we can see that in only six of 50 states is urban use more than ten per cent of total land use, and in 26 of 50 more than half of all land is neither urban nor farm, but open space. There really is no danger that Americans will concrete over the countryside.
Total farmland in 1992 was 945.53 million acres, but fell to 938.28 million acres in 2002 .
John Thornton on USDA Forest Service Changing Midwest Assessment. (It covers the 7 Midwestern states):
"On a percentage basis, the greatest change was from agriculture and forestland to urban. "
Yes, but percentages can be deceiving, so John continues:
"The urban land cover type increased 24.3 percent, equivalent to approximately 1.5 million acres. The area of forestland increased 7 percent, from 71.8 million acres in 1980 to 76.8 million acres in 2000."
But take the percentages out for a second and look at the absolute numbers, what you are saying is that urban land grew from about by 1.5 milllion acres.
In the same period forestland grew from 71.8 million acres to 76.8 million acres, or by 5 million acres.
In other words, the growth in forestland was more than three times the growth in urban land.
Gabon's growing national parks is not something that will happen in the future, it happened seven years ago. Most developing countries are coping with depopulation of the land - something that quite a few Third World governments encourage by clearing people to make way for national parks, and yes, reservoirs, too.
John says I trumpet increased yields. Shouldn't everyone? Hunger was a terrible thing. I see that Americans spend about one tenth of their income on food compared to about 25 per cent in 1947. That's a good thing.