Let's do another lesson on 30 x 30, looking at it from a couple viewpoints.

Let's do some more learning about  the 30x30 initiative.  Today will be a series of 3 posts on the topic.

--This first post will be some context/history on the initiative.

--The second will be argument for, and what proponents think.

--The second will be argument against, and what opponents think.

Disclaimer:  I'm not an expert.  You should consider this series of 3 to be a good jumping-off point.  This is not exhaustive.  If you're curious to learn more, do your due diligence and start googling.

I am going to tell you upfront that I look askance at this effort.  I still stand by my earlier writing that biodiversity is a desired thing.  I am concerned at how we do it and how we balance it against other, equally valid considerations.  


In my reading on the topic, I see a lot of things that talk about the terrible things the government could do, I see lots of people saying that talk about how necessary the 30x30 initiative is (along with writings about how Biden needs to forge ahead--the very sort of thing that feeds the concern).


Balance that, however, with the fact that Biden would talk up his plans to please his supporters without doing much (yet) in the way of concrete moves to make the terrible a reality.  I say yet because I have seen some glimmers of the way being paved.  

This is the long way 'round to say that I think concern is justified and that an attitude of wary watching (along with work to educate oneself) is appropriate.  Keep this in mind as you read what I write about 30x30.  Keep in mind too that you're welcome to offer your civil comment on anything.  Please feel free to add to the discussion.  I'm too old at this point to think I know everything.

Moving on, let's talk a little history on 30x30.  

What got is 30x30?  How did it start?

The first question is pretty easy.  The 30x30 initiative is variously used to describe either a worldwide initiative or an executive order by the Biden administration.  Here in the States (which is where I'll focus from now on), it comes about via a 2021 executive order by President Biden.  That order is linked first below--see esp Section 216.  It essentially directs Federal departments to start preparing reports to help us reach the goal of conserving at least 30% of our nation's lands and waters by 2030.  

This worldwide movement (which Biden eventually put the US in), seems to have started with the paper linked second below where the authors lay out the need to take steps such as these in order to save the earth from the more drastic (they feel) effects of a global temperature increase.**

There you go.  That should get you started on the history of this idea.  If you want more, I have a couple recommendations.  You can google something like "origins of 30x30 conservation" (conservation is needed because there is a 30x30 movement for women lawyers as well).  You can also visit the 30x30 Wikipedia and follow some of the references therein.

In the following posts I will share some representative writings for pursuing this idea and then some against.  I think what you'll find is that there's overlap on the desire to be good stewards of the earth, but disagreement as to how we do that (and who does the doing).

As always.  

**See the third link below for some context and counterpoint--the argument being that perhaps the 30% number is completely arbitrary.  For my part, I question its necessity for climate change too.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2
869

https://www.vox.com/22369705/biden-conservation-biodiversity-collapse-30-by-30

Related:

To play off another earlier post on 30x30, take a look at the recent op ed by Gabel below.  More context/detail on the rulemaking I wrote about and its possible effects (including turning over management of some public lands to, well, not the United States public).

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/management-of-public-lands-ought-not-be-for-sale-gabel/article_2fa557f4-b1a6-11ee-965e-67a23313dfb4.html

---

Part 2 on 30x30:  what supporters say.

The first article linked below is pretty representative of what I think a supporter of Biden's 30x30 initiative might say.  

If this issue is a passion and you're concerned about it, I'd highly recommend giving it a read.  As I've said before, if nothing else, you will get a sense of what your opponents might be saying about an issue.  

To wit, and to tie in to how I ended the first post in this series, I want to give you the following quote (with the link left intact should you want to follow it):  

"Recent nationwide polling shows Americans strongly back the protection of the nation’s natural heritage; four out of five U.S. voters favor a plan to protect at least 30 percent of America’s land, ocean areas, and inland waters by the year 2030 because they understand it will be good for their well-being and the environment." **

Fair enough.  As I said before, I think the issue is more on the "how" than the goal.  

So what is the how--at least at the early stage?  According to this article, the early "how" is laid out in screenshots 1 and 2.  Give them a look.  

None seem too ominous to me, perhaps chockablock with the kinds of word choice you've come to know and love from Democrats, but nothing that indicates a desire to, for example, come and take private land.  And there is mention in the article about how important it is to have this "locally driven" with an acknowledgement of no  one-size-fits-all approach.  

On the other hand, I want you to also note the characteristically vague language you often see in these sort of things:  just whose "Science" (not the capital signifying a proper noun--not a grammatical error in my view) are we going to use?   

Part of the mistrust you hear in my writing is at least partially drive by the supporters themselves.  Their ardor for this cause easily drives concern because it gives rise to questions about how far they'd go if given the chance.  What I mean by that is typified in the second link below.  

If you are like me, the fact that this is being done by executive order with supporters saying that Congress has failed, and now Biden MUST be even bolder in his actions (see screenshot 3 attached from this same link for a list that the authors thought would be a good idea), makes you bristle.  

Whether or not everyone that is in favor of this 30x30 initiative feels the same as the authors of this paper feel is not clear.  I have seen things like the first link that seem to be written by the kinds of folks you could sit down and talk with.  I have also seen things like the second where it looks like the kinds of environmentalists driving the Democrat policy in this state (where using government power to cram an agenda down the throats of the unwilling and unwitting has become an art form).  

I think then, and this is a caution I mention for myself as much as anything, when you read up on this topic, you need to keep the following question in front of you:  what exactly is being proposed here?

Next, and last post, is what opponents are saying.  

**Be careful with claims like these.  People express support for all kinds of things IN GENERAL.  Their support is liable to change as you start getting more specific.  And if you ask them to pay for it!

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/helen-oshea/biden-administration-lays-out-30x30-vision-conserve-nature

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/executive-action-vs-the-nature-crisis-top-8-opportunities/

---

Part 3:  What 30x30 opponents are saying.

I put a 3 links below from a group called Protect the Harvest which responded to my queries for information on 30x30 from an Ag perspective (the middle link is actually from a press release from the American Farm Bureau, but I found it only from the Protect the Harvest stuff linked so I put them all together).

If you forced me to summarize some of the common arguments I have seen against 30x30, you'll see them in the links below.  

--That, and here I quote the op ed linked last below, "The U.S. government currently controls conservation lands equal to the size of California and New York combined. To achieve the federal government’s desired 30 percent total land objective, land equaling twice the size of Texas would need to be added to the existing inventory. That requires confiscating land from private landowners and placing it into a “public” land bank that would be off-limits to the public."

--Concerns over how much foreign influence, and (for lack of a better term) "how much the UN (or others, see animal rights activists or environmentalists) will be driving what we do here in America".  Tantentially, how this will affect our food security at home.

Valid in my view.  I think the tendency in things I've read moves toward the extreme (see, for example, the leap to inevitability in the idea that the land would have to be confiscated--not in my view a foregone conclusion), but I take the point and am also worried.  

We have, after all, seen plenty of times that eminent domain was abused to build things like the shopping mall that never actually got built.

We also have to think about how we feed ourselves, produce a surplus for emergencies, and become a net exporter if we take large chunks of land out of production.  Is that a reality?  Even if we did everything voluntarily, would we end up having to put that land back under the plow?  COULD we do that if we had some sort of conservation easement set up?  We all know how adept environmentalists are at tying things up in the courts if they don't like it, and don't tell me they would easily cede territory they'd gained.  

I do find other concerns to be less of an issue:  the idea of foreign influences running the US and shadowy UN movements just don't melt my butter.  Not to minimize concerns here, but those sorts of things have been around forever and have yet to happen.  Not to say they couldn't, but if we needed to focus, my money says focus on the more pressing issues of food security and what happens to private lands here.  

One last thing I think that bears mentioning.  It's not as common in what I'm reading so far, but I cannot NOT mention what is missing in a lot of what supporters say about 30x30 (and frankly missing from what other related environmental causes say):  they often miss the fact that agricultural uses of private and public land can be, and often is, a form of stewardship and conservation.  

In other words, we can conserve public lands through thoughtful management and leasing.  And we can be good stewards of watersheds, land, timberlands, and etc. while still deriving economic benefit from them and the land around them. 

This need not be an either or thing.

I hope this little three parter has been helpful in illuminating some (not all) of the issues around the 30x30 movement. 

If this is a concern, read up on it.  Inform yourself and read both sides of the issue so you can come to fully informed conclusions.

https://protecttheharvest.com/initiatives/president-bidens-30-x-30-executive-order-america-the-beautiful/president-bidens-30-x-30-executive-order-america-the-beautiful-aligned-with-the-global-extremist-agenda/

https://americanstewards.us/american-farm-bureau-federation-adopts-policy-opposing-30-x-30/

https://protecttheharvest.com/news/student-pov-how-bidens-30x30-will-impact-younger-generations/