Conflict in Conservation?

The New York Times published an article on the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan, which proposes the management of 3.6 million acres of federal land in Wyoming. This is a story of conflicting interests—between conservationists and the fossil fuel industry, big and small government, and to an extent, Democrats and Republicans (1).

The Rock Springs Plan (RSP) is a local manifestation of a larger problem: how do you protect the environment in a polarised society and balance the interests of multiple stakeholders?

Environment vs. economy: a zero-sum game?

Focusing on the environment, the benefits of this plan are numerous. Conserving land is a vital component of maintaining a stable environment and keeping the earth within certain planetary boundaries (2). From a climate perspective, protecting land from oil and gas extraction is key: the more oil we keep in the ground, the fewer planet-warming emissions we release into the atmosphere. Biodiversity can flourish thanks to larger areas of connected habitat (3), and reducing mining activity can improve air quality for humans and animals.

But protecting land often comes at a cost: what activities can no longer take place due to these regulations? As cited in the NYT article, the RSP will slash 2,900 jobs in oil and gas. This loss could be devastating, but it’s only one part of the story. What about the potential jobs gained, in the form of park rangers and other nature-related jobs? What about the value of strengthened ecosystem services, like the regulating services of air quality maintenance and climate control, or support services like carbon fixation (4)?

The personal and the political

The economic point is clearly made, but the discussion is one-dimensional, glossing over the non-economic impacts of job loss. Changes in employment and income can lead to material hardship and financial stress, impacting family life and giving rise to poor mental health (5). In this light, strengthening social capital may be an essential component of bridging the gap between ‘the way things were’ and tomorrow’s green economy.

While frayed social ties might be mended by strong communities and a safety net, the deeper fracture along political fault lines could prove more difficult to fix. The US is profoundly polarised, and a Biden bill in a Republican state has been met with resistance, leading to vitriol that is largely political, rather than substantial. This issue makes governing common land even more difficult, as enforcement of regulatory rules is low in the absence of trust (6).

As with many conservation policies, the RSP concerns questions of who gets to use the land and how, and what the implications are for the people who live there. In Wyoming, where 48% of the land is owned by the federal government, many feel their interests are not being reflected in the direction the state is moving (1).

Finally, there is no mention of the potential positive social impacts of this plan, from reduced noise and air pollution, to the spiritual and emotional benefits of having more nature—as opposed to industry—on your doorstep.

By presenting a more nuanced perspective, this article could have diverged from the damaging belief that the environment and economy are in conflict with each other; environment, economy and society are closely interconnected, and there’s room for more than one winner.

Bibliography

1.     Friedman L. For Many in Wyoming, a Biden Plan to Protect Land Is Beyond Unpopular [Internet]. The New York Times. The New York Times; 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/climate/wyoming-conservation-drilling-biden.html?

2.     Rockström J. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 2009 Sep;461(7263):472–5.

3.     Bateman I, Balmford A. Current conservation policies risk accelerating biodiversity loss. Nature. 2023 Jun 22;618(7966):671–4.

4.     Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Ervin D, Bluffstone R, Boyd J, Brown D, et al. Valuing ecological systems and services. F1000 Biol Rep [Internet]. 2011 Jul 1 [cited 2023 Oct 18];3. Available from: https://facultyopinions.com/prime/reports/b/3/14/

5.     Friedline T, Chen Z, Morrow S. Families’ Financial Stress & Well-Being: The Importance of the Economy and Economic Environments. J Fam Econ Iss. 2021 Jul 1;42(1):34–51.

6.     Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern P. The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science. 2003 Dec 12;302(5652):1907–12.