Growing government and saddling future generations with more debt will only stymie economic and environmental progress.
Growing government and saddling future generations with more debt will only stymie economic and environmental progress.
D espite what one might infer from the Biden administration’s climate action, conservation doesn’t have to come with a steep price tag.
Making good on one of his campaign promises, President Biden recently launched the American Climate Corps. Authorized through executive order, rather than Congress, the new program will recruit young Americans to plant trees, conserve public lands, and protect biodiversity. While these are laudable objectives, the private sector and existing federal, state, and local programs are already doing this work. America’s young don’t need wasteful, redundant government programs that they’ll have to pay for one day. They need fiscal responsibility and policies that support innovation and empower the market to meaningfully reduce emissions.
The new federal jobs program is launching at a curious time, with Americans experiencing low unemployment and record high federal spending. With the U.S. national debt hitting $33 trillion in August, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded by Fitch to AA+. Federal fiscal mismanagement — from both Democrats and Republicans — has had very real consequences. Consumers are paying more for basic goods and services like food and energy; families and businesses are incurring higher borrowing costs from steeper interest rates. And Biden’s approach to policy adds fuel to the fire.
With the full cost of the American Climate Corps still to be determined, the administration has directed $150 million of existing funding to green apprenticeship programs, reforestation projects, and career-skills training through the Department of Labor, AmeriCorps, and the Department of Energy, respectively. Meanwhile, progressives in Congress have introduced legislation that would reflect the administration’s priorities and authorize $132.5 billion over five years for the program.
The administration’s belief that more money is always the answer is emblematic of a larger problem in policy-making. A pragmatic approach that empowers the private sector and individuals, removes government barriers to conservation, and saves taxpayers money will better meet the nation’s economic and environmental needs.
The private sector is already working with federal agencies to address the challenges the Climate Corps claims it would prioritize. Blue Forest Conservation, for instance, is a nonprofit that has created unique private/public bonds that join investors, private entities, and public agencies with local organizations to fund conservation work. The group recently announced $12 million in funding for forest-restoration projects in California, Oregon, and Nevada.
Private companies are not the only entities that are spurring conservation efforts. Recent federal spending packages such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act appropriated billions of dollars in funding for community-resilience and conservation programs across the United States.
Though conservation in the United States does suffer from a lack of funding and interest, it’s restrictive government regulations that inhibit progress by tying projects up for years through red tape and litigation.
Before undertaking active forest-management projects — which would reduce wildfire risk — landowners and federal agencies must complete a lengthy permitting and review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. NEPA review alone can delay mechanical thinnings and prescribed burns by 3.6 years and 4.7 years, respectively.
Even after obtaining the necessary permits to begin, projects often face additional delays from lawsuits. The Forest Service’s plan to mechanically thin and treat 13,000 acres of land in Big Bear Lake to reduce wildfire risk was delayed for nearly a year because of activist litigation.
While streamlining regulations is an important first step to unleashing conservation in the United States, adequately funding key research-and-development programs is also crucial. Since 2002, agricultural R & D spending has declined by one-third, after adjusting for inflation. And while wasteful spending should be avoided, there are several productive and important programs that should receive increased attention and support from policy-makers.
One of these programs is the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), a nonprofit that pulls together public and private funding to support innovative research in the areas of soil health, next-generation crops, and sustainable water management. Importantly, every dollar of federal funding to the FFAR is matched by private-sector funding, which increases the impact of the federal investment and increases buy-in from the private sector.
In addition to the FFAR, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) are lowering the barrier to conservation work for farmers and landowners. Both of these programs inspire bottom-up solutions by putting local landowners in the driver’s seat to confront the unique challenges they are facing. Rather than funding programs like these through increased appropriations, policy-makers should fund them by redirecting spending from wasteful government programs.
Meaningful climate progress can only be accomplished with responsible federal spending. Growing government and saddling future generations with more debt, as programs like the Climate Corps would do, will only stymie economic and environmental progress.