The chart you sent the link to does not actually claim the remaining
space as open space but "largely open space". This includes clear cut
forests, tree farms, landfills, etc. It is not a measure of wildlife
space. One good thing about using sources like the USGS, USDA Forest
Service etc. is that are as neutral as one can generally find. I
deliberately chose not to use data from sources with a pro-environmental
agenda so as to avoid presenting misleading data or having to include
caveats or explanations. James worries about percentages from the USDA
Forest Service below being deceiving but doesn't hesitate to use
deceptive data from Demographia, a right-wing pro-development organization.
> 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.
>
But forestland is not a forest as has been previously pointed out. As a
matter of simple math if one parameter grows at 24.3% over 20 years and
the other grows at 7% in 20 years it isn't guesswork to figure out which
parameter out paces the other in the long term. There is nothing
deceptive about that, it is simple and obvious.
I'll repeat this from my last post to make the point. According to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Resource Inventory, less than
0.8% of developed land was converted from urban or agricultural to
nonurban uses over the 15 year period 1982 1997. When a section of
undeveloped land is reclassified as a park or National Monument or
whatever you need to remember that this is not a growth in undeveloped
land, merely a reclassification of already existing undeveloped land.
The reality on the ground is that less than 1% of developed land has
been returned to an undeveloped state. This means while urban land cover
grew at over 24% wild spaces grew at less than 1% in the same time
frame. You may consider that a recipe for preserving wildlife but it
isn't and can't be considered as such on any realistic scale. Why are
these percentages deceiving and in what way? What is deceptive is
claiming that X number of acres put in a park increases available
wildlife spaces. It most certainly does not. A bear in the woods cares
not if he or she is in a National Forest or a National Park but you seem
to think this name change is something significant. While it may be
important it has no effect on the net increase or loss of any particular
land use. A good example of this in my own backyard so to speak, is the
Buffalo River Wilderness Area. The area meets no ones definition of
wilderness, not even the US Park Service. There are roads, farms,
houses, etc. but the area was re-designated as wilderness and so it
increased the amount of "official" wilderness acreage in the US while
not actually increasing real wilderness in any way. These are the
deceptive percentages.
> 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.
Most developed countries are not dealing with depopulation of the land.
Just the opposite is true. Even in places where the population is
contracting the land use per person is increasing. The land is becoming
more populated everywhere regardless of populations rising or falling.
Please show me an example of depopulation of the land happening
somewhere. The population of the Netherlands has decreased over the last
20 years but their land use has increased. Is this what you mean by
depopulation of the land? If so it's an awfully odd definition.
Increased yields aren't necessarily a good thing if the cost in land degradation is so high that the rate is obviously unsustainable. It is good TODAY? Absolutely, but even a cursory glance at the numbers demonstrates that current farming methods are not a longterm solution and are actually detrimental to finding a longterm solution. The simple fact that the world's aquifers are being used at a rate many times greater than than rate of replenishment should tell you that the current mode of irrigation cannot continue on its present trajectory for as long as we simply desire it. Maybe in Oprah's world you can merely wish for something hard enough to make it come true but on planet earth that isn't how things work.
You don't seriously believe that as populations continue to rise farmland can continue to shrink do you? If so do you believe that were the population of the planet to reach 30 billion people we will only need 1/5 of the current farmland to feed them all? If you believe this you are out of touch with reality.
John Thornton