30x30... A Recommendation to a New Reality

After seeing and reading multiple articles about the 30x30 which was put into place shortly after the Biden-Harris Administration was put into office, I decided I needed to do a little digging myself, because as an advocate of agriculture and seeing the concerns this plan was putting into agriculturalists' perspectives, I too was curious then of what exactly the goal and plan of the 30x30 is.

If you haven't heard of this campaign then let me enlighten you a bit.  Technically called "Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful", this is a preliminary report to the National Climate Task Force which recommends a ten-year, locally-led campaign to conserve and restore the lands and waters in the United States.  As many people are calling this campaign the 30x30, this is due to the goal to conserve at least 30% of our lands and waters by 2030.

While reading through this campaign, it was interesting to note how many times the words recommendation, locally-led, and voluntarily were used in this campaign.  

• For the amount of so-called "recommendations" this campaign had discussed, nothing was really put into words on what exactly was going to be done to help conserve our lands and waters.  You can read a lot on the "why" we should conserve and work to help this campaign succeed but if you don't understand that many wildlife are endangered, many habitats are being lost, and many environments are dying all due to pollution, then you clearly live under a rock.  Pollution and lack of care by Americans is what has led this country to the state we are in today so by stating multiple times that "we recommend that we conserve our lands and waters" may sound good to the average American, you really aren't saying much of anything.
• The reason there were so many "recommendations" was because the goal of this campaign is the leaders want it "locally-led."  Every need to conserve stated in the campaign, was followed by the want for locally-led programs.  Now in some communities, who already use conservation practices, this locally-led idea will work out perfectly.  However, for communities who do not practice any type of conservation as it is, what makes these leaders think they will sporadically start that now?  
• Based on the little research I've done on this topic, the biggest concern many farmers have with this campaign is the idea of "voluntarily" supporting this campaign.  As it was addressed many times in the campaign, the leaders want farmers, ranchers, forest owners, and others to get involved through voluntarily actions.  Many, however, are concerned that these efforts may turn forceful as to achieve their desired percentages by 2030.  Other articles I read concerning this campaign quoted farmers speaking about their concerns of how those who don't want to participate could be forced or incentivized into participating, which for many seemed unethical.
  

While reading the introduction of the campaign, some keys notes stuck out to me.  When addressing the three main problems they hope to resolve, it was interesting to note "roughly half of the riparian ecosystems and wetlands in the lower 48 states have already been lost, while more than 17,000 square miles of ranchland and farmland were lost to development or fragmented in the last two decades."  This statement clearly addresses the fact that the loss of conservative land is too often due to development.  The sad part is developed land equivalates to around only 3 percent of the land in the United States.

So let's break this down.  If only 3 percent of U.S. land is developed, what is the rest used for?  Around 40 percent of U.S. land is used for agriculture purposes including farmland, grazing and pastures, and crops although this number has decreased drastically over the past few decades.  Currently around 12 percent of U.S. land is protected, which consists of forests and national parks.  The remaining around 45 percent of U.S. land is undeveloped.  Based off of these numbers, one would think it shouldn't be too difficult to get that 12 percent of protected land up to 30 in one decade, but it really depends on where that additional land is getting pulled from.

President Biden is quoted with saying "America's farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have an important role to play in combating the climate crisis and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by sequestering carbon in soils, grasses, trees, and other vegetation and sourcing sustainable bioproducts and fuels."  Here's my issues with this statement:

• Why do only farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have a role with climate crisis and reducing greenhouse gasses?  
• Are we honestly blaming the agriculturalists for all these issues when this industry isn't the number one for the cause of pollution, climate crisis, and greenhouse gasses?
• Can we talk about all the farmland that's been lost in the past few decades due to being developed for urban use?

Another issue to point out in the introduction is where they stated, "in too many neighborhoods and communities across America, families are finding too few close-to-home opportunities to safely enjoy the outdoors."  The sad part being, this was never looked at as an issue until the entire American population was forced to stay inside.  Americans never had a problem with staying indoors when they were never told they couldn't go outside.  But as soon as the pandemic started, suddenly many cities and less priviledged and/or undeveloped communities are complaining or finally want to address the issues of not having any parks, open areas, and safe places to go outside.

As someone who comes from a rural background, always having a place to go outside was never an issue.  A park, a field, a neighbor's house, or a background offers easy access in rural communities to get the needed fresh air even before the pandemic started.  Even after living in a very suburban area for a year, I still found many parks and trails to use to my advantage.  I will agree that yes, there is a lack of outdoor recreational areas in certain places, but more times than not, people aren't even taking advantage of these places.  Give this five years, and I guarantee the campgrounds will never be packed like they were last year and this year.  

This campaign for America the Beautiful could be a good idea and it could benefit the United States.  However, the outline which was put in place on how to go about this campaign needs some work.  Recommendations don't go very far in a plan when there is no set plan in place.  These officials are leaving it up to the locals to lead America to a better place.  Although the general idea of this makes sense, it leaves much open, blank space.  

With no direct definition of how these recommendations will become a reality and simple stating we need to conserve more of America's lands and waters, no progress is being made.  I understand the farmer's concern of not knowing what this means either as they were targeted multiple times throughout the document making it appear like they were a significant part of the problem.  

The first step in fixing any situation is identifying there is a problem.  The second step is admitting YOU are a part of it.  When I say "you", I mean anyone who lives in America.  We all contribute to the issues of pollution and lack of conservation and until there is leadership taken to change it, no reform will ever happen.  But it isn't enough to write up a bunch of recommendations and tell the public all the things that need to happen and then just leave it to be "locally-led" and the government will follow.  Why?  If there is a leader willing to lead this, chances are they are already trying to change and help things.  But in many places where this conservation may really be needed, there is no leadership there to help focus the efforts and truly make a difference.

My interpretation of this campaign is different than every article that I've read.  Neither of the perspectives are necessarily wrong however, none are necessarily right.  There is clearly the need for reform and change in the way America is protecting it's land but how it gets accomplished will be determined by the American people.  

If you haven't already, I strongly encourage everyone to read the campaign and form their own opinion and perspective on it.  What I read in the articles versus the information that was actually given in the campaign were two different things from my perspective.  Find yours by reading the campaign at Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful.