I've been thinking, of late, a great deal about the problem of conservation. Namely, that the old method of buying up land and/or placing conservation easements thereon, while effective and important in its own right, can never match the destructive appetite of profit-oriented land development. Development makes money, conservation costs money.
As such, it is important for the 'conservationist' to turn his thoughts to the fundamental issues that underly the rampant loss of open space today. Again, development makes money, un-development costs money. This was not always the case, however. There was a time when a man would built a house with nothing more than an expectation that someone would fill it as insurance for his investment would have been considered a fool. Much less 80 houses all in a row. To do so would be an absurd investment of resources, in addition to the destruction of precious farmland. And herein lies the crux.
Today, farmland has become fallowland, as farmer after farmer drops out of the game and joins the global workforce and the global economy. Today's small farmer is left without the infrastructure to get his product from the field to the plate of his consumers. It is absurd to think that 150 years ago a farmer would have an easier time getting his product to a consumer 5 miles away than we do today, but so it is, or this conversation would be moot. He cannot match the price of the global market, nor can he demand the higher (though still marginal) price he deserves. As such, he either carries on stubbornly amdist a pile of mounting debt, looking for some quick-cash niche like the organic market or specialty cheeses; or he throws up his hands, lets the fields go fallow, and picks up a day job. No more 16 hour days, and farm-fresh vegetables straight off the boat. A fallow field makes arguably) even less money than a failing farm, and when a developer waves a million dollar check in front of a man who just barely escaped his own debts' house of cards, it is no easy thing to resist.
Tags:
Share
-
▶ Reply to This