> Any new development that doesn't give back to the resources it takes, yes. I learned recently about private land conservation: The idea is that you take a pi

> Any new development that doesn't give back to the resources it takes, yes. I learned recently about private land conservation: The idea is that you take a piece of undeveloped land you own, and mark is as a conservation area. This prevents development in perpetuity - the status is tied to the land even if you sell it. Enforcement is decently strong - there are lots of nonprofits that actively monitor these lands and report nonviolators. I don't have the source of the statistic, but one place I read that annually about 2.2 million acres are developed, and 2 million acres are conserved, so it is close to parity. (Owner gets tax benefits for doing this, but typically they'd earn more if they allow development).