In January, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14008, which describes initiatives for dealing with climate change, including “the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.” This has been referred to as the “30×30 plan” but is formally called the America the Beautiful initiative.
What constitutes “conserving” and “30 percent of our lands and waters” is not clear and must be defined accurately. Consider that conservation means different things to different people. I think farms and ranches conserve land, and others might think that having no human influence (wilderness) is conserving land.
Regarding the goal of conserving 30 percent of our lands and waters, the U.S. is about 2,270 million acres, of which 640 million acres, about 28 percent, are already federal land (Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Park Service, etc.).
Twenty-eight percent is almost 30 percent, so can existing federal land fulfill the 30×30 goals? No, because much federal land is unproductive, and private lands—including agricultural lands—are more productive and sustain wildlife populations. So the 30×30 plan will require the federal government to regulate or obtain private land. Remember the Endangered Species Act (ESA)? Here we go again: federal regulation of private property.
The executive order established a task force composed of several federal department heads, including Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. Vilsack assures us there is no intention to take away citizens’ land, and he suggests that programs like the Conservation Reserve Program can be used to increase conservation lands.
That’s reassuring, but USDA is not the only agency involved. The Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies with arguably less concern about property rights are also on the task force. See Karen Budd-Falen’s guest opinion article about how the 30×30 plan could have serious consequences for landowners (30×30: A slap at private property rights, WLJ, April 19).
Given the history of oppressive federal environmental regulation like the ESA, it is very important to deal with the 30×30 plan in its developmental stages, which is now. If this plan is implemented, it is critical that citizens in agriculture and the resource industries—e.g., timber, mining, oil and gas—ensure that the plan properly uses science. Recall that the ESA has selectively used science to regulate private property and limit use of federal lands.
Insisting on good science will be critical to prevent an oppressive 30×30 plan. The ESA was implemented with bad science because its writing was influenced by advocates who maximized its scope. For example, the definition of “species” in the ESA included “subspecies” and “distinct population segments” (DPS), which expanded its scope greatly beyond Congress’ intent and federal constitutional authority. Recall that the northern spotted owl is a subspecies, and wolves and grizzly bears were listed under the ESA as DPS, not entire species.
I suggest these points be presented to the 30×30 plan task force, perhaps by state governors to Vilsack, who will understand agricultural concerns.
• Insist that the 30×30 plan acknowledges that science shows private agriculture in the U.S. currently supports abundant wildlife populations and should not be subject to punitive regulation or violation of private property rights.
• Insist that the 30×30 plan acknowledges that science shows forests and rangelands provide wildlife habitat and carbon sequestration if managed properly. Forest and range management, including timber harvest and grazing, can mitigate wildfires and their release of massive carbon emissions.
• Insist that the 30×30 plan task force and implementing agencies acknowledge they are bound by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and 10th Amendments, and they must honor states’ and landowners’ rights. Conservation plans should be offered as strictly voluntary with incentives to states and landowners.
• Insist that the 30×30 plan considers impacts of human population growth on the environment. From 1945 to 2020, the U.S. population more than doubled from 140 million to 330 million people. Future growth and the impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. population growth need special consideration.
• Insist that the 30×30 task force identify who proposed the 30×30 plan, what their credentials, qualifications and affiliations are, and how they derived the 30 percent land conservation and year 2030 criteria.
• Insist that the 30×30 task force accurately quantifies carbon emissions from countries other than the U.S., particularly Communist China. Insist on equity of regulation of greenhouse gases among nations.
• Disallow a federal government monopoly of science and deference in court for the 30×30 plan. The federal government has had a monopoly on the science used with the ESA, and this cannot be repeated. Science presented by states and private entities must be considered legitimate as federal government science.
In summary, I think that agriculture and the resource industries should be proactive regarding the 30×30 plan now. Let’s not repeat the mistake made with the ESA, allowing the federal bureaucracy and environmental groups to define the scope and science of a federal initiative. You can give input to the climate change task force through your trade groups, state governors, legislators and county commissioners. — Dr.Matthew Cronin
(Matthew Cronin was a research professor at the University of Alaska, a U.S. Coast Guard officer, and is now at Northwest Biology Company LLC [www.northwestbiology.com] in Bozeman, MT. He can be reached atcroninm@aol.com. A full list of references can be found online at wlj.net.)
References
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and data
Wildlife, War, and God, by M. Cronin, Liberty Hill Publishing
(Matthew Cronin was a research professor at the University of Alaska and is now at Northwest Biology Company LLC and an affiliate professor at Montana State University. He can be reached at croninm@aol.com.)
