By Henry L. Barbaro and Karen I. Shragg
From all across our nation, we keep hearing about the struggles to preserve cherished open spaces, e.g., wilderness, scenic areas, and sacred lands of America’s tribal nations. People are fighting all kinds of land development projects, such as housing complexes, highways, pipelines, mines, airports, and energy facilities. But these open space activists never seem to identify the driving force behind all of these threats -- our ever-growing population, which relentlessly undermines any effort to preserve open spaces, today and for the foreseeable future.
A consistent source of open space activism comes from Indigenous nations. Tribal bands from all over the Americas are fighting to keep their ancestral lands sovereign and free from encroachment. These lands are sacred because of their historical and spiritual significance. In the U.S., many tribal bands have opposed a variety of development projects, including the Standing Rock Sioux tribe fighting against the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa fighting against the “Line 5” pipeline, among many others. These battles have been waged in a piecemeal fashion, and have focused on the risk of environmental impacts. Adding an arrow from the quiver of “perpetual unsustainable growth and overpopulation” would help their cause.
What are the numbers telling us? Our native birth rates are not adding to the pressures to develop open spaces. In recent decades, immigration has become the primary driver of our nation’s population growth. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, our population will soar by 50 million in the next 35 years, with 90% due to immigration. This adds up to the consumption of massive amounts of non-renewable open spaces.
But in a society whose leaders and most citizens revere constant growth -- including population growth – the seemingly non-tangible reasons for opposing development (which serves the demands of an expanding population) can become an aesthetic rather than a practical argument. Those who say we need more housing and energy have louder voices and more clout than those who champion sacred lands and wild places.
Yet the anti-growth argument is strengthened by the fact that eternal growth is not sustainable. By accepting the millions of additional residents streaming into the US, our nation also is experiencing resource shortages (e.g., drinking water, productive farmland) and diminished resiliency (e.g., floods, fires, droughts). But none of these open space champions are putting growth in the center of their target. That is why all of these fights are so piecemeal and, ultimately, ineffective.
The policies that permit growth in the US
In population terms, America’s growth rate is higher than any other industrialized country in the world. This can mostly be attributed to our nation having the most permissive immigration policies (by far), along with the lack of meaningful enforcement of existing immigration laws. Alas, Americans always have assumed that our federal government would do the right thing in terms of competently managing our nation’s immigration program.
There’s another factor at play – America’s paradigm of eternal growth, which advocates for constant population growth to keep our economy going, to fill job openings, to “compete on the world stage,” to pay for Social Security, to support the elderly, etc. Still, we know deep down that this economic “Ponzi scheme” cannot continue indefinitely – conditions change, shortages arise. The question is not whether America will hit the limit to its growth, but when, and how bad will our quality-of-life get before critical shortages lead to a crisis?
All concerned Americans need to join forces
America has a wide range of “conservation lands,” designated as national wildlife refuges, forests, preserves, parks, monuments, and wilderness. Except for national wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, roads are generally allowed and, except for national forests, commercial operations such as mining or logging, generally are prohibited (unless grandfathered). In addition to protecting a wide range of biological processes (e.g., wildlife habitat) and healthy ecosystems (e.g., watershed protection), these areas also preserve aesthetic and cultural qualities, such as scenic landscapes (e.g., ridgelines, canyons). Conservation areas therefore have values that go well beyond whatever commodities they could provide in the future.
Due to America’s persistent population growth, there is growing pressure to extract minerals and timber, raise livestock, and build highways and housing. It’s not hard to imagine the rules regulating these natural areas someday being liberalized to respond to the demands of a growing population.
As America's population grows (driven by government immigration policies), so too will our need for more natural resources (water, natural gas, oil, minerals, metals, wood). Even “green” energy requires lots of mining (e.g., quartz/sand for the solar panel glass, copper for the electricity transmission, and lithium for electricity storage). Indeed, the green-energy industry is very land-intensive. Instead of pipelines, there will need to be more transmission lines. A medium-sized solar farm can require 30-40 acres, and offshore wind farms require the industrialization of sensitive coastal areas. Scenic ridgelines, which can have higher wind speeds, are too often festooned with wind turbines.
With America’s population expanding onto our remaining natural areas (and Indian reservations), the number of land use conflicts also has been increasing, with one side trying to satiate the demands from constant growth while the other side fights to preserve their spiritual and psycho-emotional connection to the natural landscape. Urban sprawl will continue to negatively affect forests and wilderness through habitat reduction and fragmentation, loss of biodiversity and ecological integrity, and increased fire hazards (from people and power lines).
Today’s trend is for more and more people to escape high-density states and cities, and move to lands surrounding conservation areas. As more people seek the solace of “big nature,” these special areas paradoxically are being “loved to death” with housing and highways.
Perpetual growth leads to permanent losses
Growth and development almost always cause permanent changes to the landscape. Once a sacred area is degraded/desecrated, then it doesn’t come back. Tragically, future generations will never witness its grandeur, beauty, peace, and/or whatever intrinsic yet intangible value the land once had.
Scenic/aesthetic/cultural areas continue to be marred with the infrastructure of America's burgeoning population. What will our generation bequeath to future generations? Will they be able to hike to a scenic overlook and gaze upon an unbroken landscape that looks like it did thousands of years ago? Or will they see housing, roads, transmission lines, wind turbines, and/or timber operations, along with skies buzzing from passenger jets and crisscrossed with contrails? Will indigenous peoples still be able to conduct their ceremonies in the private stillness of their ancestral land or will they be surrounded by mining operations and condominiums?
There is a fundamental reason that those who care about wildlands will never be able to relax and hang up their activist hats. Unless open space activists unite behind stopping America’s perpetual population growth, the ruinous march of development will not stop.