9 ms·

It stings to know that in the US, state-level initiatives like this are exceedingly rare, and national ones are (and will continue to be) non-existent. Even mos

It stings to know that in the US, state-level initiatives like this are exceedingly rare, and national ones are (and will continue to be) non-existent. Even most local efforts like this are met with resistance, usually from NIMBYs that have no argument aside from that they don't like it. Americans have a very hard time seeing beyond their property boundaries.

Sevii 9y ago
Then we also have states where over 50% of the land area is national parks.
- dx034 9y ago
  But those are often desert. And desertification could (in part) be caused by overly protecting the area (e.g. not allowing cattle). Good video to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
nwatson 9y ago
US forest area has changed negligibly since 1900: https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343034 https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343... .
bdamm 9y ago
This seems very appropriate as a state-level issue. There are many states larger than England. New York State, for example, is larger. Why should it be federal? Besides, federal agencies already directly control enormous tracts of land in the west. State-level control over land use is a good thing.
mkingston 9y ago
As a New Zealander currently living in the UK, the contrast in conservation approaches is stark. I've come to the conclusion that New Zealand is beautiful in large part because a) it has a low population density and b) it hasn't had a sufficiently high population density for long enough to ruin it. Not so much because of broad public support for conservation. Luckily, I think some good basic protections exist (national parks), and are mostly respected. In the UK, there's so little wilderness remaining that it commands a considerable respect, and considerable conservation effort and public support. Noticeably more so, I believe, than I witnessed in NZ.
- disordinary 9y ago
  NZ has some of the worlds oldest national parks, marine reserves, etc. While the state of the rivers is particularly bad because of intensive farming there has been a concerted effort to improve that, and in fact the state of the rivers was probably the biggest political issue in the last election with all political parties promising to clean them. NZ is not perfect, and the relatively good state of the environment is definitely helped by the fact that population density is low, espeacialy in the bottom 2/3rds of the country, but there is a strong desire to improve the situation by most, even most farmers are committed to improving the waterways and providing more green area.
  - mkingston 9y ago
    Indeed, I believe "National Park" in the centre of the North Island was the world's second national park. And Goat Island Marine Reserve was the world's first no-take-zone. The story I've heard of the latter is that we (as a society, globally) didn't even know the scope of the recovery that was possible before Goat Island. And the mere existence of DOC is promising. And yes, I have relatively (to the previous government) high conservation hopes for the new government. Fingers crossed. (I should give some credit for the Kermadec Islands marine reserve here!) Just to clarify though, my comment was about public sentiment. My anecdotal experience is that Brits are more concerned about conservation than New Zealanders. Which I was quite surprised to discover. And largely I wanted to commiserate with the parent of my comment.
    - disordinary 9y ago
      Like anything your perception is skewed by the circle that you live in. Everyone that I know is very interested in conservation. My family votes national and are farmers and put a lot of effort into managing their stock and planting around their waterways. My friends are all urban and vote green or labor, they also put in a lot of effort into the environment. Everyone I know recycles, uses eco and environmentally friendly products where they can, etc. People who I know who fish always fish within the allowed limits and quotas. My grandmother told me over Christmas that she was never going to use another plastic bag. So, in my opinion, the country is very eco minded, but that sample is skewed because it's only my friends and family. I did meet someone at a party a few years ago who said she just threw her rubbish over the fence onto a council reserve because she was too busy and lived a too important life to bother with dealing with it. There are also people who regularly get caught taking too much paua, or catching underage fish, etc. So obviously they're out there, how prevalent people with disregard to the environment are I don't know, as I said I live in my own bubble. It could be that people in the UK are more environmentally minded than here, but that wasn't my experience when living there. It could be that they're not but the people that you've met in both countries have simply given that impression. Someone has probably done a study somewhere.
forapurpose 9y ago
That wasn't always true. During the New Deal, the U.S. built the Great Plains Shelterbelt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_Shelterbelt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_Shelterbelt
- foota 9y ago
  Did it work well? Wikipedia doesn't explicitly say
- mkingston 9y ago
  Related to that, I recently found out about the Civilian Conservation Corps[1], which I thought was very cool. TL; DR during great depression US gov employed people on conservation projects for ~550USD in 2015 dollars per month. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    There were many other similar programs. If you are interested, an excellent single-volume, highly regarded history is William Leuchtenburg's Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932-1940. It's not a new book, but last I checked there was nothing better: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/328065.Franklin_D_Roosevelt_and_the_New_Deal_1932_1940 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/328065.Franklin_D_Roosev... Reading histories can really change perspectives. Reading it I discovered that much of the rhetoric in the 1930s was similar to today: For example, from the right that regulation would crush business and welfare programs were unaffordable, etc. A big difference was that from the left, Roosevelt responded aggressively and communicated persuasively, while today's Democrats do neither - consider Obama, for example. (Whatever you think of the issues and politicians, I think that's a non-partisan factual observation.)
reaperducer 9y ago
The federal government already owns a quarter of the land in America. In Nevada, the seventh-largest state, it owns almost 90% of the land. [1] https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/heres-how-land-is-used-by-the-federal-government-in-nevada/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/heres-how-land-is-used-by...
maxerickson 9y ago
What sort of project would you like to see in the US? Many national forests are larger than this project, we haven't managed to deforest the country (they have been logged and continue to be logged, but modern extraction is not especially aggressive(NIMBYs), and absent fires logging isn't all bad).

Sevii 9y ago

Then we also have states where over 50% of the land area is national parks.

dx034 9y ago
But those are often desert. And desertification could (in part) be caused by overly protecting the area (e.g. not allowing cattle). Good video to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

nwatson 9y ago

US forest area has changed negligibly since 1900: https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343034 https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343... .

bdamm 9y ago

This seems very appropriate as a state-level issue. There are many states larger than England. New York State, for example, is larger. Why should it be federal? Besides, federal agencies already directly control enormous tracts of land in the west. State-level control over land use is a good thing.

mkingston 9y ago

As a New Zealander currently living in the UK, the contrast in conservation approaches is stark. I've come to the conclusion that New Zealand is beautiful in large part because a) it has a low population density and b) it hasn't had a sufficiently high population density for long enough to ruin it. Not so much because of broad public support for conservation. Luckily, I think some good basic protections exist (national parks), and are mostly respected. In the UK, there's so little wilderness remaining that it commands a considerable respect, and considerable conservation effort and public support. Noticeably more so, I believe, than I witnessed in NZ.

disordinary 9y ago
NZ has some of the worlds oldest national parks, marine reserves, etc. While the state of the rivers is particularly bad because of intensive farming there has been a concerted effort to improve that, and in fact the state of the rivers was probably the biggest political issue in the last election with all political parties promising to clean them. NZ is not perfect, and the relatively good state of the environment is definitely helped by the fact that population density is low, espeacialy in the bottom 2/3rds of the country, but there is a strong desire to improve the situation by most, even most farmers are committed to improving the waterways and providing more green area.
- mkingston 9y ago
  Indeed, I believe "National Park" in the centre of the North Island was the world's second national park. And Goat Island Marine Reserve was the world's first no-take-zone. The story I've heard of the latter is that we (as a society, globally) didn't even know the scope of the recovery that was possible before Goat Island. And the mere existence of DOC is promising. And yes, I have relatively (to the previous government) high conservation hopes for the new government. Fingers crossed. (I should give some credit for the Kermadec Islands marine reserve here!) Just to clarify though, my comment was about public sentiment. My anecdotal experience is that Brits are more concerned about conservation than New Zealanders. Which I was quite surprised to discover. And largely I wanted to commiserate with the parent of my comment.
  - disordinary 9y ago
    Like anything your perception is skewed by the circle that you live in. Everyone that I know is very interested in conservation. My family votes national and are farmers and put a lot of effort into managing their stock and planting around their waterways. My friends are all urban and vote green or labor, they also put in a lot of effort into the environment. Everyone I know recycles, uses eco and environmentally friendly products where they can, etc. People who I know who fish always fish within the allowed limits and quotas. My grandmother told me over Christmas that she was never going to use another plastic bag. So, in my opinion, the country is very eco minded, but that sample is skewed because it's only my friends and family. I did meet someone at a party a few years ago who said she just threw her rubbish over the fence onto a council reserve because she was too busy and lived a too important life to bother with dealing with it. There are also people who regularly get caught taking too much paua, or catching underage fish, etc. So obviously they're out there, how prevalent people with disregard to the environment are I don't know, as I said I live in my own bubble. It could be that people in the UK are more environmentally minded than here, but that wasn't my experience when living there. It could be that they're not but the people that you've met in both countries have simply given that impression. Someone has probably done a study somewhere.

forapurpose 9y ago

That wasn't always true. During the New Deal, the U.S. built the Great Plains Shelterbelt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_Shelterbelt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_Shelterbelt

foota 9y ago
Did it work well? Wikipedia doesn't explicitly say
mkingston 9y ago
Related to that, I recently found out about the Civilian Conservation Corps[1], which I thought was very cool. TL; DR during great depression US gov employed people on conservation projects for ~550USD in 2015 dollars per month. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
- forapurpose 9y ago
  There were many other similar programs. If you are interested, an excellent single-volume, highly regarded history is William Leuchtenburg's Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932-1940. It's not a new book, but last I checked there was nothing better: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/328065.Franklin_D_Roosevelt_and_the_New_Deal_1932_1940 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/328065.Franklin_D_Roosev... Reading histories can really change perspectives. Reading it I discovered that much of the rhetoric in the 1930s was similar to today: For example, from the right that regulation would crush business and welfare programs were unaffordable, etc. A big difference was that from the left, Roosevelt responded aggressively and communicated persuasively, while today's Democrats do neither - consider Obama, for example. (Whatever you think of the issues and politicians, I think that's a non-partisan factual observation.)

reaperducer 9y ago

The federal government already owns a quarter of the land in America. In Nevada, the seventh-largest state, it owns almost 90% of the land. [1] https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/heres-how-land-is-used-by-the-federal-government-in-nevada/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/heres-how-land-is-used-by...

maxerickson 9y ago

What sort of project would you like to see in the US? Many national forests are larger than this project, we haven't managed to deforest the country (they have been logged and continue to be logged, but modern extraction is not especially aggressive(NIMBYs), and absent fires logging isn't all bad).