high sugar foods.  Anyone who extracts, transports, or sells fossil fuels, timber, metals or other products is a polluter. Companies that make pesticides or other toxic chemicals are polluters, as are contractors and developers who destroy habitat. Anyone involved with making or selling products that are not biodegradable or infinitely recyclable is a polluter. Weapons manufacturers are polluters.  Industrial agricultural is one of the biggest polluters of all. The government itself is a polluter...

So, you may roll your eyes and ask, "who isn't a polluter?"  Well, that's precisely the point. Our society has evolved to be so tolerant of pollution that almost everyone engages in it to one degree or another. This is why we are in such deep trouble.

It is important to note at this point that being a polluter is not a judgment of character. Many of these polluting industries have brought great advances that have helped society in one way or another. We are all grateful for our homes, our safety, our indoor plumbing and our food. The system we will suggest should not be implemented with malice or revenge. It is simply a fact that these industries, through out history, have evolved at the expense of the commons. It is a debt to be paid, that is all. It is not an invitation to take individual people to the town square and chop off their heads.

In a nature positive economy it is no longer the role of the citizen to clean up the mess of the polluter.  It is the polluter's job.

The consumer

The consumer's role in the economy is to buy goods and services. In our nature negative economy, many of goods and services that are offered to the consumer are unhealthy in one way or another. Either directly, by increasing the risk of chronic disease, or indirectly, by creating pollution and eroding the health of our life support system. 

Presently, attempts to persuade the consumer to change their consumption habits voluntarily through education has not made a dent in society's trajectory. If anything, the consumption of various nature negative products has reached a fever pitch, with convenience items flooding our markets (NC). It might be time to abandon the idea that "raising public awareness" is an effective strategy. On the other hand, trying to force good habits on to people has also backfired. If people feel that they are being "told what to do", they will not respond positively (NC). 

To shift consumer behavior, then, there is only one choice: incentives. At present, healthy food and sustainable products are more expensive, not less. It is an objective of this plan to invert this equation. Polluting products and services will now carry the full cost of their destruction to human health and nature, raising the price, while non-polluting products and services will be subsidized, lowering their price. These subsidies come from the polluters, not from the tax paying citizen. 

In our plan, the consumer will be incentivized to change their behavior by making healthful and environmentally friendly choices cheaper. 

The government

The role of the government in implementing the nature positive economy is to pass the relevant laws (there will be some) and to facilitate their adoption. For the purposes of our discussion, the "government" actually functions and we assume good intent. This document does not deal with issues of corruption since this is part of any system. As per usual, it must be spotted and rooted out by citizen watchdogs and/or by government checks and balances. 

A nature positive economy does not require any changes in how government operates, but it does require a major change at a deeply philosophical level. For too long, the government has worked for the polluter in the name of "economic growth" and the burden of proof has been on the citizen. In our plan, the government's job is to work for the commons and the burden of proof is on the polluter. 

For example, it is well known that pesticides are damaging to nature and human health. Even so, our current system makes citizens responsible for  proving that a particular pesticide must be restricted or banned. In order to be up to date with what is happening in the pesticide industry, citizens are required to spend a huge amount of time on research and even more time gathering data, testifying, and raising public awareness. To be truly informed, one might need a PhD in chemistry! Then, even if they are successful in getting one banned, there are thirty new ones in the queue. 

This is insanity. The default position should clearly be that no chemical should come to market unless it can be proven that it isn't a danger to nature or human health. In other words, the burden of proof should be on the polluter. 

At present we prioritize profits over nature and human health. We allow a certain amount of damage to human health and the environment so that we do not make things too difficult for the business community and slow the growth of our economy. In other words, our government is on the side of the polluter, not on the side of the commons. 

This must change.

The government's role in a nature positive economy is to defend the commons, not to defend the polluters. 

Wouldn't it be nice. 

What would be really nice is if humans, perhaps with a little persuasion, would simply volunteer to change our behavior.  But I think it is safe to say that we are not going to transition quickly to a nature positive economy on good will alone. There is a role for education, of course, but it is not enough. Even educated people continue to engage in nature negative practices. The economy gives them little choice. 

Regardless of how we get there, the following is an unassailable truth: what we are doing now and what we have done so far is not working.  Just look at the numbers. It is time to change. Environmentalists, we're speaking to you. 

Modern industrial life cannot continue with business as usual because it has evolved to become inherently anti-nature and is therefore, unsustainable.  Attempts to compensate, through conservation efforts, anti-pollution laws, regulations and other means,  have merely slowed the destruction down, and trapped environmentalists in an endless loop of opposition. The inboxes are filled daily with pleas to "fight". Fight for this, fight for that. 

In our government bodies, nature is always on the chopping block when the economy demands it, and all our established protections are in danger of being snatched away at any moment, based on the whims of individuals who prioritize wealth. We might win a battle or two, but where nature positive practices are outnumbered by nature negative practices 30:1 (NC),  there is no chance we will win the war. 

This document is about how we win the war. 

Some Common Criticisms Answered

Why all the doom and gloom? 

A prevalent theme that seems to infect our mainstream discourse is that talking about environmental concerns  is an excursion into "doom and gloom" and "fear mongering" . What this characterization fails to recognize is that admitting that there is a problem is the first step towards healing. This concept should be familiar to anyone who has had experience with substance abuse. Our society is behaving much like an addict in denial, whether in the form of hostile denial or, more commonly, defense of the status quo.. Providing evidence that the planet is in deep trouble is not "doom and gloom", it is an urgent call to action. 

We believe the scientists.  We believe the evidence. But the authors of this document believe that there is only one choice of how to respond to the crisis: with hope. This is not just an empty exercise in optimism, since there is much to be hopeful about. First, we already have most of the tools we need to fix this.  Even better news? A nature positive society is one of abundance, not scarcity, and is built to optimize happiness.  Kicking our habit should not be viewed as sacrifice, but rather, a change in priorities and a move towards a healthier future. 

For a healthy economy to take shape, however, society must rethink its singular focus on material wealth as the measure of success. To be "rich" or "wealthy" must be measured not by how many things we own, or the size of those things, but by our level of  well-being and our ability to reach our full potential. In addition, our pathological desire for unlimited growth, dominance and a proclivity for living "large" must be adjusted, with an emphasis on quality over quantity. 

In other words, the nature positive future is small: smaller homes, smaller supply chains, smaller businesses and smaller fortunes. People can still buy, sell and own "stuff", but that stuff must not harm the commons. Those driven to achieve material success will still be able to do so, though they might live less lavishly than their modern counterparts. 

Building the nature positive economy is a hopeful project that promises a healthier future.

But doesn't this go against "human nature"? 

It is not the belief of the authors of this document that this change in mindset is somehow inimical to human nature or desire. Many people, when asked if money is the most important thing in life, will say it is not. They will list other things: family, friends, health, nature, knowledge, art, music, physical activity, hobbies, etc. Studies show that money is only correlated with happiness up to the point of financial stability (NC). The idea that living lavishly, with multiple, large homes and boats should be everyone's goal in life is a myth pushed by our corporate dominated culture.  It is not "human nature". 

Moreover, what global capitalism has wrought is a reward system for antisocial behavior. This reward system guarantees that a high percentage of people making and influencing the largest decisions we must make are motivated by selfishness and greed, not by a desire to build a better world. Not only do people who have been motivated in this way dominate the decisions, they also dominate the propaganda that must be employed to justify and sell these decisions to the public. This is a major reason we are now on the brink. The people who are the architects of our economic system are now using their vast resources to keep the ruse going as long as possible and are literally building bunkers to protect themselves from the consequences (NC). 

In our view, the main feature of our "nature" is that we are capable of a wide range of behaviors and attitudes. We can be selfish, but we can also be deeply compassionate, even for strangers. We can be cruel, but we can also be kind.  We are social creatures, not solitary ones. We rely on cooperation as much as we do on competition. It is the social and political environment we live in that determines what parts of ourselves become dominant. 

In fact, biophilia (a love of nature) is present at birth and is bred out of children by our antinature society (NC). Our homes and businesses are built to insulate us from the outside world. A typical American lawn is unwelcoming to nature.  Our modern lexicon is full of words that dismiss the intrinsic value and individuality of animals: wildlife is to be "managed" and  "livestock" is to be "processed".  We treat animals as commodities to be bought and sold, as entertainers to please and comfort us, as inconveniences or as intruders. Often, non-human animals are presented as something to be feared or caged, not admired and free. 

Though it is not an explicit goal of the nature positive economy to build a more compassionate world, the authors of this document predict that it will emerge naturally. It is the hope of the authors that a nature positive society will improve all lives on this planet: the lives of humans and non-human animals alike, and will restore our respect for living things, as well as awaken us to the joy of our interdependence. It is also our hope that when the benefits of a nature positive economy become apparent, the failings of violence, oppression and hatred will as well. 

Further, if you allow us to extrapolate on some disturbing trends driven by our obsession with material wealth, it seems that humans are rapidly being transformed into products. Automation is accelerating this change because working for a "paycheck", the way which many of us proved our value in the past, is becoming obsolete. Therefore, to survive, former workers must become entrepreneurs and must market themselves in order to prove their worth. They must have their own "brand", their own logo, and, certainly, must look like a sleek, stylish entrepreneur. There is no place for messiness: human frailty and fallibility is unacceptable. If imperfection bubbles to the surface, there's a pill for that. 

This is a harsh and joyless place to live, one where selfishness and narcissism is admired and expected. In this society there are a few lucky winners, but many more losers. A quality is only considered valuable if it has earning potential, otherwise, it is pointless. In many ways, the majority of humanity will be treated much like nature is treated now. 

In contrast, the nature positive economy begins with the notion that humans and nature have intrinsic value. This mindset is not only a breeding ground for compassion, it is less stressful and healthier. It celebrates the full breadth of the human experience, not just those aspects that are deemed useful to the global economy. There is a role for the entrepreneur, but it is just one role among many. It is not the only role or even the most important one. 

However,  since the majority of our state's citizens have been born and raised under our current economic system that is inherently antinature, violent,  and organized around attaining material wealth, an immediate shift in attitude cannot be expected.  The economic changes must come first. 

The behaviors and attitudes that we think of as "normal" have been learned. They can be unlearned. 

Won't it require social control to make this happen? People won't like that. 

The nature positive economy, as envisioned by the authors,  is a primarily capitalist and local economy overseen and supported by a democratic government that is truly putting people and nature first. It may be tempting for opponents of this effort to label it as "social control", but this is not so. 

In a nature positive economy, the ownership of the means of production can primarily be in private hands, but these private hands must accept a high degree of community participation and transparency. Commerce can still be driven by the need to make a living and some degree of income inequality is acceptable and even necessary to drive ambition. The difference is that, in a nature positive economy, entrepreneurs cannot achieve their goals at the expense of nature and human health. In other words, the "externalities" of today's economy are no longer a problem delegated to the commons, they are problem that must be addressed by the polluters. Some laws and mandates will be necessary, but many of the changes can be actualized through incentives rather than laws. 

Life under a nature positive economy is not a threat to our freedoms, it is more free than the society we live in now. How are we free?  We are burdened with health issues related to environmental toxins. We are burdened with price increases related to resource scarcity and the impacts of increasing extreme weather events. We are burdened with the incredible anxiety that comes with watching humanity drive itself to the brink of destruction and taking nature along for the ride. We are required to live and work within the parameters of a health-crushing infrastructure that demands participation, even though we don't agree. This is not freedom. 

On the other hand, a nature positive society is a free society. Like any civilized structure, however, it does demand responsibility. Responsibility is not a threat to freedom. It is an acknowledgement that our choices affect one another, and that freedom is not realized if it comes at the expense of robbing it from others.  This is merely the essence of something called civilization. 

The nature positive economy will enhance our freedom, though it does require accepting responsibility. 

This is globalism! 

No. Our current economy is globalism, the nature positive economy is primarily under local control and decentralized. 

The authors of this document confess that globalization has done much to raise standards of living and has lifted many people out of poverty, but the cost to nature has been too great and, if business as usual continues, the gains that were made will be reversed in the coming decades. For this reason, a nature positive economy must phase out global supply chains and replace them with local ones. 

In addition, globalization has created massive fortunes for a few people and, therefore, concentrated power. This has left the majority of the world's population at the mercy of  a handful of people who may not have the best interest of humanity in mind (NC). A local economy, with local supply chains, can sustain the economic gains of globalization, while putting decision making power into more hands: people with ties to the community and who must be responsive to their neighbors. While a nature positive economy may not completely eliminate the need for global supplies, it would require a more selective approach. 

In our version of the nature positive economy, most of the economy must operate locally. Fortunes can still be made for those who desire them, but they are not ridiculous fortunes: they are suitably correlated to the amount of work that the person has invested. They are also not fortunes made at the expense of the commons. They are fortunes that are fair. 

The nature positive economy requires localism. 

It will destroy jobs!

It is an objective of our plan to keep humans employed. An economy dominated by artificial intelligence (AI) and automation robs people of their dignity, agency, and sense of purpose..  It would seem that the push to automate is forcing humans to "adapt or die": become an entrepreneur or become obsolete. The authors of this document believe that sorting out workers into "winners" and "losers" in this way is not consistent with a compassionate society.  It results in alienation and isolation, which directly contradicts the mission of inspiring a sense of compassion, responsibility, and stewardship necessary to build the nature positive economy.

We believe that "good work" (work that is contributing to the greater good and is healthy for the body, mind and spirit) is necessary for human fulfillment. On the other hand, some forms of employment, namely those that drain the body, mind and spirit, also rob people of their dignity, agency and sense of purpose. Therefore, the jobs generated by the nature positive economy must be fashioned with human health in mind. Jobs that do nothing to contribute to our mission, in other words, should be eliminated. Jobs that are necessary but soul sucking should perhaps be performed by robots. In other words, there is a place for AI and automation, but it must be used sparingly. 

There are many ways in which the nature positive economy will stimulate jobs, not stifle them. First, we can incentivize models that empower people. This may take the form of stakeholder capitalism, in place of crony capitalism/investor capitalism,  or other more cooperative models. Second, the localized nature of the nature positive economy will provide many stable opportunities. Third, our plan will require the development of new sectors, such as the recycling sector, which will generate employment at all levels.  Fourth, existing companies that can no longer operate in a nature positive way must diversify, not totally cease operations. Fifth, propose that training for new types of work be generously incentivized. Lastly, and maybe most importantly, we suggest that automation be treated as a form of pollution and, therefore, those that adopt it will have to pay the commons. 

The nature positive economy will create opportunity, not squelch it. 

Technology will save us! 

Yes. That's the point. 

One difference between the argument laid out in this document and the argument that the invisible hand will work everything out, is that the authors of this document maintain that we can't wait and so the government must catalyze this change. If we simply let an entirely free market (not that there has ever been one)  sort things out on its own , nature negative practices will continue to outpace nature positive ones. This will result in failure. 

In our system, the government is not picking "winners" and "losers", but it is incentivizing and disincentivizing.  If a product or service is polluting, unless this product or service is illegal, it is still able to be sold in the marketplace. However, through our system, the cost of that product reflects the full cost by including the cost to the commons in its price. In other words, anyone involved in the lifecycle of that polluting product, whether it be as manufacturer, distributor, or seller, must pay. On the other hand, if a product is deemed "nature positive" then anyone involved in the lifecycle of that product can get financial support and offer that product for a lower price. 

 The nature positive economy depends entirely on human ingenuity. If a government that is truly representing "the commons" (as it should) lays out the rules and incentivizes nature positive behavior, then good innovation will be stimulated, not stifled. In fact, it is the anti progress defenders of the status quo, paradoxically making the argument for the free market approach, that are holding back this revolution in the interest of preserving their nature negative industries. It is they that are anti-free market. 

The nature positive economy incentivizes human ingenuity and innovation. 

We are already doing enough. 

No, we aren't. For this, one only needs to look at the declines of nature from year to year. Birds are in decline. Insects are in decline. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, all in decline. Even in conservation areas these groups of animals are in decline (NC). Individual species may be making comebacks, thanks to conservation efforts, but, overall, we are hemorrhaging species (NC). That doesn't exactly point to success. 

Let's just take a quick snapshot at what is going on this month in a mid-sized town in Southern New Hampshire. There was a new McDonalds built, a gas station, and a luxury housing development. This is what is happening all over the planet (NC). It is speeding up, it is not slowing down.  

The signs of our unhealthy society can be spotted all over this snapshot. So much so, in fact, that it is difficult to list them all, so let's just look at a few. 

Despite the fact that everyone knows that processed food is poisoning our bodies and our planet, McDonalds is clearly expecting their customer base to grow. They are continuing with their goal of ensuring that everyone is within a few miles of one of their restaurants. They are continuing to push their poisonous product by normalizing it and then outsourcing the health effects and environmental effects to the commons. Any attempt to regulate this is said to be taking away "customer choice". 

Despite the fact that we know that fossil fuels are not only linked to health effects, creating conflict in the world, leading to extreme weather events, destroying biodiversity, etc.  people are still betting  that this dangerous product will be accepted by society for years to come. Maybe the contractors who are building this gas station do not have their hands on the pulse, but we are assuming they have based their investment on projections that have taken the current market share possessed by renewable energy technology into account.  

Over the next several months, the housing development will permanently replace what was once a forest full of animals.  A wide area of  land will be completely cleared and leveled to accomodate the giant machines. When it's over, the oversized luxury homes and the asphalt driveways will have lush, manicured lawns devoid of soil organisms and rooms full of future trash.  Bait boxes containing wildlife killing poison, disguised to look like rocks, will line everyone's foundation and flood lights will disrupt nocturnal ecosystems for miles around. 

The developers will insist that they cannot develop any other way. Change is impractical and cost prohibitive. Their investments in machinery and tools over the years must be justified. Whether the machines begot the clearings or the clearings begot the machines is irrelevant. The facts on the ground are that If they do not build this way, their competitors will. They are just satisfying customer demand, they are not creating it. 

The "customer demand" excuse is what many businesses use to absolve themselves of responsibility for their injurious actions. It is merely a stalling tactic, trying to pull the anti-progress stunt known as "I'm just giving the people what they want": putting the blame on the consumer.  .  They are saying that they are just being practical when anyone can see that what's practical is to not wreck our life support system. 

Another common theme: we are willing to bet, though we don't know for sure, that somewhere along the line in each of these cases there were environmentalists fighting to stop it.  Perhaps they got the McDonalds moved to a less damaging location. Perhaps they got the gas station to move slightly to the left in order to avoid habitat for an endangered turtle. Perhaps they got the developer to build ten houses instead of twelve.  

In every case, the developer will carry that resentment against the citizens that opposed them, even though they ultimately got their way. Most of the members of the board or the commission or whatever government body that they had to answer to was probably on their side, not working for the commons. The process may've taken a long time, holding up progress. Next time, they'll just weaken the laws. 

From the poison food, the poison fuel, and the poisoned wildlife, great fortunes will be made.

The global statistics say it all: for every one dollar spent on conserving nature, there is thirty dollars being spent on its destruction (NC). Despite all the hard work being done in this area, conservation efforts will never keep up.  We need to change how our economy operates, and put nature and human health first. 

The nature positive economy, though, goes beyond conservation. It includes nature based solutions, restoration and integration, meaning  that nature is incorporated into the places we live and work. Creative architecture, that makes smaller, healthier living spaces that support, rather than destroy nature. More wetlands, more forests, more native plants, more wildlife.

More on this later. 

Despite conservation efforts, declines in nature continue year after year and cannot keep pace with the resource extraction and development brought by the global economy.  Clearly, we need to do more. 

It'll never happen. 

Of course it will happen. It has to happen. Just ask any successful business person, if you begin a project by saying "it is going to fail", it will. So get this idea out of your head. The nature positive economy is a goal. It gives us something to work towards.  It also gives us something to promote rather than oppose, and something that is comprehensive, bringing environmentalists together for a common purpose. 

What is required is an ability to sell this idea to the majority of the public, even the polluters, and persuasively explain why it is necessary and good. This will require good messengers and strong leadership.

We no longer have time for appeasers and defenders of the status quo. Too often, politicians take the easy, spineless road of trying to strategically win over voters with diluted messages in an effort to appeal to "the middle".  Instead, politicians should lead with their convictions and persuade voters that this is a good idea. A healthy environment should not be a hard sell in the hands of a good communicator. 

It is also imperative that we make the government more responsive by electing leaders who recognize that their primary obligation is to the commons. There will always be people with selfish interests who will try to discredit and subvert the effort, and if they are the majority, then we will continue to prop up our nature negative economy. 

We believe that the majority of people in our state (or our country, or our world) have a connection to nature and do not want to see it destroyed. They can also understand that politicians, from both sides of the aisle, are lying to them. As forementioned, but worth repeating, the gains that our global economy have made over the last few decades are reversing. A "good life" for the majority of citizens is not possible unless we transform. This will become apparent to people no matter what we do. The lies that we can "fix" the economy with business as usual will be exposed by our increasing hostile natural disasters, resource scarcity, and conflict. 

There is no way to fix the economy if we continue with business as usual. There is no way to guarantee "affordability", because resource scarcity is happening and prices will keep going up. There is no way to guarantee safety because as areas of the earth become uninhabitable, people will try to survive any way they can. Even if you have no empathy, who wants to live in a world like that? Your selfishness and self sufficiency may protect you from danger, but it will not protect you from a shitty life. 

One more point: those that are propping up the status quo are as much deniers as those that deny that our unsustainable environmental destruction is even happening. Carrying on as we are is not an option for those of us who want a healthy future for our children and our grandchildren. 

The nature positive economy is not a way forward, if we don't want to live in hell, it is  the only way.  

Okay, so let's dive in. 

The plan that is about to be unfurled in these pages is a twenty (or so) year plan built around a few basic principles that must be enforced by law. For the plan to work, these foundational principles cannot be diluted or ignored and must be established immediately.  The first part of this document will discuss some of these foundational principles. 

Following that, we will examine more specifically how these principles might be applied in different sectors of the economy. This part of the document, however, is mostly suggestive. The authors do not claim to have expertise in every area and are open to ideas. Becoming nature positive is a goal that opens the door to many possibilities limited only by the human imagination and the laws of physics. 

This plan is not the only possible plan. It may need to be modified or perhaps there is a better plan. However, the authors of this document maintain that we need deliberate collective action that spreads the responsibility in a proportional way and does not rely on what we've already been doing: being happy with small wins, using conservation as our only tool to preserve nature, trying to raise public awareness, trying to appeal to the fictional "middle" by diluting the message, making the citizen responsible to clean up the mess, electing leaders who primarily side with polluters, etc.  

Business as usual will not suffice.  

Signing this document is not necessarily a commitment to this particular plan, it is a commitment to the notion that we need to take concentrated, deliberate and immediate action to build the nature positive economy. 

A Plan to Build the Nature Positive Economy

The foundational principles, which under this plan are non-negotiable, can be easily condensed into a few words. In a nature positive economy polluters are responsible for their mess, nature is at the center of the economy, and waste is unacceptable.  

Section 1: The Fundamentals

Polluters are responsible for their mess

To start any project of this size, we need initial capital, and lots of it. That initial capital must come from polluting industries, not from the citizen. Therefore, the first move is to launch a big push to get polluters to pay. For the purposes of this document, we have to assume that this effort is successful. This is the initial capital that we will dub the "livable state fund" (LSF). We may have to workshop that a bit! 

This fund is established under a state law that must be enacted immediately: "polluters pay".  Very simply, this law states that that if a product or practice is deemed to be harmful to the commons, then the company that offers that product or service must pay into the livable state fund.  If the business becomes nature positive, however, they are eligible for grants from the same fund. 

To sell this idea to the public, and especially to the polluter who will presumably object, we must convince people that this is not punitive, and it is not a tax. This is a system of collective responsibility and redistribution of resources from polluters to non-polluters. Under this system, businesses that agree to change from a polluter to a non-polluter can be reimbursed. 

To help implement this law, we will need two things. First, the government must create an objective rating system (ORS) to determine who the polluters are. Second, a new department must be established to conduct audits, provide support and oversee the distribution of funds.  

Here's an example of how this ORS might operate. Though it is not a tax, it would operate similar to an income tax system. First, a raw score might be predetermined based on the standard practices of a particular industry, analogous to a "taxable income". Then, the score would be modified based on the particular description of the company, the size, for example.  We would predict that, intially,  most businesses would find themselves labeled as polluters and would, therefore, owe something to the LSF. 

However, this is the not the end of the story! In-house offsets, in the  form of predetermined nature positive activities, could help alleviate some of the burden. This would be analogous to the concept of taking "tax credits".  Offsets would include what we will call "Grounds Based Offsets" (GBO): improvements to the tangible assets of the company. Example of GBO would include, but would not be limited to,  providing wildlife habitat, replacing outdoor lighting with motion lighting, installing nature  positive on-site waste treatment systems (OWTS), installing renewable energy, upgrading efficiency, using biodegradable or infinitely recyclable products (BIRM), or having a viable recycling plan. 

This is not an exhaustive list! Offsets could take many forms. In fact, the authors of this document suggest that any human job that is eliminated and replaced with automation or AI should count against a company's score, and any job that is preserved, should count as an offset. In other words, automation in itself a form of "pollution" and should be handled as all pollution is. 

Unfortunately, the current system of global offsets has resulted mostly in green washing and has not generated any net improvement in the state of the environment (NC). Therefore, global offsets should be discouraged and replaced with in-house offsets. For example, a paper company that decides that they must use a legal toxic chemical to make their paper can offset some of what they owe to the commons by scaling up on lab grown wood pulp or by using selective logging that favors more complex forest ecosystems. They can also establish an in-house recycling operation, or contract with recycling company to reduce the need for fresh timber.  

And, yes, they will pass this cost onto their customers, thus causing prices to increase. But that's the idea: that the price of a product or service finally reflect the cost of the damage it does to nature and human health. A hamburger is no longer cheap, because the cost of the heart disease, and the habitat destruction, and the animal cruelty, and the climate change that goes along with it is finally being fully reflected by the price. If the hamburger is too expensive, well, there is a much cheaper, nature positive sandwich being offered down the street. 

The system would need to be user friendly, easy, and quick. For example, it could be an on-line tool with a series of questions and offset suggestions geared towards the particular industry.  All businesses, big and small, would be required to participate. Failure to participate or deviations from the businesses reported profile would result in steep fines that would be deposited into the LSF.  Frequent audits would also be necessary to keep them honest. 

While the details of this system can be negotiated, may we suggest a scale of -5 to 5, with -5 being the most nature negative, 0 being nature neutral, and 5 being the best possible score indicating peak nature positivity.  Scores on the negative side means that the business must pay in, a neutral score means that the business does not have to pay, but is also not eligible for grants. Scores on the positive side would mean that a business can receive grants from the fund with their eligibility tied to the degree of their score and the size of their operation.   

 In essence, the ORS and the LSF would be a system of punishments and rewards applied in order to accelerate societal change in a positive direction. Those companies that can demonstrate compliance are rewarded with grants. Those that refuse to comply must pay what they owe the commons for their polluting behavior. 

It is important to note that nominal amounts in either direction would render the system futile.  Punishments and rewards must be substantial enough to incentivize change, but not so substantial that they generate anger and opposition. This would be a delicate task, indeed! 

Another tool to assist with stimulating change could be "Livable State Loans" (LSLs). Lending institutions, would also be rated for the extent of their nature positivity based on the types of business projects that they fund. If a majority of a bank's funding was found to support "nature negative" businesses, than that bank would pay into the fund. Helping to fund projects that are deemed "nature positive", however, such as new recycling initiatives, regenerative farms, lab grown meat factories, or manufacturing for the green energy economy, would make the bank eligible for grants. They could then pass these savings onto their borrowers in the form of sweet terms.

In other words, under our plan, all banks are green banks! 

To see how this might play out, let's take a fictional medium sized, family owned jewelry store. Once a year, around tax time, a representative of the store would apply for an ORS score. The score they received would be based on a predetermined level of environmental destruction that their industry tends to engage in. Then, after the score was modified for their size and other factors, they would be informed of their mandatory contribution to the LSF. 

The following year, however, if the jewelry store had made some changes to their grounds, their practices, or their inventory that eased their burden and elevated their score into positive territory, they could be reimbursed for the offsets and perhaps even have money left over from their grant to do more. With a positive score, they could also be eligible for LSLs.  They could install OWTS, make upgrades in energy efficiency, shift entirely to recycled inventory, switch to bio-asphalt in their parkinglot, designate an area of their property as wildlife habitat, or whatever nature positive project suits them. 

If the jewelry store did not want to pay or change, then they could shut their doors and take their pollution elsewhere.   And to that we say good riddance. If being a polluter is so essential to a business that they decide they can't live without it, and they don't want to pay what they owe the commons for their polluting behavior, then it will create an opportunity to be filled by a local entrepreneur who is is eager to participate.

It is important to note that, under our plan, unless a substance or practice is specifically banned,  these practices can still carry on. In other words, if a company decides that they cannot produce their product without a legal toxic chemical, then they can carry on, but they are polluters, and they must pay. If a company decides that they want to continue to peddle unhealthful food, then they can, but they must pay. If a developer wants to continue to destroy habitat to erect giant buildings that have no place in a nature positive society then they can, but they will not earn their expected profits. Why? Because they must pay. 

In any case,  is not the responsibility of the citizen to pay for the transition and these mandates do not require any increase in taxes on individuals. However, the plan does not rule out tax incentives or other tax based motivators. For example, tax incentives like the ones that are now issued for building affordable housing, can also be employed. Individual households could get a break on property taxes for engaging in nature positive behavior. Existing subsidies can be shifted to support sustainable businesses. Perhaps a separate system for residences, operating  much like the LSF, could also be created.

Please note that in our plan, it is no longer the responsibility of individual citizens or NGOs to call out polluters and prove it in a court of law. Up until now, using the judicial system for dealing with polluters has resulted in long, hard fought campaigns with less than stellar outcomes for those that have suffered and, despite some notable wins, the overall result is the continued destruction of our life support system.  Under the new system we are proposing,  polluters are polluters, and they receive a  score that says so. Instead of financial rewards going to a few individuals that have suffered and managed to file claims, the rewards go to everyone.

However, if a company wishes to challenge their label as a "polluter", they could do so in a court of law, but the burden of proof is now on them. Also, if polluters are caught trying to cheat the system they will have to defend themselves in court. NGOs would still serve an important role as watchdogs and referees.

One more point before we move on to the next princiople. The LSF is not meant to be permanent, it is meant to accelerate a transition from an unsustainable economy to a sustainable one.  While large incentives will be necessary at the beginning of this process, they may become less important over time. If the system works correctly, the fund will dwindle and nature positive practices will become the norm. The death of the fund is the success of the system. 

Nature is at the center of the economy. 

A current system of handling the "nature question" uses one tool: large scale conservation. This approach reflects the underlying assumption borne from our inherently destructive system that  progress must sacrifice nature.  The word is protective, and, therefore, passive and defensive. By dividing up land into human zones and nature zones, it also reinforces the notion that the human sphere and the nature sphere are somehow separate. 

Though a nature positive economy requires conventional conservation, the new economy will go a step further by integrating nature into the places we live and work.   Not only does this serve a practical purpose, by supporting wildlife, it inspires a change in cultural mindset. In the nature positive economy, nature is no longer "in the way" of progress, it is a sign of progress.  It is no longer enough to  passively conserve, we must actively restore and promote. Also, with nature all around us, we will awaken our natural connections to the systems that sustain us, improving our mental, physical and emotional health. 

Our plan, then, uses three tools: conservation, restoration and integration. The first two can simply be achieved by strengthening existing laws and increasing the amount of continuous habitat that is preserved and/or returned to nature. The third, integration, is where the full capacity of the nature positive economy to build a healthier society can truly be realized. 

The road (built with bio asphalt and under a nature bridge, of course!) to nature positive begins with taking the endangered species act to the next level: a stronger law reflecting the fact that nature, itself is endangered. This would require focusing on restoring and preserving habitats rather than individual species.  In addition, the deliberate destruction of native wildlife, endangered, threatened or common should no longer be tolerated and fines for this behavior must be increased.  Some practices are so nature negative that they will have to be completely phased out: namely pesticides and non-safety related non-motion outdoor lights (NSMOL).  

The damage that roads are doing to wildlife populations is something that will need special attention. This will require creative solutions and lots of incentives. Wildlife crossings will certainly become more ubiquitous, but there may be other ways. Perhaps advanced technology can help in this department with automated wildlife detection systems. It also might be necessary to place a moratorium on new road construction, streamline our transportation system, and return some redundant roads to nature. A system could also be set up that made municipalities financially responsible for animals killed on their roads. This would require improved tracking of road mortality. In addition, with a nature positive development plan to localize and steer the majority of the population away from suburbs and towards population centers, roads would inevitably become less traveled. 

Noise is also an issue for wildlife and, so, our machines must be engineered to not just become smaller, but also quieter. Any sounds above a certain decibel level will be included in a company's overall score on the ORS. Any attempts to decrease noise pollution, therefore,  can be taken as an offset. There may also need to be stricter laws put in place to discourage sound pollution produced by individuals. 

An exciting "bioeconomy" can be borne from this new attitude towards nature. Nature based solutions can replace many of our nature damaging industries when we recognize the full range of services that nature provides. Rain gardens and wetlands, for example, can help manage run-off. Agroforestry, greenhouses, lab grown products, and vertical gardens can help reduce the need for clearing land for farms. Human structures can serve as substrates to support nature. Wildlife crossings could also be dually purposed as local solar farms, and serve as bridges over roads, providing beauty, shade and, if enough could be built, an expansion of habitat. 

So how do we accomplish this? 

First, we need to increase our public lands and protect them from commercial use. In addition to expanding large areas, smaller habitats should be purchased by the commons to act as a system of small habitat parks (SHiPs). SHiPs are similar to "green spaces", but different in the sense that they are primarily managed for nature and not humans.  They would be tucked into office parks, commercial strips, and neighborhoods. Land that is less than 5 acres, and currently for sale to developers should be vigorously pursued for this purpose. 

Second, all landscaping companies must be incentivized, though the LSF system, to shift their practices. Conventional practices, which involve the maintenance of entirely nature negative "lawns", lots of chemicals, planting of non-native species, the employment of massive energy guzzling and loud machines, etc. must result in a very low score. Offsets would be in the form of landscaping plans that use wildlife promoting features like vernal pools, native plants, and meadows that will still require maintenance, but with a lighter (and quieter) touch. 

Third,  all businesses that own property can hire these companies and take habitat credits as offsets. There should be extra credits assigned to keeping healthy large trees and/or habitat for species that are of greatest concern. Also, the removal of invasive plants should be a priority. Though our plan is for businesses and not consumers, it might be possible to implement a separate system that similarly rewards individual property owners for supplying habitat as a public service. 

The authors of this document are also tempted to offer special protection for trees, especially large ones. Keeping most of New Hampshire forested should be a particular focus of the nature positive economy. In light of projected population growth and the acceleration of current and future development, we must act now to ensure that trees are worth more alive than they are dead. How we achieve this, however, must be carefully considered. 

Perhaps this could be accomplished by making trees, much like navigable waters, automatically public property.  However, the nature positive economy must not get a reputation for wanting to "abolish private property". This is a dangerous perception that must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, it may not be prudent or even necessary to make this change if incentives are generously applied to make it cost effective not to cut down trees. 

Another approach might be the employment of an objective equation that can assess the value of a stand of trees based on number, size and species. Perhaps private property owners could be paid, by the LSF, to keep their trees. Timber harvesting on public lands, however, should be fully banned under our new wildlife law. 

The forest products industry, whose advocates claim that they are already managing timber harvesting in an environmentally responsible way, still may have to adjust to this new paradigm that increases the value of living trees. While responsible harvesting can certainly be part of the nature-positive mix, it must be done carefully and sparingly. Innovations in this industry can also be fully incentivized. This includes, but is not limited to, expanding the production of rapidly renewable plants, lab-grown wood products, and expanding reclamation and recycling. People employed in the timber industry would not lose their jobs, they would just have to diversify their practices. 

Fourth, it would now be necessary for any developer, landscaper, tree service, timber companies, or anyone whose job involves "alteration of terrain" to be classified as an extreme polluter (-5 on the ORS) unless they shift their practices. The ORS should be sophisticated enough to offer them suggestions for improvement, and LSF funds should be used to supply free training. Some of these companies could diversify and become "invasive plant warriors", which would employ mechanical removal and restoration, not chemicals, to drastically reduce the presence of invasive plants. Creative solutions, such as requiring that the presence of invasive plants diminish property value, would make their expertise marketable to the public and keep them busy for years to come. 

In summary, in our new economy, the condition of nature is no longer exclusively supported by traditional conservation and restoration practices but also through efforts to integrate. Integration will take two main forms: a public push to  build SHiPs, and a private push to incentivize nature positive development practices. 

When we get nature back in balance, human health will follow.  The blocky house with the big garage and the asphalt driveway and the manicured lawn needs to be phased out.  The future is smaller, more elegant, more durable, more beautiful and healthier. Architects, engineers and developers are essential for accelerating this change. They are not the enemy, they are partners in building the nature positive future. 

It is all hands on the (nature positive) deck! 

Waste is unacceptable. 

Our globalized economy along with our "extract, consume, and discard" mindset has built a beast that will be difficult to tame, but we certainly need to get it under control. It creates pollution, is inefficient to manage, and has deleterious impacts on human health and the environment. The beast has multiple arms reaching out into almost every sector of society.  It seems indestructible. But  destroy it we must! 

There is now more trash on the planet than biomass (NC)! For far too long we have accepted waste as an inevitability and have yet to manage it responsibly.  Landfills, incineration, shipping it overseas, throwing it in the river, are all "nature negative" practices. In the U.S., waste has been a problem that is delegated to the commons. In our plan, waste is a problem that must be solved by the polluter. 

The nature positive economy is a circular economy, or a "zero waste" economy, a concept that may be viewed as two wheels that never touch. One wheel returns products to the environment to be fully degraded into nutrients that feed future living things, and the other wheel takes products that cannot be broken down in this way (biodegraded) back into the industrial cycle to be indefinitely recycled. It is important to note that there is no room for "down cycling" in this type of economy. An example of down cycling would be making shirts out of plastic bottles. Without a fully circular system, these well intended efforts merely delay the release of these pollutants in to the environment but do not solve the problem.

Zero waste means what it says: waste is no longer acceptable.  This can be thought of as a goal rather than a mandate. Under our plan this will mostly be achieved through incentives from the LSF, though some laws will need to be enacted in order to get us there. 

From the manufacturers point of view, this means that they must accept a system of  Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). In other words, a product is a  manufacturer's responsibility and its "disposal" is included in its initial design. Just as a company spends resources making a product attractive,  it also must spend resources making the product biodegradable or infinitely recyclable (BIRM). 

These mandates are not punitive, they are stimulating. Many of the technologies to make this possible already exist, but for those that don't, we must only rely on human ingenuity which will be supercharged by the challenge. The mandate can potentially create many opportunities for job creation and entrepreneurship. For example, large companies can extend their operations to include in house recycling operations, while waste management companies can expand their recycling options. A  network of private recycling facilities could be created to meet the needs of smaller companies, individuals, and specialty products. 

Recycling is at the heart of the nature positive economy. Everything must be recycled locally and the process must be simplified for the citizen. Setting up a recycling operation should be hugely incentivized by the ORS and entrepreneurs who wanted to launch such a business should have access to generous LSLs and grants from the LSF.  

A particularly sticky issue for transitioning to a "zero waste" society  is that our nature negative economy has produced a wide diversity of large machines used for farming, shipping, landscaping, developing, etc. that are not nature positive.  It has reached the point of absurdity, really, with landscapers hauling giant ridable mowers around in massive trailers, and then tackling an area that could easily be left to nature or at least mowed with a manual reel mower. Increasingly, lawn equipment resembles weapons of war and it seems that the average middle class household must own their own backhoe in order to be complete. 

Future business should be conducted with smaller, lighter, quieter machines that run on electricity and are capable of surgical alterations to the landscape. For many businesses, the investment they have already made in machinery might be a reason that they are reluctant to try something new. Therefore, it will be necessary for the government to remove this stubborn barrier to progress. Perhaps this could be achieved by incentivizing an equipment trade in system,  where businesses could turn in their old equipment and recieve better equipment in return.

 For this to work, a recycling industry specializing in this area of the economy would need to be generously incentivized by the LSF. This would be a great business opportunity for an intrepid entrepreneur! Old machines could be taken apart, recycled and redesigned all in the same factory. For our zero waste world, these machines should also be designed to be fully recyclable so that, at the end of their useful lives, they can be recycled again. An intense focus on this area, funded by the LSF, will result in accelerated innovation. 

The authors recognize that our exciting new recycling infrastructure must employ toxic chemicals and energy intensive practices, at least initially.  However, research that is done in order to make it more efficient and safer must also be greatly incentivized and those that use fewer toxic chemicals, renewable energy, or find less toxic ways of doing business,  would be eligible for bigger grants. 

In our "zero waste" economy it must  be a law that any chemical deemed toxic cannot enter the environment. That is why we are demanding that all pesticides should be phased out. With a full ban on all pesticides, gone are the days of environmentalists having to spend massive resources making their case, only to be thwarted by a system that is ultimately more sympathetic to profits than nature and human health. Instead, if a company has developed a pesticide that is somehow nature positive (seems impossible) then the burden of proof is on them. However, we propose that balanced ecosystems are all we need to manage pests. Our reliance on pesticides amounts to an irrational addiction. 

Our aim here is not to make people angry or put them out of business, but there is no doubt that the businesses that depend on pesticides will have to change dramatically. To ease the burden of their transformation,  we propose that financial support and training must be made available from the LSF. 

Biological waste must also be recycled. This does not mean "Soylent Green" since decomposition is entirely nature positive, so don't worry! The conventional funeral industry, however, would definitely have to pay in to the LSF unless they adopted more nature positive practices. Food waste can be recycled into fertilizer and a whole new infrastructure can be built to manage it. New buildings should have circular systems that deal with human waste (naturally) in house. This is not impossible! We will address this subject in more detail later. 

The authors also recognize that our global economy makes enforcing EPR and a "polluters pay" law very challenging. Therefore, efforts to localize our economy must take place simultaneously. In many cases, payments into the fund will have to be made by retailers, landlords, franchises and distributors, who will presumably put pressure on their distant owners and suppliers. It is also the dream of the authors of this document that our model is adopted more widely, depleting the power of the globalized system and taking back local control. 

This sector will require much revolutionary adjustment and intensive support to make it happen. However, the modern equivalents of the people that built the massive infrastructure that we now rely upon are the same ones that whine, "we can't do it!".  They are merely anti-free market protectionists and should be called out for their obstructionist behavior. 

Of course we can. 

Section 2: The Mandates

Goal #1: 

Achieve most of the goals of the nature positive economy with incentives and localization rather than mandates.

Goal #2

Supportive laws for the nature positive economy must be passed immediately. See below for a list.

To implement the nature positive transition we must elect enough lawmakers willing to facilitate it. For the purposes of this document, let's assume success. Then, it is just a matter of passing a few seminal laws. Here are the major pieces of legislation that will need to be passed immediately.  Though the laws themselves are non-negotiable, the substance of these laws can be refined. 

1. Endangered Nature Law: This law will strengthen our existing wildlife laws and make any sort of abuse of native animals punishable with strict penalties. It might also set up a system that made municipalities financially responsible for wildlife road mortality and establish a citizen's task force to track and report wildlife deaths. It could change the name and mission of the Fish and Game Department. It may also create an "invasive species" task force that will develop a plan to remove invasive plant species and replace them with natives. It may also instruct the DOT to leave more of our roadsides for nature. A "sound provision" should also be included, placing a cap on outdoor noise with penalties attached. 

2. Pesticide Phase Out: This law would phase out all pesticides, not just some. It would also prohibit the marketing of new pesticides. The name of the Pesticide Control Board might be changed to reflect their new mission: develop a plan to phase out all pesticides by 2040. 

3. Dark Skies: This law would phase out NMSOL by 2030. A plan could be created to distribute free motion converters to residents and businesses, and to create penalty structures for non-compliance. Electronic billboards would be immediately banned. People using them would simply have to remove them or face steep fines. 

4. Polluters Pay Law: This law would establish the LSF and the ORS as well as a new department tasked with implementing it. Some form of Extended Producer Responsibility would also be included in this law. The law would also establish a "Trash Task Force" that would negotiate the terms of the privatization of all waste management and set up a viable system for shifting from a "discard" economy to a "circular" one.  A provision increasing penalties and producer responsibility for littering would also be included as well as a permanent moratorium on new incinerators and landfills. 

5. Data Center Regulation Act: This law would limit the size, number and location of data centers in the state of NH. All data centers would be have to be small, integrated into the existing infrastructure, and be nature positive. No "hyperscale" data centers would be allowed. 

Perhaps these laws could all go into one "Big Beautiful Bill", only this time, it would truly result in more beauty. 

Government 

After passing these laws, a major priority of the government would be to create the LSF and the ORS.  The details of how the system operated would have to be negotiated. It might be wise, therefore, to appoint a task force, composed of industry representatives and environmentalists, to hammer out an agreeable system. 

Next, the government must serve as an example by conducting an internal assessment of each existing government department using the ORS. If the department receives a negative score, then it must come up with a plan to bring the score to neutral or positive in a specified time period.  It would do this in the same way that businesses would: by taking offsets for integrating nature positive practices. 

Since it is necessary to not put the citizen on the hook for the polluter's mess, these changes should be made within the existing department budget by reallocation of funds. However, if additional funds are required, the government should be allowed to withdraw from the LSF.  The government would be the only entity that can withdraw from the fund with a nature negative score, though any savings attributed to nature positive upgrades should be returned to the fund. 

To accelerate positive change, the government should also make it known that one's score on the ORS will be strongly considered when awarding contracts.  The Department of Transportation, for example, might contract with a company that uses recycled bio-asphalt for paving. The Recreation Department might hire nature positive landscapers. The Department of Administrative Services might award contracts to companies who supply BIRM. 

As previously mentioned, the overall role of the government in our plan is to protect the commons. It is necessary that we elect bold leaders and good messengers.  Every part of this plan should be clearly explained to the public from the beginning. Messaging should always be positive and inclusive, and emphasize benefits. The purveyors of the status quo will be out in droves trying to discredit this plan any way they can. We must be as patient with them as possible. Change is not easy! 

The bioeconomy is an "all hands on deck" approach. However, some sectors of the economy are more responsible than others for our current predicament and will have to undergo major transformation. The five sectors that we will call the "Big Five" are  energy, waste management, agriculture, development and healthcare.

Section 3: Energy

 Goal #3: 

By 2050, 80% of New Hampshire's  energy will be supplied by renewable sources and 80% of the state's infrastructure will be electrified.

Goal #4: 

A viable system of  modern public transportation and electric private transport that is truly competitive will be in place by 2050.

There is no contest. Renewable energy and electrification are the clear choice for a nature positive economy. Fossil fuels are inherently polluting. Carbon dioxide emissions alone should be enough to convince people that we need to transition, but this is a dirty fuel in more ways that one. The authors of this document do not think that nuclear energy can ever be considered nature positive. It creates non biodegradable, non-recyclable waste, is only possible within the context of a global economy (the negative impacts of which were discussed earlier), and is inherently toxic. 

In addition to being the least polluting of all the energy options, renewable energy will localize the energy economy. It is energy independence to the max. It has the other colossal benefit of also being free. It doesn't have to be mined, transported, refined or distributed. The technology needed to harness it, of course, is not free, and will therefore support a local economy of manufacturers, installers, recyclers, and repairers. It is a win-win for everyone involved except the polluters, who can choose to adapt their businesses. 

Many detractors of renewable energy are concerned that these technologies are not enough to fuel our energy intensive economy. However, the economy we are proposing is smaller and more efficient.  Therefore, many of these concerns are unwarranted in the context of a fully nature positive society. 

The transition to renewable energy cannot succeed without a simultaneous push for energy efficiency. At present, it is estimated that as much as 43 percent of the energy generated in the United States is unnecessary (NC).  For example, about 120 billion KWh of energy is used annually to power non-safety related non-motion outdoor lighting (NSMOL) (NC), which has no place in a nature positive economy. Other factors that could be addressed include outdated technology, poorly insulated buildings or human neglect. 

Another issue raised by renewable energy skeptics, whether in good faith or not,  is the potential impact these technologies may have on biodiversity. Though even under the worst case scenarios, clean energy is less of a threat to nature than fossil fuels or nuclear energy, any legitimate impacts on biodiversity should be unacceptable. If it is found, for example, that a solar or wind farm is negatively impacting wildlife, this should be immediately addressed. 

However, unlike fossil fuels or nuclear energy,  any of these potential problems can be mitigated with proper design, proper placement, decentralization, or proper infrastructure. For example, solar panels, unlike a nuclear power reactor,  can be placed on a roof, resulting in no habitat destruction. Small solar farms can also be located in asphalt parking lots, over roads, or on tops of commercial buildings. The ability for renewable energy to be surreptitiously and inconspicuously placed almost anywhere makes it the clear winner in terms of reducing habitat loss. Many other nature negative effects, such as direct wildlife deaths from collisions (which seems to have been greatly exaggerated) can be mitigated by design changes or technology. 

In any case, out of all our current energy options, renewable energy is the only one that has the potential to also be nature positive. Solar and wind farms can be surrounded by nature, or in some cases, as in the case of floating windfarms (NC) can serve as a substrate for habitat themselves.  Designs that incorporate nature can not only directly improve quality of life by reducing pollution, they can be beautiful. Try doing that with an oil refinery! In fact, most any nature negative consequence of green energy can be subverted by human ingenuity. The same can not be said of inherently dirty fuels. 

All attempts to transition to renewables that also include nature positive design or placement should be incentivized. 

It is often said that our green energy future requires mining, a nature negative practice on all fronts. This is not so. First, demand for these critical minerals is mostly being driven by our tech industry (which we will discuss below) and our  ridiculously bloated war industry, which will become less essential in a non-fossil fuel world. The remaining demand can be met by scaling up our recycling , focusing on energy efficiency, and building smaller. In addition, batteries, panels and turbines will continue to shrink in size, improve in efficiency, require fewer resources to produce and some replacements for the more toxic components of these devices are already being researched. Chitin, for example, a fully biodegradable substance, has shown some promise as a replacement for lithium (NC). 

Renewable energy is the only one of energy options that is itself infinite and waste free and the technologies required to harness it are fully recyclable. The whole notion of digging into the earth to remove something, inevitably creating pollution and habitat destruction, should become obsolete.   Instead, the new economy should focus on building smaller and recycling everything in the circular fashion described earlier.  This is a huge business opportunity and should be incentivized. Once our recycling systems are in full swing, mining will be rendered unnecessary. 

Manufacturing of full panels and wind turbines should be incentivized, repurposing existing fossil fuel manufacturing so that there is not a need to build more factories (which would contradict our simultaneous effort for reining in habitat destruction).  In addition, the state needs to incentivize excellent public transportation that can compete with cars for cost, accessibility, and convenience. Smaller electric shuttles with adaptive routing could replace giant buses. For individuals who feel they must have cars, electric vehicles should be incentivized and a convenient charging infrastructure should be prioritized. The nature positive development plan to entice more people to move away from the suburbs and closer to urban centers will make the use of this new public transportation system seem more sensible and convenient.  

Public transportation, incentivized in this way, could be left to the free market. It does not have to be socialized. Through our proposed system, money collected by the LSF would be redistributed to companies that are willing to adapt their existing businesses or to new companies who wish to operate in this sector. 

For home heating, electric heat pumps keep getting better and more efficient. Replacing oil heat and hot water with heat pumps should be a priority, too. This will also create many jobs in manufacturing, research and development, installation, and maintenance. 

Outdoor lighting is so damaging to nocturnal ecosystems that it should no longer be permitted. This is why our plan includes a law that phases it out. Money, from the LSF,  can help by supplying free motion lighting adapters to all citizens and businesses.  It is our view that electronic billboards should be banned and quickly. This is why we are calling for a phase out within one year of the passage of the law. People will simply have to find more nature positive ways of getting their message out!

Currently, renewable energy and electrification is on the rise in New Hampshire, but its full potential is being suppressed by defenders of the status quo. Many politicians, on both sides of the spectrum, state that they support an "all of the above" approach to energy. This is not acceptable, because it implies that fossil fuels and nuclear energy will be with us for decades to come. We demand a complete phase out of these polluting fuels.

Currently, there is no crude oil or natural gas production in the state of NH. Several businesses are involved in petroleum refining of various kinds, and there is wholesale distribution. Any company whose business relies on the fossil fuel infrastructure should be net payers into the fund. This includes, but is not limited to: car dealerships, parts makers, and suppliers, companies that deliver petroleum products to homes and businesses, and gas stations. 

Though there may be some opportunities for GBO, it would be very difficult for these businesses to become nature positive unless they diversified. For example, a company that delivered home heating oil could install a green roof on their building, but that would not be enough to bring their score to neutral.  However, if the company wanted to make the decision to transition to electric heat pumps installation then, yes, all other things being equal, they might be on their way to a positive score! All car dealerships would be nature negative, even if they generated their energy with renewables. However, if they took the further step of increasing their inventory of electric cars, they might be on their way.  A parts manufacturer might install OWTS, but that would not be enough to offset their polluter status. However, if they set up an in-house recyling operation? Now that might get them there. 

Since petroleum products, such as plastic packaging, are so ubiquitous, the cost for this will be borne across virtually all sectors.  New Hampshire has a large network of plastic manufacturers that would certainly be on the hook, but even companies that distribute and sell such products would have to pay. 

Yes, even retailers. Can you imagine? 

For this purpose, may we suggest a job for a mathematician. An equation would be needed that fairly determined a business's  "plastic debt", and this would count against their ORS score.  For example, a CVS or Walgreens pharmacy, selling an abundance of nature negative products, could not be expected to account for all the petroleum products in their stores, so they would have to pay some predetermined average based on the volume of their business. If they chose to pull their stores from the state rather than pay the polluter's fee, we say "good riddance". This is an opportunity for local entrepreneurs to move in! 

EPR, opportunities to diversify,  and localization will also play a huge role in helping businesses to phase out their fossil fuel inventory. 

At this time, there is no uranium mining in the state of New Hampshire and only one operating nuclear power plant. However, mining in the White Mountains has been considered in the past (NC) and nuclear is enjoying a resurgence in popularity and, without intervention, could become part of our energy mix (NC). These activities must be discouraged. Any businesses that propose mining or building nuclear power plants must be considered polluters and would have to pay so much into the LSF that they would be disincentivized from doing so. 

Even with GBO, the private company that owns Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant would be considered a polluter under our system and would have to pay into the fund. Considering the size of the private company that owns it, they would have to pay substantially. It should not be possible for them to become fully nature positive without  ceasing operations and diversifying into the renewable energy or recycling sector.  It would be necessary, of course, to find a permanent solution to their accumulating waste, which they presently store on site (NC), but this would be their problem. 

Section 4: Waste Management

Goal #5: 

All products sold in the state will be infinitely recyclable or biodegradable by 2050.

Goal #6: 

By 2050, all manufacturing companies that operate in the state must have a plan for their product through its entire lifespan. 

Goal #7: 

All food waste produced in the state of New Hampshire must be routed to a customized system that converts most of it to fertilizer. 

Goal  #8: 

To manage sewage, 80% of our residential and commercial buildings must have installed nature positive On-site Waste Treatment Systems (OWTS) by 2050. 

There are several major challenges for New Hampshire to adopt a purely circular economy. First, products are constantly coming in and out of the state whose producers are far away and beyond the jurisdiction of our laws. Second, even if we banned non-recyclable products today, there would still be a plethora of non-recyclable products on the shelves in our retail stores, as well as in the warehouses, garages, storage facilities, attics, and other places around the state, which would keep us busy for years to come. 

Given the breadth and complexity of this effort, it would seem prudent for the government to set up a task force composed of industry leaders to produce a plan. The industries that would be involved in such a task force would include anyone involved in managing waste: collectors, transporters, recyclers,  and incinerator and landfill operators. They would not be putting themselves out of business. Instead, they would be creating a better system for human health and nature by redesigning a new waste management infrastructure, one that removes solid waste and compost from homes and businesses, and transports it to recycling centers. 

The task force would also produce a plan for a supply chain for local markets, so that newly recycled products have a place to go. Every effort should be made to recycle all existing waste. Waste that cannot be recycled should be repurposed and that that cannot be repurposed will have to be landfilled or incinerated. This will be temporary while the circular economy takes shape. 

The "polluters pay" law that will include a moratorium on new landfill/incinerator operations will help to accelerate this transition. In addition, municipal transfer stations would need to be privatized and offered to existing waste management companies for purchase. In other words, these companies would have "first dibs" on setting up the new and exciting recycling supply chain. 

Simultaneously, and perhaps separately, the polluters fund would need to incentivize the production of biodegradable or fully recyclable materials to replace every product you can think of. With the backing of the polluters fund, New Hampshire could become a leader in this sector, converting existing infrastructure so that no new factories or research facilities will need to be constructed. This sector will also help to localize our economy, by replacing many of the products that people buy and sell with fully nature positive ones. Because these subsidized products (subsidized by the polluters fund, not by taxpayers) could be offered at cheaper prices than their polluting counterparts, reluctant consumers would themselves be incentivized to try them. 

In addition to converting these massive sectors of the economy, some minor supportive laws will also assist with the acceleration.  For example, our "polluters pay" law includes increased penalties for littering. Also, the responsibility for littering should be shared by the litterer (who cannot always be caught, obviously) and the producer of the product. Any fines collected for this offense should be deposited into the LSF. 

 In a nature positive economy, it is no longer the conscientious neighbor's responsibility to pick up after polluters. Instead, we can celebrate earth day by truly acknowledging our progress towards a healthier planet!

Of our state's 300 or so storage facilities, all of them are decidedly nature negative. Though they are merely providing a service to accommodate the over consumptive habits of our citizens, and will be necessary for years to come, their sprawling design makes them local habitat destroyers. Vertical designs, which would help to alleviate habitat loss in other sectors, seem not to be prudent in this case, since the very nature of the business requires direct vehicular access. 

Under our plan, a storage facility could continue with business as usual, of course, but they would certainly be net payers into the LSF. They would presumably pass these costs onto their customers, who then might be deterred from using them. What would these households do, then, with their extra "stuff"? Perhaps this would be an area of innovation or a stimulator of behavioral change. 

However, all is not lost for the storage facility. One asset they have is their necessarily flat design. Established facilities may be able to pay their debt to the commons by serving a dual purpose as local solar farms and/or adding pollinator gardens to their roofs. The habitat cost of building a new facility without such features may deter new construction of these places, limiting supply and also driving up the cost. 

The consumptive lifestyle of the average American household is, in itself, a nature negative phenomenon,  though it is significantly less so if products are biodegradable or infinitely recylable. Still, we predict the storage facility will be with us for years to come. Therefore, every effort should be made to incentivize the owners of these companies to harness the design assets of these facilities for the greater good, and to discourage expansion. 

Waste does not just mean solid waste, of course. Food waste must also be handled in a more responsible way so that it is fully returned to the earth.  Composting on a large scale, and producing home grown natural fertilizer (to replace imported synthetics, which are entirely nature negative) is a tremendous business opportunity that should be fully incentivized. All food waste produced by New Hampshire's citizens, should be converted to fertilizer for our agricultural sector. A convenient system should be in place to handle this. 

Sewage, on the other hand, must be treated differently.  Currently, over 80% of the state's sewage is centrally managed, while on-site septic systems handle most of the rest (NC). In a nature positive economy, centralized waste systems should be phased out and replaced with OWTS. These systems can employ nature based solutions to fully biodegrade waste and purify water as part of the operation of residential and commercial facilities. Waste water can be fully cycled in a closed system within the facility.  Laws could require any new construction to be fully outfitted in this manner, while existing buildings could receive funds from the LSF to retrofit. 

The possibilities for innovation in this sector are mind-blowing. Toilet water, for example, could be fully purified on site by nature. and cycled in a closed loop. Plants, bacteria, fungi and other organisms could be recruited for this purpose. While the systems themselves could be nature positive, they could also be quite beautiful, like terrariums, and incorporated into the design.  Rain gardens could also be employed outside of facilities to keep water on site and could perhaps be cycled back to the facility provide drinking water. 

Any facility employing these systems, would count it as an offset. Any entrepreneur that wishes to set up a company that is involved in managing our biowaste responsibly (as outlined above) must be incentivized to do so by funds provided by the LSF. 

Section 5: Agriculture

Goal #9: 

All pesticides, agricultural and otherwise, must be completely phased out by 2040. 

Goal #10: 

At least 80% of animal farming (dairy, eggs, seafood and meat) will be phased out by 2050 and replaced with lab-grown alternatives.

Goal #11: 

By 2050, all farming  in the state will employ nature positive techniques and will supply 80% of the food for the people of New Hampshire. 

Goal #12: 

By 2050, 80% of the inventory of all grocery stores and 80% of all restaurant menus must be obtained locally.

New Hampshire is blessed with a network of small farms and, depending on how you define it, there are only a handful of "large scale" farms that operate here (NC). However, only about 3% are certified organic (NC) and roughly 3% of food produced in the state is consumed in the state (NC)! These numbers are pathetic to say the least.  Our plan aims to change it. 

This sector will have to undergo a complete transformation, dare we say renaissance. To make this happen, farmers will require a lot of incentives from the LSF as well as training. It may be prudent to set up a task force in this sector as well, so that farmers have a seat at the table. Their expertise must be respected, and every effort should be made to ensure that our plans are not regarded as a personal attack or oppressive.  Remember, the nature positive economy is "all hands on deck". It should be framed as such. 

A nature positive food system is local, regenerative, and small. Also, by bringing most crop production inside vertically constructed labs and greenhouses, it can be housed in urban environments, will require less land and can supply food for residents right in their neighborhoods! Therefore, much of our agricultural land, perhaps half of our 400,000 acres,  can be returned to nature. It should not be used for development. 

The traditional farming operations that remain should be incentivized to adopt regenerative farming techniques. These techniques are well established and it is beyond the scope of this document to supply a complete list. In general, rather than relying on chemical pesticides and fertilizer, these techniques preserve the soil structure, rely on organic fertilizers and crop residues, increase biodiversity by setting aside areas for native wildlife, and diversify crops. Farmers could also take advantage of the equipment trade-in system described earlier. 

Livestock farming and the fisheries industry must also drastically change. In fact, the whole notion of raising animals for food should be phased out and replaced with lab grown meat, seafood, eggs, and dairy.  To ease the pain of this transition, livestock farmers and commercial fishermen should be bought out by entrepreneurs willing to set up such operations, or supplied with incentives to shift their business models. 

The authors of this document are big fans of a plant based diet. Adopting it is one of the most impactful lifestyle changes that individuals can do for the planet.  However, we suspect that convincing enough Americans to voluntarily adopt plant based lifestyles is not a viable path forward. Even people who care about nature fail to make the connection between the production of animal foods and environmental destruction. More likely, they don't want to make the connection.  A Socrates like conversation which such people almost always lands in the same place: they just like it! 

This is why the authors of this document think that lab grown animal products are essential to the nature positive transition.  At present, the technology exists to make lab grown animal products a reality, though some additional innovations may be necessary to make it less energy intensive and scalable.  In addition, the public will have to be convinced and this will require excellent marketing. Lab grown meat, for example,  is not a substitute for meat, it is meat. It is meat without a nervous system attached. Therefore, it is meat without torture, it is meat without pain. These are just a few of the marketing slogans that might be employed! 

Under our plan the use of live animals for food production will be considered a nature negative practice, full stop. This includes honey bees, which are non-native species and damaging to local pollinators. Lab grown alternatives, especially if they can be pursued with energy efficiency and land conservation in mind, will be considered nature positive businesses and will be eligible for grants from the LSF and LSLs. 

Since lab grown animal products will be subsidized by the LSF, and conventional livestock techniques will incur a cost for the producer, these products can also be cheaper. This will make the consumer more likely to try them, too. 

In addition to incentivizing these nature positive techniques, local supply chains must be developed that ensure that all grocery stores in the state must become, at least in part,  farmers markets. While there may be some specialty foods that can still be imported, the majority of a grocery store's inventory should be supplied by local farmers. This will open up an entire market for locally manufactured foods that can be produced and consumed by New Hampshire's citizens. 

In addition, restaurants should be similarly incentivized to use locally sourced vegetables and lab grown animal products. In other words, all restaurants should be incentivized to become "farm to table". These sorts of niche labels such as "farmers markets" and "farm to table" must become the norm, not the exception. Why should somebody have to wait until the second Saturday of the month to buy food from local farmers? It's ridiculous. 

Phasing out "health damaging" foods will be a sticky area of the nature positive economy. In our current climate, it is not easy to get anyone to even agree on what "health damaging" products are. There is some consensus on "ultra processed" foods, which make up approximately 50% of the American diet (NC). Also, the environmental cost is not included in its price or even in the perception of it being "unhealthy". The clearing of forests, pollution from pesticides, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, etc. are simply ignored. 

It is the hope of the authors of this document that by localizing food production, utilizing regenerative techniques, phasing out pesticides, and by using innovations in food production, the average diet of the American consumer will automatically improve and chronic disease rates will plummet. In addition, the production, distribution and sale of ultra-processed foods, high sugar foods, and fast foods should contribute to a negative score on the ORS, making these products more expensive. It should no longer be the case that people use the "I can't afford it" excuse for eating healthy! 

In summary, the new agricultural revolution will be accelerated mostly by shifting incentives. Farmers, grocery stores, food manufacturers, and anyone else involved in the food sector could continue with business as usual, but they would have to pay. They could take offsets, of course, to ease their burden, however, the best outcome is that they shift entirely to nature positive practices, making them eligible for grants, training, and LSLs. 

Certainly this is radical change that is bound to face furious resistance. This is why careful attention must be paid to the marketing and language used to sell it. Farmers must be shown the benefits for themselves and for the greater society. To make this work, they must have consistent and ongoing educational and financial support. 

Section 6: Nature and Land Development 

Goal #13: 

The amount of large habitat conservation land in permanent protected status will be increased to 40% by 2050.

Goal #14: 

In addition to traditional conservation land, 500,000 acres of public small habitat parks (SHiPs) will be created by 2050. 

Goal #15: 

80% of businesses involved in "alteration of terrain" will do so in a nature postive fashion by 2050. 

Goal #16: 

By 2050, The number of people living near urban centers will be increased from approximately 50% to 90%. 

Goal #17: 

All Non-safety, non-motion outdoor lighting (NSMOL) will be removed or replaced with motion lighting by 2030. 

Goal #18:

All electronic billboards will be phased out in one year after a law is passed to ban them. 

Goal #19: 

Any structure that requires cement, concrete or asphalt will be fully replaced with non-polluting materials by 2050. 

Goal #20: 

80% of companies in lawn care industry will shift to nature positive practices by 2035. 

Goal #21: 

By 2035, 80% of the inventory at all garden centers will be native plants.

New Hampshire is the 2nd most forested state in the country, with approximately 82% of our land covered in forest. However, only about 32% is protected (NC) and about 15% is owned by timber companies and real estate developers (NC) with the remainder in private hands. Our forests face an uncertain future as our population quickly expands and commercial and residential development destroys open woodlands at a rate of about 13,000 acres a year (NC). This is fragmenting habitats and accelerating biodiversity loss, with birds, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and furbearing mammals all in decline (NC). Though there are multiple factors driving these losses, habitat destruction is a major culprit (NC). 

As previously mentioned, the nature positive economy would utilize three tools to address this issue: conservation, restoration, and integration. Enhanced but traditional conservation and restoration work would continue, of course, with the aim of leaving aside more untouched and essential habitat than we have now. The Species of Greatest Concern (SGC) model would continue to drive these efforts, with the priorities of the Fish and Game department shifting from recreation to conservation. 

All of this will be relatively easy, since it only requires more deliberate effort without major structural changes. Integration, however, the last tool of the nature positive economy and one that will require significant change, is where the true innovation begins. By incorporating more nature into the places we live and work, this will not just support nature, but also serve to adjust our nature negative views, improve our physical, mental and emotional health and make our towns and cities more welcoming and beautiful. 

Integration would employ two different methods. The first, a public network of small habitat parks called SHiPs, has been previously described. It is the second method of integration that would cast the developer into a starring role, and would use capitalist style incentives to achieve.  This would be an effort, using the LSF as explained, to shift development practices from inherently destructive ones, to nature positive practices. These practices could be utilized in any construction project of any size or purpose, but let's explore a few by focusing on a famous destroyer of habitat: the housing development. 

First, may we be bold enough to assert that the current model for housing development construction is not only inefficient and expensive, it is entirely nature negative and does little more than reinforce nature hostility and disconnection.  To build one, it seems, requires total clearance of an entire forested area with massive, loud machines, followed by a complete leveling.  To handle run-off, the contractor will have to install huge drainage systems. They will build cheaply without consideration to the environmental impact of materials or the energy bills of the residents. Energy intensive and nature negative landscapers will then be called in, building landscapes that will require decades of chemical application and wildlife destruction to maintain. 

These practices must change. Every step of the development process must be updated. No matter how it is achieved, the ultimate objective of any project should be to leave more habitat when the project is completed, not less. 

Let's explore a few adaptations that must occur to make this a reality.  It is not impossible and, within the full context of a nature positive society, these adaptations make commercial and residential spaces cheaper and superior in quality. With money saved on localizing supply chains and smaller machines, these projects could be just as profitable.  If all companies are compelled to adopt these practices, through generous incentives and good training, it will kick-start a movement. 

To develop sensibly, the government must produce a top-down plan that considers the layout of the entire state. The grand goal would be to move most of the population close to urban and town settings, and further away from the outskirts.  Enticing, rather than mandating, that our growing population move away from rural areas and the suburbs, and closer to metro areas should be accompanied by a simultaneous  push to make these areas more attractive. They should be cheaper, more convenient and more "livable". 

Therefore, any development project must first consider where they are building.  Buildings of all kinds should be located closer to large population centers and developers should be incentivized to prioritize land that is in these areas and already developed. In addition, building over roads and parking lots using platform construction would be equivalent to adding more area that can be developed, while leaving most of the existing natural areas untouched. 

Nature positive buildings are  smaller, self-sufficient,  and efficient. They include nature, renewable energy,  electrification and OWTS in their design. Buildings will require less alternation of terrain, since they can be built vertical instead of horizontal or use platform foundations. They can also incorporate nature into the design with green roofs, raingardens and other wetland features, vertical substrates, and "yards" designed as wildlife habitat. Building materials should be nature positive as well, made from lab grown timber, infinitely recyclable plastics, metal, glass, and other ecofriendly products. The use of asphalt and cement should be minimized and replaced with recycled bio asphalt and bio cement. 

The buildings in all housing developments must be roomy enough, and pleasant and comfortable to live in.  They must be safe and private, but located closer to one another, with doors facing around a common area encouraging community.  Any outdoor lighting, of course, would have to be motion lighting and windows could be designed to maximize incoming light, while minimizing night-time glow to avoid attracting insects. Small private yards could also be included, but most of the surrounding land would be left as habitat. It could be owned by the community at large and maintained as a  SHiP. 

This is not an exhaustive list of potentially nature-positive design! The nature positive economy is a stimulator of innovation, the capitalist's favorite word, and developers (the avowed capitalists that many appear to be) should be excited to try something new. Most of this innovation will be achieved with incentives and disincentives rather than laws. If contractors wish to continue with "business as usual", they can, but they will have to pay. If they adopt at least some nature positive practices, they can take offsets. If they become fully nature positive, they will be rewarded with grants, LSLs and free training. 

Undoubtedly, the purveyors of convention will complain and obstruct. It is necessary, therefore, to convince them that this is not the end of their businesses, but a new beginning. That they are on the forefront of a healthier economy that will be better for their children and grandchildren. That they are the heroes of the story! 

In the long run, building in this way should also offer economic benefits. Fortunes can still be made, but they will be guilt-free fortunes. The developers will provide a great service to their community and, along with our simultaneous efforts to localize, will function as citizens, too. 

For the resident, dwellings must offer many clear benefits over traditional housing and consumers must be convinced of their superiority. Perhaps the reason people haven't demanded such a sensible home in the past is because they've never been offered one. 

Due to our glacial geography, New Hampshire supports roughly 150 aggregate mines that are major suppliers for construction and paving. Most of these mines are locally owned and operated, while some are owned by large national corporations. The techniques used by these companies are entirely nature negative, resulting in long-term effects on biodiversity, water and soil quality. These companies would certainly have to pay into the fund if they wished to continue with business as usual. 

However, this is not the end of the story! These companies might be able to erase their LSF burden if they diversified into recycling or making eco-friendly products to replace asphalt, cement, landscaping materials, and other products. Many of these alternative products, such as bio asphalt and bio cement,  already exist and would just need to be scaled up. However, there is room for innovation in this area, and perhaps the prohibitive cost of doing "business as usual" would ignite creativity. 

Any project in the state requiring asphalt, concrete or cement, should A. reconsider designs that reduce or diversify their use (such as becoming combination solar farms and parking lots), B. phase out polluting products and C. replace polluting products with BIRM. 

The landscaping industry is valued at almost 100 billion dollars annually (NC) and includes a vast array of stores and services that are entirely nature negative. At the very heart of this industry is the conventional "lawn", a sterile, poisonous place, full of non-native plants and representing an outright hostility towards nature.  One pest control company's slogan, "a life without bugs, simply better" is emblematic of the pervasive attitude.

In addition to the toxic chemicals, a dizzying array of loud, energy intensive, nature destroying machines are utilized to achieve the desired "look" and seem to grow bigger and louder by the year. On any given day in NH,  one can hear the buzzing, not of our disappearing pollinators, but of the mowing machines, the leaf blowers and the weed whackers, looking more and more like the weapons of war that they are: on the front lines of the war against nature. 

Still, this war on nature is not anyone's fault, it is simply the culture.  It is taken as a given, for example, that leaves are dirty and unsightly and, like so many toys on a living room floor, they must be cleaned up and put away. The fact that leaving the leaves on the ground is habitat for a wide array of overwintering animals, and will nurture, rather than kill, the plants that emerge in the spring, is not even considered. 

Pest control companies sell entire "pest packages" and, defying the claim that they use "integrated pest management", put poison out for problems that aren't even there. The inventory at the average garden center consists mostly of non-native plants, sometimes with their roots soaked in pesticides. Tree services convince people that large trees are the enemy, destined to fall on their houses, so that they can get a contract. Turf companies presoak their sod in pesticides, rolling out the poison to prevent the inevitable invasion of "grubs", most of which, in a balanced ecosystem that has been left alone, are unlikely to harm a lawn. 

It is strange that, despite all these efforts,  the pests get worse every year. Populations of rats, mice, ticks and mosquitoes are all increasing, while their natural enemies decline. The answer always seems to be more poison and more land clearing. For some reason, it does not occur to our civic leaders that perhaps the rising pest problems are caused by the "remedies". It is the imbalance of nature, exacerbated by pesticides and habitat destruction, that leads to a rise in pests. 

It is not the position of the authors of this document that people who are employed in this industry should be shamed or demonized. Again, putting people out of business is not the goal. It is a matter of changing the culture, and therefore the nature of the work, with education, training and incentives. 

In fact, people in this industry have a huge role to play in the nature positive future! It is they that must be tasked with removing invasive plants. It is they that must educate the public on the importance of planting for wildlife and keeping soil and aquatic ecosystems thriving. It is they that can redesign and maintain landscapes to be both beautiful and nature serving. They can put in pond features, keep big trees healthy, and install wildlife homes, such as bat houses, to help control mosquitoes. They can answer the call from people who would rather keep the bugs out of their homes by offering exclusion and maintenance services. 

Many landscape, tree services, and pest control companies, for example, can be offered government contracts to maintain our new network of small habitats (SHiPs). They can also be recruited to serve on "invasive plant warriors", physically removing these plants, replacing them with natives, and returning frequently to ensure that they do not grow back. Garden centers can increase their inventory of native plants, to help with the transition, and slowly phase out harmful or useless plants. They can also be educators, explaining to people why the pansies are suddenly so expensive, and offering them native alternatives. 

Therefore, under our system, most lawn care companies, pest control companies, garden centers and tree services would be net "polluters" and would have to pay into the system. It would be easy for them, however, to receive grants and training if they agreed to change their practices. Pest control companies, of course, would have to change since their signature product will be quickly phased out. As mentioned, they can reinvent themselves as wildlife promoters, and specialize in exclusion techniques. 

Section 7: Healthcare

Goal #22: 

By 2050,  80% of healthcare services in the state will be preventative. 

Goal #23: 

By 2050, 80% of healthcare delivery will shift to local and residential settings that emphasize designs for human dignity and thriving. 

Oh, my. We are overwhelmed at the prospect of tackling this sector! There are so many layers to examine. 

Let's begin by pulling back and looking at the big picture: the effect that "business as usual" practices are having on human health overall. Taken as a whole, pollution, biodiversity loss, ultra processed food,  and other artifacts of our over consumptive lifestyles are making people sick and less resilient. While this has been great for generating large fortunes for the few, it has not, on balance, improved the quality of life for most people.

Under that layer is our current health care model, which has grown up around an innately unhealthful truth: that treatment is more profitable than prevention. Because our system has been constructed around this notion, what has evolved is a monster that might be more accurately dubbed "sick-care" rather than "health-care". Though some effort to incorporate wellness and prevention has taken place, these practices are more like a niche rather than a guiding principle. 

FInally, there are the day to day operations of our health care facilities which produce tons of medical waste every year. It is estimated that a single patient in the average American hospital generates 7x the daily waste of an average American family (NC). Medical devices and machines also contribute substantially to our solid waste. Even pharmaceuticals, which inevitably escape out into our soils and waterways, are damaging to ecosystems. 

These problems are true everywhere in our country, but New Hampshire's sprawling healthcare system comprises the 3rd largest sector in the state and represents almost 10% of our GDP (NC).  It is also complex, including a diverse mix of companies ranging from local to global, public to private, small to large, and from non-profit to for profit. 

Clearly, this will not be easy to change. However, that is precisely what we aim to do. 

First, by adopting all of the recommendations in this document that alter the way we generate energy, grow food, manage waste, and develop, the future citizens of New Hampshire will be healthier and happier. Since lifestyle related chronic conditions currently drive 90% of our healthcare spending (NC), imagine the impact! 

Next, in order for our healthcare system to become entirely nature positive, prevention must become the norm rather than the exception. Pharmaceuticals and procedures must be viewed as the last option rather than the first, and the bulk of our delivery must focus on promoting healthy lifestyles, further driving down rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, infectious disease and cancer.

Finally, we must decentralize. We must move large companies out and provide opportunities for locally based entrepreneurs to offer prevention services. Homecare, rather than hospital care, should be the gold standard.  This will decrease the need for hospitals, nursing homes, rehab facilities, assisted living facilities, and other massive entities that suck up resources. The existing facilities can be retrofitted to become nature positive, or perhaps repurposed, since they will no longer be necessary. Those that remain should move away from the "warehousing" model, that devalues individual dignity,  to one where patients are integrated into communities. This could be achieved by changing the architecture of some of these buildings to facilitate community participation and access to nature. Any new facilities that are built should be smaller, utilize nature positive construction as previously described, and integrated into communities, 

In addition, medical waste must be addressed by incentivizing a recycling system specifically for this sector and replacing non-recyclable waste with BIRM. All devices and medical equipment need to be designed and manufactured for their entire lifespan. 

The LSF will be the driver of these changes. Due to the aforementioned issues, most health care entities and the companies that support them would be classified as "polluters" and would be net payers into the system. Of course, they could take GBO,  but no healthcare establishment should be deemed fully nature-positive unless they can prove that they are shifting to a prevention model. 

Please recall that this downsizing trend does not translate into net job losses for people employed in the business of "care". What it does mean is an emphasis on smaller, decentralized, community based or mobile practices. In addition, please recall that our model classifies "automation" as a form of pollution, incentivizing human labor in all sectors. So, though this change may mean smaller fortunes, it does not mean that people cannot make a good living, since it will generate satisfying opportunities for many local entrepreneurs and workers. Massive fortunes, however, which have only been made possible because of our sick-care model, will no longer be available. Sorry about that! 

But, so far, we haven't mentioned our mental health, which is similarly fashioned as a sick-care system where huge profits are made.  In addition, it is no surprise that many of our citizens suffer from anxiety and depression. With hyper stimulating and attention seeking memes and ads constantly flooding our brains with dopamine, pollution filling up our tissues,  unhealthful foods in our bellies, and our emphasis on material wealth and selfishness creating isolation and dividing our communities, what do we expect? With our slow and patient connection to nature, the place where our brains and bodies spent the last two million years, severed by a fast-paced technology that has only existed for a few decades, it is no wonder. Look, a pathological society produces pathological citizens. 

There are a few remedies that the nature positive economy has to offer, here. First, a shift to prevention in this sector will certainly make a difference. Also, universal access to nature will help to counteract the hyper stimulation. However, while it's true that the nature positive society is intrinsically calmer and less stressful, we think modern society's addiction to social media and memes, and our continual bombardment by AI generated slop ads will have to be addressed some other way. 

Perhaps our educational system can offer some ideas in this area. A movement away from technology in early education and an increased emphasis on reading, writing, math, drawing, logic, music and other transferable skills that cultivate sensory experience, creativity and critical thinking might help to generate stronger, calmer, less reactive minds. Also, the role of AI in our lives should be demoted in an effort to reassert ourselves as the masters of our own destiny. 

Section 8: Education

Goal #24: 

100% of K-12 public and 60% of private K-12 curriculums will include age appropriate nature oriented course work in all grades by 2035. 

Goal #25: 

80% of colleges, universities, technical and career schools will provide bioeconomy training programs by 2040. 

Some people argue that economic literacy should be introduced at a very early age. Some people argue that civics should be introduced at a very early age. We agree. But we also think that ecology and an appreciation for nature should be introduced at a very early age.  The difference  is that while understanding civics or economics depends on a body of knowledge that must be acquired, biophilia (a love of nature) is present at birth (NC). It is our early childhood experiences that determine whether or not it remains. 

Nature teaches many lessons, improves mental health, and nurtures the human mind, body, and spirit. Early immersion in nature reinforces an attachment to it for life, and helps to cultivate calmer, kinder, more curious minds. It also helps us to appreciate beauty and inspires creativity and imagination. It makes us humble and resilient, because immersion helps us to view ourselves as a part of something bigger. When our early connection to it is nurtured, we feel a powerful respect for its presence and are less likely to want to dominate and destroy it.

For these reasons and more, we demand that an ecological education, supplemented by nature immersion,  must become part of all K-12 curriculums. For public schools, this would be mandated. Private schools should be incentivized to do so by operating as polluters unless they comply. 

The goal of these early education courses should be to foster an appreciation for nature, and to develop an understanding of basic ecological principles. For secondary and post secondary education, the goal should also be to train a future workforce to operate productively in the new economy. Technical schools, career schools, colleges and universities should be incentivized to adapt their course offerings to reflect this new goal. 

As they are now, most schools would probably be considered polluters. Those  that own their grounds could take offsets in the form of GBO. Public institutions, as is the case with the government at large, would be allowed to dip into LSF for nature positive improvements, but any savings would have to be returned to the fund. For non public institutions, GBO should improve their score but should not be enough to make them eligible for grants. Only nature based curriculum changes would be enough to do that! 

Section 9: Other sectors of the economy 

This document does not aim to present a comprehensive analysis for all sectors of the economy. 

Generally speaking, all businesses would be required to take responsibility for their contribution to pollution by paying in to the fund. The ORS would provide suggestions for offsets customized for their business and, in order to be eligible for grants, they would have to come up with a plan to beome nature positive. 

Let's do some thought experiments to explore how this might play out. 

Technology 

Technology companies, unless they are working on technology that supports the nature positive transition, would most-likely be considered polluters. This is primarily due to the huge environmental impact of E-waste, only about 22% of which finds its way to recycling centers (NC),  and the simultaneous opportunity cost that results from not mining it.  Also, manufacturing products for "planned obsolescence" exacerbates the volume of waste that is produced and this is also a nature negative practice. 

Therefore, a major breakthrough for this sector might be an E-waste recycling plan that funnels all of this pollution to a local company specializing in mining it. These raw materials, instead of being shipped out of state, could then be bought back by the same technology companies to be used again. The Trash Task Force would be charged with the responsibility of creating this system, not the technology companies. 

Obviously, all tech companies would not be treated the same way. It would depend on their score which would be determined by the ORS. Global tech corporations that do not have significant operations in the state, would have to be targeted for LSF contributions through their retail sales. In fact, any retail establishment that was in the business of selling hardware would have to pay into the fund. For this, it may be necessary to develop another equation, much like the "plastic debt" equation, to determine a company's E-waste footprint. The "nature positivity" of software would need to be determined on a case by case basis. Whether or not they would be considered polluters would depend primarily on the purpose of their products. 

Offsets for this sector (and all sectors) would certainly include retaining good human jobs. Please recall that, under our plan, "automation" is considered a form of pollution.  This is because the authors of this document believe that, for reasons previously expressed, automation is not consistent with a nature positive economy. It's not even consistent with a capitalist one!

Companies that are involved in telecommunications, cyber security, aerospace and weapons would certainly be considered polluters. Though these companies may be able to take some GBO, they are inherently nature negative and would never be able to reach even a neutral score on the ORS. Also, though they could localize their supply chains, these companies are, by design, exporters, and would only be able to participate peripherally in the new localized economy. Therefore, the authors have no suggestions on how these types of businesses could transition. 

This is where we address the elephant in the room: hyperscale data centers. As previously expressed, it is the opinion of the authors that AI's role in our lives should be demoted to "useful tool", not a substitute for humanity. We are appalled by the lack of confidence in the human mind and our willingness to make ourselves obsolete. The crazed, reckless race to develop this technology is putting humanity and nature at extreme risk. Its development is being accelerated by greed and a desire for dominance among some of the most irresponsible and antisocial people on our planet. 

Never-the-less, here we are. The authors feel that AI is ushering a new future that cannot be totally stopped and, therefore, must be harnessed for the greater good. Though we question its necessity for human thriving (we think we are doing fine with our hands and our brains) we do feel that some of its applications may be beneficial and some sort of data center infrastructure must be developed to support it. 

Therefore, under our plan, data centers that support AI would be permitted, but their size and location would be drastically restricted by a strict regulatory law: The Data Center Regulation Act. The authors of this document picture a network of small data centers, embedded in our existing urban infrastructure, that could be remotely monitored, air cooled, and supplied by renewable energy with battery back up systems.  The operators would also have to have a plan for the decommissioning of the data center that included recycling of its components. Even with these changes, however, we doubt that data centers could ever be "nature positive" and would probably have to pay into the fund. Who knows. Perhaps they could be built over roads and serve as wildlife crossings! 

In summary, the nature positive transition needs technology. Therefore, our booming tech economy (we are 5th in the nation (NC)!), should be incentivized to channel its work into improving the condition of the environment and human health. Companies that are already doing good work in these should be rewarded with generous grants, while those who are engaged in objectively nature negative practices should be held to account. Also, a robust localized supply chain for mined and recycled E-waste would need to be established. 

Manufacturing 

The manufacturing sector in NH would continue to operate, but with a new mandate to take responsibility for the entire life span of their products. They would also have a new mission: to build the products for the sustainable economy. This manufacturing transition would need to occur by using the power of the LSF,  not through regulations and bans.  It would be a goal of the nature positive economy to avoid building new factories, but to simply repurpose the spaces we already have. This would also be incentivized by the fund, since taking habitat to build a factory would be prohibitively expensive. 

If a product's function was such that it could not be made to be biodegradable, than nature positive manufacturing would have to include a plan for recycling. Whether it would be more sensible for a company to establish an "in-house" recycling operation, contract with an outside recycling firm or to simply make their products infinitely recyclable so that they would feed the general recycling network,  would depend on the products. All of these choices would be acceptable and significantly offset the company's footprint. 

Products that would also function as offsets would include any product needed to build the renewable energy sector or the new nature positive construction industry. In addition, lab-grown animal products, biodegradable packaging, and infinitely recyclable raw materials would greatly boost a company's LSF score. 

If a company wanted to continue to produce its polluting product(s), however, it could still take OBS. However, depending on the nature of the product, these offsets alone would probably not be enough to move the company into nature positive territory. 

Travel and Leisure

New Hampshire should continue to be a tourist destination for those wishing to experience outdoor recreation in a scenic setting. However,  there are significant problems with this industry that would make it, on a whole, nature negative. While some of our recreational resorts are actively trying to reduce their carbon and resource footprint by conventional means, their very existence in the heart of nature country is a drain on local ecosystems. It is almost impossible, for example, for a ski resort to be ecofriendly. The habitat destruction and resource utilization that results from their design, the ecological impact of snow making, and the light and noise pollution, are all inherently disruptive. In addition, the popularity of these places, though they may be profitable for the businesses that benefit, have resulted in overcrowding and is fueling dreams of expansion. 

Another problem this industry faces is the volume of gear, much of which is synthetic and made from toxic materials. Please note that "down cycling", making gear with recycled plastic that is not, itself, recyclable, does not count as a nature positive alternative. There may, however, be a chance for gear manufacturers that operate in the state to be rewarded with LSF grants if they could transition to acceptable materials and had a recycling plan. Retail stores that sell these products could also be rewarded if they substantially increased their ecofriendly inventory. The subsequent effect on prices, then, would make these products more attractive to consumers. 

The resorts themselves, however, are another story. As they are, even with GBO, they would certainly be regarded as polluters. The customer, of course, has come to expect certain creature comforts as part of their recreational experience. They are there for the thrill, the excitement, exercise, and social interaction. They are not there to connect with nature and have peace and quiet. They demand graded slopes, which require significant alteration of terrain, and they would be utterly dissatisfied if their skiing vacation was ruined due to a lack of snow (ironically a more frequent event due to human caused climate change). 

Given the popularity of these places, and their deep roots in the culture, the authors of this document do not have a solution to this problem. Resorts could offset their activities by becoming less destructive, of course, but they would never dig themselves out of the hole. It would seem that these resorts would continue to operate under our plan, but would have to pay into the LSF and would, therefore, pass these costs onto their customers. This would presumably cause a drop in attendance, which might alleviate overcrowding, but would have ripple effects throughout the tourist economy and discriminate against less wealthy consumers. 

The authors of this document hope that, in the long run, people visit our state in order to quietly and non-disruptively appreciate nature. Adding more conservation land and guided ecotours for birders or other wildlife enthusiasts could make New Hampshire an appealing destination for those hobbyists. Perhaps, in the near future, virtual reality options will compete with outdoor recreation and this industry will naturally decline. For now, though, it is growing, with a proposed expansion on Loon Mountain cutting into conservation land, a proposal that is likely to succeed.  This is indicative of the industry's future expectations. 

In the area of snowmobiles and other ATVs, the LSF should incentivize, most probably at the retail level, the sale of electric vehicles with internal baffling and sound insulation. Those machines that use fossil fuels, and are not dampened for sound, should be disincentivized. Also, very strict rules and penalties should be strengthened, under the Endangered Nature Law, regarding where and when these vehicles are permitted. 

Under our proposed system, all registered bus stations, train stations, and airports would be considered net polluters by the ORS. Offsets would be in the form of increasing their electric inventory (if they have inventory), developing a sliding scale for landing fees that took into account the energy source of their users, decreasing their light and sound pollution, modernizing their operating equipment, and other GBO. Hotels, which would also be considered polluters under our plan, could take similar offsets but, depending on their size, would probably remain as net polluters. 

Other

Under our plan, most retail and service businesses  would be net payers. However, much would depend on their inventory and their size. The extent of their contribution to the LSF would mostly be determined by the "plastic debt" equation described earlier in the document. To calculate the nature negativity of restaurants and bakeries, a similar equation for the sale of ultra processed and high sugar foods should be developed. 

Those in the business of selling blatantly health destroying products such as alcohol, guns, tobacco or vaping products and accessories would definitely be net payers. The score for service based establishments such as gyms, yoga studios, beauty salons, etc. would depend on inventory. This would be true in the arts and entertainment sector, as well. Pet stores, with a massive amount of plastic inventory would also be payers. In addition, their contribution to the ecologically damaging world wide animal trade would certainly figure in to their score. Thrift stores and second hand stores would certainly be neutral. They are providing a recycling service, after all! 

For all these businesses, offsets can be taken in the form of selling products and services that aid the nature-positive transition, buying local, having a recycling plan and, if appropriate, GBO. 

Please recall that the localization of our economy is essential to our plan. It would be wise, then, to ensure that small, local businesses are rewarded and larger, global establishments are disincentivized. Therefore, the debt owed by small, local businesses would be rendered nominal when the size of these establishments is taken into account. Many small contributions from these places, however, would be a significant source of revenue for the LSF. 

Those in the business of the distribution of polluting products would also be net payers based on their degree of "plastic debt".  They could take offsets in the form of GBO, a recycling plan, and an upgrade to electric vehicles. 

Landlords, whether commercial or residential, would certainly be net payers. However, they would have an extreme incentive to take GBO, which would most likely put them in the nature positive territory. Therefore, most landlords who wanted to upgrade their buildings to nature positive would be eligible for grants from the LSF and LSLs. 

Section 10: Side Effects 

Humans have lost control of the global economy. We have offered our bodies, minds and spirits to this wild beast and are allowing it to eat us alive.  We must believe in our ability to tame it. We must stand up, and wrestle this beast to the floor! 

The authors of this document believe that the only way we will tame the beast is by deliberately and immediately transitioning to a nature positive economy. Though our plan is specifically for New Hampshire, it is our hope that it will be duplicated elsewhere. 

The LSF and the ORS are not the only way to get us there. However, our system offers the best chance of accelerating change fast enough to keep pace with the unfolding biodiversity and climate crises. Our plan holds polluters accountable, but also maximizes the likelihood of compliance by distributing responsibility across all sectors. In addition, our plan produces a thriving, local economy that provides opportunity and depends on human ingenuity. By putting nature and human health at the center of decision making, it ensures a sustainable future. 

Sometimes, people who are critical of environmentalists complain that we are demanding that people "sacrifice". We have been described as "anti-progress" as though all of us want humans to live like midieval serfs. 

Though we cannot speak for all environmentalists, this is certainly an unfounded characterization of our intent. We believe that our vision for the future is the best of both worlds, the ancient and the modern. It is world that uses selective technology that makes human lives better without severing our vital connection to nature. This is hardly a subsistance lifestyle, though it does employ its humble lessons. While it is certainly true that habits must change, the expected outcome of our ambitious shift to the nature positive economy is a dramatic improvement in quality of life. 

The central promise of the globalists, that trade is the basis of good relationships, has not come to pass. Instead, we are facing a ramping up of the war economy, large scale destruction of our planet, and the concentration of wealth and, therefore, power.  While our plan does not eliminate the need for global trade, our dependence on it will be drastically diminished and based on necessity, only. Many of the wars fought over the centuries have ultimately been over global commodities (NC). When we reduce our reliance on these global commodities, such as metals, fertilizer, food and oil, we reduce the incentive to dominate and kill each other. Though defense will always be necessary, the scale of the war economy will be dramatically reduced.  We will still participate in global initiatives that improve quality of life for humans and nature, of course. Cooperation on these fronts will serve as the basis of our relationships, in place of the pursuit of material wealth. 

By empowering people to take control of their local economy, with an emphasis on entrepreneurial ambition, we increase the desire to participate in democracy. Self sufficiency and independence also increase a sense of civic duty. Therefore, along with parallel moves to invest our tax dollars in education, health, and an efficient safety net, we will reduce the incentives for crime, violence and hate. 

In other words, major side effects of the nature positive economy include a renewed sense of community and compassion,  a reduction in violence, an  increase economic opportunity and empowerment, and the elevation of human dignity. This does not sound like sacrifice to us. 

We are at a critical time in history: a crossroads. The decisions we make today will determine our trajectory. Here is the choice we must make: we can continue with "business as usual" that will most probably result in a massive concentration of power by the few and the widespread destruction of our life support system, or we can build a livable planet that works for everyone.

 The authors of this document believe that we should choose the second option, and it is time to begin.