“30 by 30” is a proposal to declare 30% of the Earth’s surface off limits to human use. Part of the 30% would consist of land and part would be seas. As of now, around 16% of the world’s land is off limits to human development, protected as national parks, wildlife preserves and the like. The goal is to double the protected area by the year 2030, eight years from now.
This sounds like a good idea, the kind of thing the public can get behind, something righteous, attainable, and for our own good. But not so fast. 30 by 30 has raised some critical questions that deserve answers before anyone moves forward.
What is the problem we are trying to solve, and is 30 by 30 the best way to solve it? The problem is environmental degradation with its increasing pollution and loss of plant and animal life. 30 by 30 is an attempt to reverse environmental destruction so that perhaps we can buy ourselves back from the tipping point.
What are the side effects and how do we enforce 30 by 30? If we remove humans from 30% of the land’s surface, what effect would that have on real estate prices? On food prices? What if the United States government decided to take 30% of each state to make it fair? Thirty percent of the Midwest equates to millions of tons of food grown on millions of acres of prime farmland. It would make more sense to take more acreage from, say, New Mexico, but how do we make those decisions? But would setting aside a large chunk of New Mexico do any good for endangered species? Beyond that, how would anyone enforce 30 by 30? If we declare 30% of the world’s oceans off limits to humans, who would police those areas to catch illegal fishers, and how much would that cost? We cannot even stop illegal fishing in the areas we have set aside now, which is less than half of the proposed area.
The difference between conservation and preservation: Conservation is the wise use of natural resources, whereas preservation is the prevention of use of nature. So, where a conservationist may advocate fishing but throwing back females and young fish, a preservationist would ban fishing. A conservationist would place trash cans along hiking trails through national parks, but a preservationist would remove the hiking trails completely. The distinction is important because in my experience, many people who call themselves conservationists are actually preservationists.
Government power versus individual liberty: Many hard decisions must be made when it comes to 30 by 30. Whose land is taken? Will the current owners be compensated and who will pay for that? How much of the 30% will be land and how much will be water? There is a big difference between setting aside a million acres of worthless desert and a million acres of prime farmland or fragile rainforest. Who will make those decisions? That is a massive amount of control handed over to government bureaucrats. Some fear it will be followed by 50 by 50, then 100 by 2100. Some see a future of total government control of our lives in the name of protecting the planet against humans. It even has a name: Fortress Conservation.
Where did the numbers 30 by 30 come from? As it turns out, the number 30 is completely arbitrary, not scientific in any way. Originally, climate scientists recommended 20% of the earth’s surface set aside from human interference. The more radical activists are pushing for 50%, half the world off limits to human trespassing. Thirty percent was chosen because it is believed that the public would accept it, where they probably would not accept 50%. And the year 2030 was chosen as the goal to create a sense of urgency among governments. But there is no science behind either of these figures. According to one climate scientist, “they are a catchy marketing gimmick.”
Is focusing on a number the right approach? Some wildlife experts question the idea of setting a number at all. What if we set aside 30% of the Earth’s surface, but horribly abuse the other 70% What have we really accomplished? Perhaps the better way to approach environmental degradation is to write and enforce better laws for the whole planet.
Using 30 by 30 as a political weapon: Indigenous groups are suspicious that governments will use 30 by 30 as a way to take tribal lands. For example, what if Australia could reach its target by simply taking all the Aborigine lands. Can the United States reach its target by taking Native American reservations? That would avoid the difficult problem of taking lands from people more politically connected. What if Democrats use 30 by 30 to take land from Republicans or vice versa? Do you see where this could go?
That we must act as better stewards of the planet goes without saying. Mankind has a miserable record of exploiting resources with no regard to consequences. We also have a dismal record of letting politics and personal interest get in the way of real, lasting benefit. Why can’t we do better? To be clear, I love nature, the oceans, our national parks and all things green. But it seems that we have a lot of legitimate questions to answer before we declare 30 by 30 the solution to our environmental problems.
BC Cook, PhD taught history for over 20 years. He lived on Saipan and travels the Pacific but currently lives on the mainland U.S.
BC Cook
