Areas of land around the Grand Canyon are among the national land that may be given away
I spent a lot of my childhood outdoors; walking, scrambling, climbing trees. Some of these outdoor experiences were admittedly more enjoyable than others. (A rain-soaked ascent of the Merrick has gone down in family history as the wettest – and worst – walk ever.)
As an adult, I have mostly lived in cities with forays into the real outdoors reserved for weekends and holidays. It took ten years and a move to the UK’s largest city to make me finally realise that the outdoors wasn’t just a place to go hiking, rock climbing or mountain biking. The outdoors is part of me. It makes me happy. When I haven’t spent enough time outside I get grumpy and miserable (as many of my close friends know only too well). That connection, rooted in childhood has grown into a deeper love and respect for the outdoor environment.
Which is why the news that Republican lawmakers had laid the foundations to give away 640m acres of U.S. national land hit me like a sledgehammer. I have done my best to stay optimistic throughout the last year of political turmoil. Strived to understand the reasons behind other peoples’ views and respect them, even if I don’t agree with them. And most definitely not talked about them on this blog. (Until now obviously, but I promise normal service will resume next week.)
There have been so many negative news stories about the lack of importance that our leaders and politicians are placing on environmental issues. Climate change denial, banning of scientific facts and the removal of key environmental legislation. So why has this single line of change to a legal framework hit me so hard?
First, and perhaps most obvious is the risk of vast tracts of wild land being privatised and damaged or destroyed for economic gain. And we’re talking a lot of land. 640m acres is more than ten times the size of the UK. Wow. (And doesn’t that make all us Brits feel small?!)
I have been lucky enough to visit a number of the U.S. National Parks and they astounded me, not only with their beauty but with the breadth and variety of environments they contain. From deserts to mountains, vast forests to open plains; these parks encompass a myriad of different ecosystems. Generations of trees, plants and wildlife. Ecosystems are finally balanced things: destroy one element in the chain, and the whole system can collapse.
But it’s also about what is being taken away from the American people. (And yes, from us visitors too!) Those memories I have of my childhood – that connection I made with the outdoors – that wouldn’t have been possible without our National Parks and public land in the UK. The thought of future generations of children growing up without being able to play in trees, paddle in rivers and wander through beautiful landscapes makes me immeasurably sad.
If you take away vast areas of land, you concentrate people into what remains. And that can cause problems of its own. We are creatures of the environment. We need the outdoors to live happy lives. Do we really want out children to grow up in urban jungles? To only see bears, owls and moose in picture books?
And there’s another thing that worries me in this act. Something that goes much deeper. It’s the implication that federal land – these beautiful, life-filled landscapes – are worthless. That they have no value. Because that is what this little one-line change in the Rules for the House of Representatives means: that “state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays.”
And that couldn’t be further from the truth. Putting a value on natural capital has always been a hard and contentious issues. But denying it has a value? That’s another matter altogether. It means it doesn’t appear on the balance sheet. Doesn’t get accounted for when weighing up costs and benefits of different options. It implies that we would be just as well off if that piece of wild land didn’t even exist in the first place.
And that is a slippery slope. Because if we don’t recognise the value of our natural environment and therefore recognise it as something that needs our protection, we will end up doing irreversible damage. Damage that will not only threaten much of the wildlife we hold dear, but ultimately ourselves. And our children, and their children.
Cree Indian Prophecy
The job of our elected politicans is to do what is in the best interest for our country in the long term. The Paris Agreement, agreed at COP 21 and ratified last year, gave hope that global leaders recognise the need to modify our behaviours today to protect the world for the people of tomorrow. But protecting our world is not just about counting carbon emissions.
This is a plea to all Americans – it is time to tell your leaders what it is you hold dear. To make it fundamentally clear how much you value your National Parks and open spaces. Because if you don’t take a stand now, there may not be any wild places left to protect in the future.