DuBois column: Winchester aimed at the West

 

Winchester aimed at the West

A different barrel and different ammo, but still a 30-30. This time, though, it is called 30 by 30 and it is the new battle cry by the enviros and the Biden Administration. They want 30 percent of the land in the U.S. set aside in protected areas, and similarly 30 percent of the ocean.

Advocates had been proposing this type of action for some time, but this particular effort got kick-started by Swiss philanthropist Hansjörg Wyss, who donated a billion dollars to launch the Wyss Campaign for Nature. The Wyss campaign called for 30 percent of all lands to be protected. That was quickly followed by the large environmental organizations issuing a statement calling for 30 percent of all land be set aside in protected areas by 2030 and 50 percent be sustainably managed by 2050. 

In January of this year President Biden issued Executive Order 14008 “Tackling the Climate Crises at Home and Abroad.” While most of the media focused on the specific climate change provisions and the order to “pause” oil and gas development on federal lands, Section 216 of the EO, titled Conserving Our Nation's Lands and Waters states:  “The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality…shall submit a report to the Task Force within 90 days of the date of this order recommending steps that the United States should take, working with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, and other key stakeholders, to achieve the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.”

We need to ask what will it take to reach that 30 percent? Federal lands encompass 640 million acres, about 29 percent of the U.S. land mass. However, a study by the U.S.G.S found that only 12 percent of those lands meet the protected status required to reach the 30 by 30 standards. They propose that an additional 440 million acres would be required to obtain their goal. That’s an area twice the size of Texas.

What about private lands? You know the enviros covet them, and this program provides an excellent opportunity to either acquire or obtain control over private property.  In conjunction with this program, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has expanded the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to halt production, by 4 million acres. In doing so, he brushed aside grain growers fears this would send a signal to other countries to step up production. USDA will also consider ramping up their program to purchase perpetual easements over private lands.

Another option for both USDA and USDI is the outright purchase of private lands. Making this a more plausible option is President Trump’s signing of the Great American Outdoors Act last year, which guarantees, without debate, $900 million a year for federal land acquisition. Was that enough to satisfy the enviros? Of course not. One enviro spokesman recently pointed out the $900 million was a 1978 number, and after factoring in inflation, the appropriation should be $3.4 billion per year.

With respect to federal lands, the big stick everyone will be watching for is the use of the 1906 Antiquities Act.  That law has been determined by the courts to grant the President unlimited authority to designate national monuments without allowing for public comment and without considering the environmental or economic impact of the designation. Given the short, nine-year time frame to meet the 30 percent goal, they very well may be gearing up for a monument onslaught that far surpasses Obama’s record setting 26 new national monuments.

The enviro lobbyists have recently done a great job in bringing in Native Americans to be upfront on many enviro initiatives, especially those pertaining to federal lands. Now, however, the enviros are eyeing the 56 million acres of land held in trust for Native Americans. It will be interesting to see how welcoming the tribes will be to having national parks, wildlife refuges and national monuments created on tribal land.

Climate what?

I predicted last fall that Biden’s enviro initiatives would all be proposed under the umbrella of climate change, and so it is with 30 by 30 program, as it is only a part of the President’s EO on climate change. I’m sure it is just a happenstance that Senate Agriculture Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), along with 17 Republican cosponsors, has introduced the Growing Climate Solutions Act.  The bill is aimed at “bolstering agricultural carbon markets.” This is not a totally bad bill, but let’s take a closer at the language used to describe and justify the legislation.

The bipartisan bill would create a structure at the Department of Agriculture to help farmers increase their adoption of “climate smart practices” and have better access to voluntary carbon markets, Stabenow told reporters on a Tuesday call.

Here the D.C. Deep Thinkers are saying farmers aren't changing their production practices at an acceptable rate, or that those who are changing are adopting dumb practices rather than "climate smart practices" as defined by the government. 

 ...but the burgeoning private markets for carbon credits vary in quality    

Something is "burgeoning" in the private sector? Oh no, the DC Deep Thinkers cannot allow that. 

…bill would create a structure at the Department of Agriculture...voluntary carbon markets. 

Whenever you create a "structure" in a federal agency, history teaches that, over time, the "structure" will become a bureau or a division and the program mandatory.  

 “Most of these carbon markets are complex and farmers need help to get started,” Stabenow said.                                                                                                          

These ag producers manage land, livestock, crops and sophisticated heavy equipment. They manage their own budget and the marketing of their products. Yet the DC Deep Thinkers believe they need government's help in selecting a program because it is all too complex? 

 Therein you find the word that almost always leads to more government spending and control. The word is "complex".  Whenever you hear a politician utter the word "complex" be assured it will be followed by expressing the need for some new government expansion. 

In reality, the exact opposite is true: the more complex an issue the less the government should be involved. Governments have demonstrated over and over again they cannot manage simple, straight forward programs. Why on earth, then, would anybody think they could adequately manage a "complex" issue or program? 

Until next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.

 

Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation

 This column originally appeared in the May issues of The New Mexico Stockman and The Livestock Market Digest.

Addendum

Since writing the above, I found this passage that should put all private land owners on alert

When it comes to protecting private lands, there’s nowhere to go but up.

A mere 3% of protected areas in the country are on private lands, despite the fact that 60% of all land in the country is privately owned.

That’s bad news for biodiversity.

“Researchers have found that we’re losing habitat for threatened and endangered species twice as fast on unprotected private lands as we are on public lands, which is a big deal when you realize that a huge percentage of our threatened species live in places like the Southeast and areas outside of where we have a lot of federally protected public lands,” says Richards.

One way to begin protecting more private land is to ramp up existing programs that help local government agencies or land trusts buy private property outright or provide incentives for conservation easements.

This would indicate the battle will take place before the appropriation committees. By using existing programs, the proponents already have the legislative authority to accomplish their goal. What they don't have is enough funding to reach their desired outcome. However, with dems controlling both houses of congress and the White House, the likely success of increased funding seems imminent.