German political system Back to home page click here A SHORT GUIDE TO THE GERMAN POLITICAL SYSTEM Conclusion INTRODUCTION Unlike the American political system [ click here ] and the British political system [ click here ] which essentially have existed in their current form for centuries, the current German political system is a much more recent construct dating from 1949 when the American, British and French zones of occupation were consolidated into the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). In 1990, the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) joined the Federal Republic. However, the 1949 constitution embraces a central feature of the original German constitution of 1871 - which brought together Prussia with Europe's other German states (except Austria) - and the Weimar Constitution of 1919 - which involved a sharing of power between the central government and local L&#228nder (states) - namely a disperal of authority between different levels of goverment. So the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) of 1949 deliberately distributes power between the central government and the L&#228nder.

The vitality of Germany's democratic system and the quality of its political leadership - Chancellors such as Konrad Adenauer (1949-1963), Willy Brandt (1969-1974), Helmut Schmidt (1974-1982), Helmut Kohl (1982-1998) and now Angela Merkel - have been enormously impressive. THE EXECUTIVE The head of state is the President, a largely ceremonial position, elected for a maximum of two five-year terms. The voters in the election for President are known collectively as the Federal Convention, which consists of all members of the Bundestag and an equal number of members nominated by the state legislatures - a total of 1,244. The current President is Joachim Gauck. The head of the government is the Chancellor (equivalent to the British Prime Minister). The current Chancellor is Angela Merkel of the CDU. Every four years, after national elections and the convocation of the newly elected members of the Bundestag, the chancellor is elected by a majority of the members of the Bundestag upon the proposal of the President.

This vote is one of the few cases where a majority of all elected members of the Bundestag must be achieved, as opposed to a mere majority of those that are currently assembled. This is referred to as the "Kanzlermehrheit" (Chancellor's majority) and is designed to ensure the establishment of a stable government. Most significantly, the Chancellor cannot be dismissed by a simple vote of no confidence but only by a "constructive vote of no confidence" with majority support for an alternative named Chancellor. Since 1949, only two constructive votes of no confidence have been attempted (in 1972 and 1982) and only one (that in 1982) has been successful. This special type of no confidence vote was invented in (West) Germany, but is today also used in other nations, such as Belgium, Spain, Hungary, Slovenia and Lesotho. In the six decades of the Bundestag, there have been only eight Chancellors - a remarkable element of stability. In the same period of time, Italy has had 37 Prime Ministers (although some of served several separate terms of office).

As in Britain or France, day to day government is carried out by a Cabinet, the members of which are formally appointed by the President but in practice chosen by the Chancellor. Since Germany has a system of proportional representation for the election of its lower house, no one party wins an absolute majority of the seats and all German governments are therefore coalitions. Following the last Federal election in 2013, it took almost three months to form a new government. Unusually this is a coalition of the two major parties, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats - what the Germans call "Gro&#223e Koalition" or simply "GroKo". THE BUNDESTAG The lower house in the German political system is the Bundestag. Its members are elected for four-year terms. The method of election is known as mixed member proportional representation (MMPR), a more complicated system than first-past-post but one which gives a more proportional result (a variant of this system known as the additional member system is used for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly). Half of the members of the Bundestag are elected directly from 299 constituencies using the first-past-the post method of election.

Then the other half - another 299 - are elected from the lists of the parties on the basis of each Land (the 16 regions that make up Germany). This means that each voter has two votes in the elections to the Bundestag. The first vote allows voters to elect their local representatives to the Parliament and decides which candidates are sent to Parliament from the constituencies. The second vote is cast for a party list and it is this second vote that determines the relative strengths of the parties represented in the Bundestag. So each Land or state has a given number of directly elected members and each party in each Land has a list which determines the order of selection of any members chosen as a result of the application of the second vote. The second-vote seats seats are only distributed among the parties that have gained more than 5% of the second votes or at least 3 direct mandates. Each of these parties is allocated seats in the Bundestag in proportion to the number of votes it has received. This system is designed to block membership of the Bundestag to small, extremist parties.

As a consequence, there are always a small number of parties with representation in the Bundestag - currently the figure is only six (and effectively the CDU and the CSU are the same party). There was a problem with the electroral system, however. Many voters "split" their ballots, voting for a candidate from one party with their first vote and for a different party with their second. The directly elected candidates (known as direct mandates) entered the Bundestag, but a given party might then have more candidates than its share of the second votes would imply - known as "�berhangmandate" or "overhang mandates". This also meant that the Bundestag swelled from its theoretical size of 598 seats to 620. In 2009, the Constitutional Court ruled that this was unfair and unconstitutional. So, in 2016, a new system was finally agreed. If direct mandates for any party exceed its second-vote ratio, then all the other parties get compensated so that the ratios again reflect the second votes exactly - so-called "Ausgleichmandate". In practice, that could make the Bundestag bigger again, with perhaps more than 700 seats.

Crucially, it also hurts one party by withdrawing an advantage it has enjoyed in the past: most of the excess direct mandates went to the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). As a result, the CDU is likely to fare worse under the new system than it would have done under the previous system. A further conequence of this system is that every new legislative period begins with a construction crew moving, removing or adding seats on the plenary floor in the Reichstag. The next elections to the Bundestag will be in Autumn 2017 (there is a permissable window of two months). One striking difference when comparing the Bundestag with the American Congress or the British House of Commons is the lack of time spent on serving constituents in Germany. In part, that difference results from the fact that only 50% of Bundestag members are directly elected to represent a specific geographic district. In part, it is because constituency service seems not to be perceived, either by the electorate or by the representatives, as a critical function of the legislator and a practical constraint on the expansion of constituent service is the limited personal staff of Bundestag members (especially compared to members of the US Congress).

The Bundestag elects the Chancellor for a four-year term and is the main legislative body. THE BUNDESRAT The upper house in the German political system is the Bundesrat. At first glance, the composition of the Bundesrat looks similar to other upper houses in federal states such as the US Congress since the Bundestag is a body representing all the German L&#228nder (or regional states). However, there are two fundamental differences in the German system: Its members are not elected, neither by popular vote nor by the state parliaments, but are members of the state cabinets which appoint them and can remove them at any time. Normally, a state delegation is headed by the head of government in that Land known in Germany as the Minister-President. The states are not represented by an equal number of delegates, since the population of the respective state is a major factor in the allocation of votes (rather than delegates) to each particular Land. The votes allocation can be approximated as 2.01 + the square root of the Land's population in millions with the additional limit of a maximum of six votes so that it is consistent with something called the Penrose method based on game theory.

This means that the 16 states have between three and six delegates. This unusual method of composition provides for a total of 69 votes (not seats) in the Bundesrat. The state cabinet then may appoint as many delegates as the state has votes, but is under no obligation to do so; it can restrict the state delegation even to one single delegate. The number of members or delegates representing a particular Land does not matter formally since, in stark contrast to many other legislative bodies, the delegates to the Bundesrat from any one state are required to cast the votes of the state as a bloc (since the votes are not those of the respective delegate). This means that in practice it is possible (and quite customary) that only one of the delegates (the Stimmf�hrer or "leader of the votes" - normally the Minister-President) casts all the votes of the respective state, even if the other members of the delegation are present in the chamber. Even with a full delegate appointment of 69, the Bunsderat is a much smaller body that the Bundestag with over 600 members. It is unusual for the two chambers of a bicameral system to be quite so unequal in size.

The Bundesrat has the power to veto legislation that affects the powers of the states. POLITICAL PARTIES Like many countries - including Britain, France, and the USA - Germany has two major party groupings, one Centre-Right and the other Centre-Left. The Centre-Right grouping comprises two political parties that operate in different parts of the country so that there is no direct electoral competition between them. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) operates in all the L&#228nder except Bavaria, while the Christian Social Union (CSU) operates only in Bavaria. The CDU is led by Angela Merkel, while the CSU is led by Horst Seehofer. The Centre-Left party is the Social Democratic Party (SPD in German). It is led by Sigmar Gabriel. The other parties represented in the Bundestag are: The Left Party - built on the former Communist Party (led by Katja Kipping and Bernd Riexinger) The Alliance '90/The Greens - the German Green party (led by Simone Peter and Cem �zdemir) The electoral system in the German political system means that coalition governments are very common.

The Social Democratic Party was in coalition with the Greens - the Red/Green coalition - from 1998-2005 and then, from 2005-2009, there was a 'grand coalition' between the CDU/CSU and the SDP. Between 2009-2013, the CDU/CSU was a coalition with the FDP. In the election of 2013, the FDP failed to win representation in the Bundestag, so Germany is back to a 'grand coalition'. Mention should certainly be made of the Alternative for Germany (in German: Alternative f&#252r Deutschland, AfD) which was only founded in 2013 but is already causing waves in German politics. It is a right-wing populist and Eurosceptic party led by Frauke Petry and J&#246rg Meuthen. The party won 4.7% of the votes in the 2013 federal election, narrowly missing the 5% electoral threshold to sit in the Bundestag.

In 2014, the party won 7.1% of the votes and seven out of 96 German seats in the European Parliament election. As of March 2016 the AfD has gained representation in eight German state parliaments. Unusually political parties in Germany receive significant public funds and the costs of election campaigns are substantially met from the public purse. THE JUDICIARY Germany's supreme court is called the Federal Constitutional Court and its role is essentially as guardian of the constitution. There are 16 judges divided between two panels called Senates, each holding office for a non-renewable term of 12 years. Half the judges are elected by the Bundestag and half by the Bundesrat, in both cases by a two-thirds majority. Once appointed, a judge can only be removed by the Court itself. Whereas the Bundestag and the Bundesrat have moved from Bonn to Berlin, the Constitutional Court is located in Karlsruhe in the state of Baden-W&#252rttemberg.

THE L&#196NDER During the initial occupation of Germany after the Second World War, the territory in each Occupation Zone was re-organized into new L&#228nder (singular Land) to prevent any one Land from ever dominating Germany (as Prussia had done). Later the L&#228nder in the western part of the former German Reich were constituted as administrative areas first and subsequently federated into the Bund or Federal Republic of Germany. Today, following the reunification of Germany, there are 16 L&#228nder in the German political system. The cities of Berlin and Hamburg are states in their own right, termed Stadtstaaten (city states), while Bremen consists of two urban districts. The remaining 13 states are termed Fl�chenl�nder (area states). The Basic Law accords significant powers to the 16 L&#228nder. Furthermore there is a strong system of state courts. Each Land has a unicameral assembly or parliament called the Landtag. The election period in the various L&#228nder is generally four to five years and the dates of elections vary from state to state. Politics at the state level often carries implications for federal politics.

Opposition victories in elections for state parliaments, which take place throughout the federal government's four-year term, can weaken the federal government because state governments have assigned seats in the Bundesrat. CONCLUSION Like all political systems, the German one has its strengths and weaknesses. The great strength of the system - a deliberate feature of the post-war constitution - is the consensual nature of its decision-making processes. The Bundesrat serves as a control mechanism on the Bundestag. Since the executive and legislative functions are closely intertwined in any parliamentary system, the Bundesrat's ability to revisit and slow down legislative processes could be seen as making up for that loss of separation. On the other hand, it can be argued that the system makes decision-making opaque. Some observers claim that the opposing majorities in the two chambers lead to an increase in backroom politics where small groups of high-level leaders make all the important decisions and then the Bundestag representatives only have a choice between agreeing with them or not getting anything done at all. Germany is increasingly a changing nation demographically and in 2015 alone some one million extra migrants entered the country.

It is now a society in which one in five has a "migration background" as German bureaucratic jargon calls all those with foreign roots. The number and nature of these immigrants are having a growing impact on German political thinking. Meanwhile, since the current political system was designed in 1949, Germany's economic and political role in the world has changed considerably and 2015 was the 25th anniversary of the reunification of the nation. On the one hand, Germans themselves need to take on board these changes by rethinking the current pacifistic approach to world affairs and accepting that the Germany military has a role to play in international peace-keeping. On the other hand, the global community needs to accept Germany's powerful role in world affairs by giving the country a permanent seat in the Security Council of the United Nations.

ROGER DARLINGTON Last modified on 16 March 2016 If you would like to comment on this essay e-mail me For guides to the political systems of other nations click here 2016’s Greenest States | WalletHub® 2016’s Greenest States by John S Kiernan | Apr 19, 2016 0 Shares Eco-friendliness and personal finance are essentially cousins. Not only are our environmental and financial necessities aligned — providing ourselves with sustainable, clean drinking water and nutritious sustenance, for example — but we also spend money on both the household and government levels in support of environmental security. Then there’s climate change. We’ve already seen a rise in powerful land-bearing storm systems and extreme droughts, with New York and New Jersey spending $71.4 billion to rebuild from Hurricane Sandy. But that’s just the beginning, as storm surges and other bad weather are expected to cause more than $500 billion in property damage by the year 2100. Climate change will also have a direct impact on our military industrial complex, as nearly all of our East Coast air and naval installations are vulnerable to sea-level rise.

In the meantime, we can all try to do our part to save the world for future generations. In order to highlight the greenest states and call out those doing a poor job of caring for the environment, WalletHub’s analysts compared each of the 50 states in terms of 17 key metrics designed to illustrate each state’s environmental quality and the eco-friendliness of its policies. <iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/11987/ecofriendly-geochart.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="">WalletHub</a></div> Red States vs. Blue States Ask the Experts For more insight into eco-friendliness at the household, government and global levels, we posed the following questions to a panel of leading environmental and economic experts. Click on the experts’ profiles to read their bios and thoughts on the following key questions: What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly?

Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving an electric car; recycling; lower water consumption; installing solar panels on the home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? < > Carey W. King Assistant Director of the Energy Institute, Research Scientist in the Jackson School of Geosciences, and Lecturer in Business, Government and Society in the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin John Clinton Founding Chair of the Graduate Program in Environmental Policy, and Associate Professor of Environmental Policy & Sustainability Management at The New School What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly?

Cities and states long ago took the lead in fostering environmentally friendly policies and sharing best practices through such city networks as ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability, begun some 25 years ago) and C40 (Cities Climate Leadership Group); regional cooperation among states via agreements like RGGI (the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to reduce carbon emissions) and state-level and regional cooperative initiatives to protect the Great Lakes basin; and even city-country collaboration like the Catskill Watershed Corporation to protect New York City’s water supply from the harmful byproducts of rural upstate New York development (like contaminated waterways) while providing economic assistance to those same rural communities. Following on these success stories, cities and states recently (Fall 2015) joined together in the “Under 2 MOU” — an agreement among “subnational” governments worldwide, initiated by California Governor Jerry Brown (and launched at my own institution, The New School in New York City) to reduce CO2 pollution, share diverse ideas about how to do so, and exert collective impact to achieve these results. States and cities have shown that their flexibility and ability to engage local community participation is a key to successful environmental policy.

The latest wave of such initiatives include cities like Newark, NJ, which has established an environmental commission to assess needs and develop policies suited to its own specific priorities, while, at a global level, the 100 Resilient Cities project of the Rockefeller Foundation helps cities worldwide develop strategies and practices to become resilient to 21st century issues. Perhaps the most important factor in devising environmentally friendly policies at the state and local level is identifying their own greatest risks (lead in the water system? sea level rise threatening coastal communities? a lack of healthy food markets contributing to Type 2 diabetes?) and crafting policies that address the issue, communicate about the hazards and remedies, and thereby gain broad community support and participation. Public policy is only as effective as it is popular with the public. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? The idea that protecting our environment means we can’t have economic growth is what’s called a “false dichotomy”: we don’t have to have either one or the other. We’re still in the early stages of a transition to greater energy efficiency — a key economic driver.

So what’s called “alternative energy” today (solar, wind, geothermal) will soon be mainstream, affordable, effective, renewable and zero-carbon, once technology, profitability, and public policy (and acceptance) converge. Not so long ago, it was acceptable that city streets were covered in horse manure (a principal energy byproduct!). Just as we wouldn’t tolerate that in any American city today, before long technology and peoples’ expectations will reject our current energy solutions in favor of those that don’t pollute the air we breathe or jeopardize the climate that makes our world friendly to life. And while growth is vitally important to lift up people in poverty, in time we will set a priority on economic well-being rather than economic growth for its own sake. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? The best answer to a question about prioritizing environmentally friendly activities is: “all of the above.” Driving an electric car is still a pretty remote choice for most people, and reducing fertilizer and pesticides use is important in farm and suburban settings — but not too relevant for urban dwellers.

But all such factors are related, and interact in complex ways in our ecosystems. Addressing each, while understanding their connections and promoting comprehensive strategies, is a wise course for policymakers and for public education campaigns. That said, a high priority is that we value appropriately our relationship to our environment so that the greatest shared virtue is conservation, reduced impact, and giving future generations a chance to enjoy what we have now. Without that commitment, it’s not just the polar bears and the people of 2200 who will lose out, but kids growing up today who won’t recognize the world we know in 2016. The top priority? Do all we can to let the next generation experience the environment we take for granted. Mary F. Evans Jerrine and Thomas Mitchell ’66 Associate Professor of Environmental Economics, and George R. Roberts Fellow in the Robert Day School of Economics and Finance at Claremont McKenna College What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? With little prospect for any new legislative action at the national level, states and local authorities are likely to play an increasingly important role in safeguarding the environmental health of communities.

These authorities can ensure that the state and local agencies responsible for enforcing environmental regulations have the resources to do so. They can also empower local communities to act in their own interests by encouraging companies to provide transparent information about their environmental records. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? Economies can grow without sacrificing environmental quality. However, during the 20th century, the engine of economic growth was the burning of fossil fuels. In recent years, some countries, including the U.S., have seen increases in their GDPs without increases in carbon emissions. This suggests the potential for growth without reliance on fossil fuels. However, for many countries, in particular developing countries, growth remains linked to the burning of fossil fuels and therefore to carbon emissions. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? It’s difficult to prioritize the various actions people can take to contribute to environmental quality as the benefits (and costs) of actions are likely to vary across individuals and geographic locations.

For example, someone in Los Angeles who installs solar panels on her home and lowers her water consumption will have a different impact than another person who takes the same actions but who lives in Chicago. Nancy Engelhardt Furlow Professor of Marketing at Marymount University Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? It shouldn't be either, but rather it is possible to have both. If you look at examples in Fair Trade sourcing or EcoTourism you can find cases where economic growth was a result of protecting the environment. There are examples of social entrepreneurship also that focused on environmental solutions which led to economic growth. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? All of these activities, as well as many others, are critically important, but their priority will differ depending on the situation and location. For example, in California, lowering water consumption is a high priority, but in states near the Chesapeake Bay, responsible use of pesticides and fertilizers are a high priority. Solar panels may be a great option in the West, but not as popular in other areas.

I believe states that have the potential to see the economic benefits from solar panels, such as Florida, should take full advantage and promote their use. The Tampa airport is an example of this. Education is key. The activity may differ depending on the location, but environmental education is essential. The challenges for each location are different and unfortunately there isn't a one size fits all solution. John Hayes Founder of the Center for a Sustainable Society at Pacific University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? The most pressing environmental issue — and possibly the most pressing issue of our time — is climate change and what that portends. It seems that every week a new, more dire warning is issued: melting of Greenland ice at catastrophic rates; disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet; record warm temps in the Arctic; disappearance of the world’s glaciers; unprecedented warming, and therefore increased volume, of the oceans; increased flooding of Florida, with south Florida streets inundated by high tides; persistent droughts in spite of a strong El Nino; etc. The question is, what can states do?

Oregon has taken a leadership role by mandating an increase use of renewable energy and a phasing out of coal for generating electricity, the first state to do so. The 550 MW Boardman plant, the sole remaining coal-fired plant in Oregon, is slated to go off line by 2020. Oregon will also eventually stop purchasing out-of-state coal-fired electricity. These measures will dramatically reduce Oregon’s already low electricity-generating carbon footprint (low because of abundant hydropower). Oregon also passed a clean fuels bill that will take effect in 2017, mandating use of biodiesel, electricity, natural gas, biogas, etc. for transportation. According to Oregon’s DEQ, transportation accounts for about one-third of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, which should be reduced substantially as this law takes effect. The U.S. Green Building Council, which authors the LEED program, began in Portland before moving to Washington, DC. Oregon has loads of LEED-certified buildings. Before retiring, I worked at Pacific University here in Forest Grove, OR, first as Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, then for 3 years at half-time, when I started up the university’s Center for a Sustainable Society.

Pacific University has built 7 buildings in the last 10 years, one LEED Silver and six LEED Gold. They represent about 40% of the university’s square footage. Here in Forest Grove, we have undertaken several new programs (all but #2 below address climate change). Some of them are: 1. Grove Link. This is a free intra-town bus that links outlying areas and the high school to the downtown area. Ridership has greatly exceeded expectations. This reduces single-occupant, within-town transportation. 2. Plastic bags. Several Oregon cities — Ashland, Corvallis, Eugene, Portland — have banned single-use plastic checkout bags. The FG Sustainability Commission (I’m a member) has proposed to the City Council that Forest Grove also enact a ban; we expect the City Council to rule on this before the summer. 3. Trails and bikes. FG has developed most of what is termed the Emerald Necklace, a paved hiking and biking trail that encircles the city. It is also working on establishing a north-south through-trail that would link other cities with FG. There are also bike lanes on most heavily traveled streets. 4. Energy conservation.

The FG School District built a new LEED Gold elementary school. The city is in the process of replacing street lights and city-owned indoor lights with LEDs. Pacific University is in the process of switching over to all LED lighting. At least one elementary school is switching to LEDs, and it is expected that others will follow soon. In terms of microeconomics, it makes sense for businesses and consumers to invest in energy-saving measures if they have relatively short payback times. Short payback times exist for many measures, for example LED bulbs and attic insulation. When buying new appliances, the best Energy Star-rated appliances often cost the same or even less than less-efficient ones. Most people do not buy vehicles based on cost. When gasoline prices are low, as they have been, SUVs and light trucks fly off the lot. Every one of those vehicles costs more than a Prius, and rarely do people need the hauling capacity of Ford 150s or large SUVs. I own a Prius that routinely gets 45 – 50 mpg, and as I have found when trading in a previous 6-year-old Prius, it retains its resale value at a high level, and it needed almost nothing beyond routine maintenance.

When I needed to haul 2 x 4s, I just put the passenger seats down and slid in boards up to 10 ft. long. If longer or if hauling 4 x 8 sheets of plywood, I put on a roof rack. So, my Prius cost less to buy than all of those SUVs and I get way better mileage, pay little for maintenance, retain resale value, and can haul reasonable loads. Pacific University goes for LEED Gold even though it costs money to gain the rating. It could just invest in the same energy-conservation measures — which make good economic sense — and call it good. It would save the university the same amount in terms of gas and electricity, but it goes for the LEED rating for 2 reasons: 1. It displays leadership, telling the world that it’s important to walk lightly on the planet; 2. It’s good publicity, which gains donors and more prospective students for the university. And the city, the school district, and the university invest in LED lighting because it makes excellent economic sense, even without any government or utility incentives.

In terms of macroeconomics, everyone is going to be penalized by global warming as goods and food become more scarce, resulting in price increases. As some regions become even hotter, human health will be negatively affected, which will cost society money. It seems, also, that every week there is more news about unhealthy air in the world’s city. The public pays for this, both in terms of healthcare costs (for the individual and for everyone in more costly insurance premiums) and of lost productivity, resulting in higher cost food and goods. There are already climate refugees, and that is about to get much worse as sea levels rise and as storms become more potent. Those refugees have to go somewhere, and they will have to be supported by the rest of us. Because of the huge increase in burning of coal — China has been adding a coal-fired power plant every week for years — the imbedded mercury is being spread across the planet. This has resulted in having normally very healthy fish eating being unhealthful. If you go to bodies of water just about anywhere in the U.S., you could see warnings about eating the fish. The state of Connecticut, for example, says not to eat striped bass, bluefish, and swordfish, amongst others.

The state of Oregon says not to eat walleyes and smallmouth bass out of the Willamette River. There have always been scares of mercury in tuna fish. Etc. This is an economic penalty only indirectly linked to global warming. Ernest R. Blatchley III Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental and Ecological Engineering at Purdue University, Lyles School of Engineering What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? In a general sense, Americans have become accustomed to rates of resource (water, energy, etc.) consumption that extend well beyond our true needs. When one compares per capita resource consumption in the U.S. with countries that are our economic peers, we observe that our resource consumption rates are well in excess of these other countries. Moreover, as these other countries have reduced their resource consumption rates, they have observed benefits. The U.S. is in position to do the same. Elected officials and other policy makers should first take the time to educate themselves about the realities of resource consumption and resource needs. They could then use this information to inform policy decisions. As an example, we (the U.S.) consume fossil fuels at alarmingly high rates.

Opportunities for reductions in this area are easy to find, but almost all require changes of habits. Our habits have been formed by a period of resource abundance in which we had little motivation to consider resource conservation or environmental impact. Humans are not the best at adapting to habit changes. On the other hand, this shortcoming of human nature could be overcome by policies that reward those who make changes to reduce consumption of fuel and other resources. Similarly, there are obvious opportunities to reduce water consumption rates, or to implement policies that promote more efficient use of water. Some communities in water-starved areas of the U.S. have implemented these policies out of necessity. Other communities who may be on the fringe of water shortages should also consider such measures. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? That is a common argument and a traditional view. The argument has merit, when considered from the perspective of how environmental protection limits human activity. However, there are other benefits of environmental protection that do not register immediately on the “bottom line”. For example, the quality of our environment plays a critical role in the monetary value of property. Areas that have undergone substantial environmental degradation are less desirable, and therefore are valued less.

Similarly, communities that adapt policies that promote or encourage environmental consciousness tend to be desirable places to live. Though more difficult to quantify, the attitudes that emerge in communities that take these approaches also tend to favor community pride, which also can be desirable. Also moving against the traditional view is the perspective that environmental protection may actually provide economic growth opportunities. For example, a clear need exists to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our country. Perhaps the best opportunities to realize this goal are related to reductions in the rates of fossil fuel combustion. Creative, forward-looking people and businesses will seek opportunities to pursue new or alternative forms of energy. Here, again, opportunities exist for (creative, forward-thinking) policies to be implemented that promote economic development in these areas. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? I wouldn’t prioritize them. They are all important. And they don’t define the list of measures that we, as a country, should pursue. I would argue that a more useful approach might be to educate the public and people in administrative and elected positions about the realities of environmental issues.

An informed public is likely to demand changes that would encompass all of the measures listed above and more. Informed politicians will be in a strong position to develop rational policies to ensure sustainable use of resources. Charles D. Kolstad Senior Fellow in the Institute for Economic Policy Research and in the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? This is a very broad issue but is one where local action can make a big difference. State and local authorities are taking the lead in the US on climate policies though climate is more appropriately a national issue. California is certainly a leader in climate change with its cap and trade regulations. But local and regional environmental protection is also important. This includes zoning, water conservation, and infrastructure provision. One needs to be wary of actions which feel good but has little impact on the environment, such as banning or restricting paper bags. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? If done right, not at all. Worthwhile environmental protection makes people better off, even after paying for it.

How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? In descending order of importance (though all are important): Installing solar panels; Director of the Center for Environmental Policy at Bard College What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? The most critical sustainability challenge we face today is human-caused climate change. The year 2015 was, by far the hottest on record, and 2016 figures to be even hotter. We have to stabilize this trend. At the same time, a transition to clean, renewable energy is cheaper than ever, and promises to reduce oil spills, mountaintop removal, fracking, and asthma rates in our cities. I just put solar on my roof for no out of pocket cost: I swapped out my electric bill for loan payments on the solar system, and after 15 years, I will have free electricity for the life of the solar system. It’s getting to be a no brainer. So the most important polices are the ones that promote community and rooftop solar, energy efficient buildings, and the move to electrify the vehicle fleet.

Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? No. In 1999, I wrote a book called “The Trade-off Myth: Fact and Fiction about Jobs and the Environment”. I showed that in the USA’s then 30 year history of cleaning up the environment, there had never been the kind of wide-scale layoffs predicted from plant closings due to environmental policies. And in fact, many jobs had been created in the process of cleaning up the environment. This has become even more evident since I wrote the book. Now there are more solar industry workers in the US , 209,000, then in the oil and gas sector. And 65% of these jobs are blue-collar — in installation and maintenance. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? The first priority is to spend a few hours making phone calls or knocking on doors for clean energy candidates, whether Republican, Democrat or Independent, in the upcoming fall elections. Sustainability challenges require political solutions.

Second priority is to join the green team at your local business or place of worship, and make a difference at scale in your community. Then, of course, walk the talk as far as you can in your every-day life. Peter Maniloff Assistant Professor in the Division of Economics and Business, and Affiliate Faculty in the Payne Institute for Earth Resources at Colorado School of Mines Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? We need a broader conception of "economic growth' that also includes human happiness (or as economists say, utility). If we think of the economy as providing happiness, then some choices will promote employment, some will promote environmental quality, and some will promote other good things like time with family. In this framework there's no tradeoff - there’s just a question on how to ensure that people are as well off as they can be, broadly construed. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? Prioritizing different environmentally friendly activities is really hard. Which uses the least water? Which uses the least landfill space? Which contributes the least to global warming?

And if one uses the least water, but another contributes the least to global warming, which goal is more important? That's why economists think the most important thing we can do is to get the prices right - to ensure that environmental impacts are part of the prices that consumers see at the store. Then consumers can choose environmentally friendly products and activities rationally and easily, without having to bother learning about the relative impacts of all of our household choices. David A. Vaccari Professor and Director of the Department of Civil, Environmental and Ocean Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? The most general principle would be “let the polluter pay.” This is not to single out industrial sources – people pollute also, by their choices as well as their actions. In economic terms: negative externalities should be internalized. One concrete policy action that this translates into would be a carbon tax, with the goal of controlling global warming. Further, this tax should not be “revenue neutral.” That is, the revenue from a carbon tax should not offset other taxes currently levied, as has been done in some locales. The revenue should go to benefit those hurt by global warming, including future generations.

How could this be done? By dedicating carbon tax revenues towards investing in zero-carbon energy technologies. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? Mostly yes, but with some exceptions, so growth is possible without environmental harm. Growth comes from various sources, including technological change and from population growth. There is an inherent tradeoff between economic growth from population growth and environmental protection. This kind of growth inherently consumes more resources, in a world in which resources are already strained. Growth from technological change in some cases conflicts with environmental protection, and in some cases not. When the technological change involves more intensive use of resources, then the answer is yes. But some technological change can reduce our use of resources; in this case the answer would be no, and this would be a source of growth without environmental harm. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? Reducing resource use is far more effective at conservation than are recycling efforts. Therefore, actions such as reducing water consumption or installing renewable energy such as solar panels can be very effective.

Electric cars are beneficial (I own one), but not as much. I think reduction of fertilizer and pesticide use is further down the list mainly because, when carefully used, they are not associated so strongly with resource depletion. Not mentioned is what I consider the “master variable”: population. I think the world is already past its “carrying capacity,” and cannot sustain the current population indefinitely, let alone the large increase that is expected over the next century. Deborah Branson Associate Professor of Environmental Management and Director of the Environmental and Occupational Management Program at Methodist University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? Strong support of recycling and visible trash and recycling bins placed side by side. Education throughout the school years will create an informed public. Active support of such events such as Earth Day and Arbor Day. Cities need to design for green space and for better management of stormwater, allowing it to infiltrate rather than run off. Pervious pavement parking lots would be a major step forward. Trees and green areas on playgrounds for children. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? The debate on this topic is ongoing; in the press, among consumers, in business and in the classroom.

Companies have managed to be sustainable such as the zero land fill achievement of Subaru. Unfortunately, businesses have merely moved to countries that do not have as stringent environmental regulations as the U.S. or other developed countries in order to create their product more easily while not worrying about complying with laws. Corporate Social Responsibility has become quite an issue as buyers have become aware of materials produced in "sweatshops" using child labor. Nike and Apple are two that made headlines. I believe that the tradeoff can be minimized if innovative technologies are used and companies, and shareholders, are willing to make less profit in the short term. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? Greening of cityscapes and green roofs, gardens - not lawns; more edible landscapes. Not using artificial fertilizers or several of the more hazardous pesticides and herbicides would be first for me. Next, lowering water consumption. Recycling, composting, reducing use of packaging and materials that cannot be reused. Solar panels, ground source heating, passive solar modifications to houses can all be helpful.

Electric cars still require energy that could be produced from coal fired power plants. At least the stationary source of pollution (CFPP) is much easier to control than the mobile source (cars). Melinda Storie Assistant Professor and Graduate Coordinator in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at Northeastern Illinois University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? It's a matter of authorities paving the way for community-established sustainability initiatives. Top-down approaches may not be as effective as getting communities involved in what they would like to see in terms of environmentally-friendly options. Establishing a baseline for how communities interact with their environmental impact is an important first step. Then, examining options for both high and low impact environmental initiatives that will serve the best interests of the residents of each community as well as the municipalities and states as a whole. Thinking and practicing sustainability in all its aspects (environmental, economic, and social justice) is a much needed goal. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? There doesn't have to be. Economists have examined this issue in great detail. It's more of a matter of reexamining the way in which we value natural resources and the complex systems in which they exist.

Natural resources and economics will always be intricately connected because they both deal with what we value. However, in order to reach a point where we can approach any level of sustainability, we really need to revise our economic systems and counteract the general assumptions of neo-classical economics. For example, when we buy products, the "external" costs, such as the carbon footprint or inherent value of the natural resource, are not taken into consideration. We need to factor environmental consequences of resource use into the equation. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? Environmental impact differs depending on where you are located and what types of natural resources are available to you. In that way, our overall impact is greatly defined by our geography. One helpful way to see your overall environmental impact is to take the ecological footprint assessment. There are calculators online that you can plug in your various behaviors and see the impacts of behavior changes. Overall, there are low-impact, medium-impact, and high-impact behaviors. All are necessary and important and in many ways can lead to behavioral shifts in other aspects of life.

For example, recycling is a low-impact behavior; however, it can sometimes lead to a higher-impact behavior when one sees how much they recycle and then simply stops purchasing water bottles and begins using a reusable bottle instead. In developed countries, some of the highest-impact behavioral changes are changing the way that you eat (eating local, lower on the food chain, organic, etc.), the way that you travel (reducing your carbon footprint), and the way that you buy (purchasing less and purchasing environmentally-friendly products). Spencer Banzhaf Professor of Economics at Georgia State's Andrew Young School of Policy Studies What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? We can — and should — do more at the state and local level. Especially in the west, states can further adapt their water laws to allow groups like Trout Unlimited to buy instream flows, to conserve water. State and local governments can improve transportation routes to reduce traffic and improve flow, reducing air pollution. In particular, they can adopt more congestion pricing and fund cost-effective transit, like bus rapid transit.

Cities can relax zoning restrictions to allow more urban density, reducing sprawl, which is good for the air and which reduces urban heat islands (a local way to tackle climate change). Local governments can make streets more pedestrian friendly. And school districts can retrofit school buses with pollution controls. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? It depends on what we mean by economic growth. If we mean the production of more material goods, then, yes, there is no escaping the inherent tradeoff between production of material wealth and the environment. Production always comes with waste byproducts. Claims about a green economy and green jobs are fundamentally bogus, because those jobs come at the expense of others. That said, there is another way of thinking about this question. The economy is a social system for bringing about the goods and services that people want. That includes many intangible services – gardening, music and the arts, and so forth. It can also include preserving natural environments. Viewed this way, protecting the environment is consistent with a more efficient economy. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others?

There are many ways individuals can act individually to reduce pollution. Minimizing the use of fertilizers and pesticides is a good one. About 10% of nutrients polluting our streams come from residential lawns. Households can plant (or keep) large shade trees, which clean the air, reduce urban heat, and reduce air conditioning costs. They can turn down the thermostat in the winter and up in the summer. And they can reduce water use, especially outdoor water use for lawns and gardens, where the water is not recaptured by urban water systems. Other activities may be virtuous in themselves but are largely symbolic when it comes to the environment. Although people often think of recycling, with the exception of aluminum and steel, it probably does little to reduce pollution or otherwise help the environment. Electric cars replace polluting gasoline with polluting electricity generation. Tracey Holloway Professor in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? There are a lot of different ways that policies, technology, and voluntary action can support the environment.

Right now, there are major gains to be made around energy - electricity, transportation, as well as the energy used to create food and other products. There are proven policies to reduce the energy we consume, and the money we spend on energy. These include energy efficiency standards, land use planning to support walkable and bikeable communities, and public transit, to name a few. There are also policies that can promote renewable energy, or reduce the cost of energy efficiency investments, financing for solar panels, or tax credits for making homes more energy efficient. By reducing fossil fuel consumption, we get a double-win for the environment. First, burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a gas that absorbs heat (a.k.a. infrared radiation). Because it traps heat near the earth’s surface, carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas,” and is a big player in climate change. Second, burning fossil fuels releases a range of other gases that make people sick and shorten life expectancy, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. These invisible gases are unhealthy on their own, but they also react in the atmosphere to form other air pollutants like ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Policies that reduce fossil fuel consumption act to slow climate change and making our communities healthier.

Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? Not at all. Since 1980, the U.S. population has grown, the economy is way up, and the number of miles we drive has doubled. And, at the same time, average air pollution emissions have gone down by over 60%. In fact, the air we breathe gets cleaner almost every year . That said, there are some policies and technologies that are expensive - like advanced scrubbers on power plants, or cleaner-burning engines on cars. Even for these investments, clean air is a good deal - economists have calculated that the U.S. gets about $10 return in health savings for every $1 we spend on air pollution reduction. Moving forward, there are a lot of policies that are win-win for the environment and the economy. Energy efficient homes save money on heating and cooling, and protect the planet. Cars with higher gas mileage require less gas at the pump, and release fewer emissions per mile. Even our diet can be a win-win: meals with less meat and more vegetables are required less energy to produce per calorie, not to mention being healthier and cheaper. These are savings that directly show up in consumers' pockets.

How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? I would prioritize anything that reduces waste - whether that’s wasted energy, wasted water, wasted food, or anything else… including wasted time. A lot of people drive 20, 30, even 45 minutes or more each way to get to work. This type of commuting wastes gasoline, money, and time, while inadvertently creating air pollution with every mile. There are a lot of ways to reduce our dependency on the car - from telecommuting, to more advanced bus and train systems, to cities that allow people to live closer to work and schools. Of course, most of us would still drive when we need to - but we’d just need to drive less. Douglas Noonan Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and Director of Research in the Public Policy Institute at Indiana University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? State and local authorities can practice a ‘polluter pays’ principle, promoting policies that hold environmentally unfriendly behaviors accountable so that things cost more to the extent they are environmentally harmful.

More locally, providing greener, public infrastructure can help. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? There are tradeoffs inherent whenever we’re having competing interests and there’s no “free lunch” out there, but we do not always have to trade off between the environment and economic growth. Often, and importantly, there are real opportunity costs to protecting the environment, many of which are well worth making. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? I’d place “lowering water consumption” at the top of this list. As long as driving electric cars implies retiring a conventional gas guzzler, then this also rates highly. Less outdoor chemical use can help also. I’d rate residential solar and recycling as lower priorities on this list. Some of the highest priority items households face occur at rare, crucial moments when we make decisions about where we live, where we commute to, and what kind of car, home, furnace, etc. we buy. Malcolm J.

D'Souza Professor of Chemistry and Associate Dean of Interdisciplinary/Collaborative Sponsored Research at Wesley College What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? Nutritional Choices: Home water testing kits should be made available (for free) and folks need to be educated about the efficient use of water filters and reusable water-bottles. A small charge (tax) should be levied at producers for plastic bags and plastic water bottles. Once this charge is passed on to the consumer, customers will (then only) begin using reusable cloth bags and will rethink their use of (plastic) bottled water. Remove sugar subsidies. Encourage community Farmer’s markets and Produce Junctions. Promote the use of healthier protein staples such as sea-food in place of animal protein. Reduce food waste by educating the public about cooking smaller portions, revamping of leftovers, and encouraging community composting. Social Empowerment and Healthy Communities: Commitment to the alleviation of poverty through participatory processes (with transparency), social justice, freely-available quality education, health-care, and job-training services. Commit to the development of personal skills for health promotion. Educate the public on the detrimental factors of unsustainable population growth.

Utilize community-based management of the natural resources to conserve biodiversity. Catalyze the community to reduce their carbon footprint. Incentivize community recycling programs. Incentivize sustainable (green-technologies) transport and energy use. Sustainable Community Developments: Employ spatial strategies for effective land use. Discourage social exclusion with inclusive green-space pedestrian (& pet) friendly landscape designs. Encourage use of native plants for sustainable landscapes. Design well-planned affordable and subsidized mixed family-housing units with direct involvement (including cost-sharing) of owners/tenants in the security and unit management. Encourage local store structures within walking or bike-riding distance. Encourage use of energy efficient technologies for water and electricity. Encourage stronger cyber infrastructure-networks, the use of sustainable construction materials and implement uniform sustainable hazard mitigation. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? No! In my opinion, the economy and environmental health have a direct correlation. Protecting the renewable and non-renewable resources (environment) has (direct) positive impacts on public health, biodiversity, and the sustainability of our natural resources. So, any improvement will increase allocative efficiency and optimal resource use that benefits the output of the nation’s economy.

Also, it is my belief that imposed regulations for the benefit of the environment should result in new innovations (technologies) to better society. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? There is significant ecological interdependence in our global environmental problems. Hence to reduce the per-person footprint, one should follow a sustainable pathway to achieve higher levels of education and literacy, control population growth, improve public health and life-expectancy, and lower energy consumption and the depletion of natural resources. Ramses Armendariz

Question: Of the 16 states of Germany, 13 are termed area states (Flchenlnder). What are the other 3?
Answer: City states