INTRODUCTION
The US Federal Government is by far the nation’s largest landowner with control over 640 million acres or just over 28% of the total landmass (1). A further 2.5 % of the land mass or 56 million acres are held in trust by the federal government on behalf of Indian tribes and individuals. Most of the balance of the nation is privately owned with a small amount managed by states, counties and cities.
Schematic of US land ownership (2)
The Biden administration, like its predecessors, faces competing pressures in deciding what can and can’t happen on over more than a quarter of the US landmass. These pressures reflect both well established and sharply divergent views as well as new challenges driven by both climate change and ambitious plans to combat it through decarbonisation.
Pressures to carbonise will continue to grow, a fact President Biden is only too well aware of. He will also know that passing a comprehensive climate response plan is not politically possible, a situation unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The result is a piecemeal approach to climate that seeks to promote elements of the decarbonisation portfolio as technology and public opinion creates windows of opportunity. Currently the focus of decarbonisation is centred around renewable power generation and electric vehicles (EVs). While these are critically important, renewables and EVs alone won’t get the US (or any other country) to net zero. This may come as a surprise for some but the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (UNIPCC) has been consistent (3) in highlighting that decarbonisation requires not just renewables and electric vehicles but action in a wide range of other areas.
The 2019 US Greenhouse Gas Inventory report (4) shows, for example, that 10% of US emissions comes from agriculture. These emissions include methane from cattle and sheep as well as nitrous oxide from fertilisers – emissions which will not be reduced by renewable energy or EVs. It also documents that Land Use and Forestry (LULUCF in the language of the report) contributed negative 12 per cent to total emissions. Negative emissions are the result of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies – these include a range of decarbonisation strategies – both proven and more conceptual that result in carbon dioxide being extracted from the atmosphere and stored or converted into a climate neutral form. The most common example is growing new forests – as trees grow they take in atmospheric carbon dioxide and convert it into wood. This is a natural form of carbon capture and storage (CCS), other forms of this approach will look to store carbon dioxide underground in stable geological regions.
CDR technologies are the reason climate targets are set as “net” zero – activities like growing new forests and storage of carbon either underground or as organic matter in soils can be netted out against residual emissions from essential, hard to decarbonise activities. CDR technologies become critically important if, as some believe is already the case, decarbonisation is too slow. Under this scenario, CDR technologies that actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are the only way to re-establish safe levels and stabilise the climate. They could literally become mankind’s last hope.
In Australia, while GHG emissions are far lower in absolute terms (5) than the US those from the agricultural sector (15% of the national total) and LULUCF (negative 5%) are not dissimilar. Both nations rely on organic and synthetic fertilisers, adopt practices that maximise output rather than organic soil content and are home to significant sheep and cattle herds.
Whether you are in the US or Australia, don’t be too surprised if, as the decarbonisation war continues to escalate, to see agriculture, land management and different forms of CDR to become a new climate battleground. For advocates deeply involved in the analysis of pathways to net zero carbon this won’t come as a surprise but for those on the periphery of the debate, it is worth noting that agriculture and land currently represents about a quarter of the current total carbon equation and potentially much more if CDR methodologies are needed on a large scale.
SECTION 1: THE CHALLENGES AHEAD: CONSERVATION, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ACCESS
Meeting current and future climate demands are only one dimension of the land use equation. Private land owners obviously have rights and many believe they can use the land as they see fit. In many instances this is for the public good – producing food, providing housing and supporting important industries. Public land, which the US federal government owes plenty of, is different. It needs to satisfy demands for conservation and habitat protection, allow different groups to pursue recreation activities, support economic development through mining and grazing as well as providing a resource to educate the nation about its history, culture and natural diversity.
“30 x 30” campaign
The growing linkage between historic elements of public land management and climate policy is evident from the recent Washington announcements. The Energy Act of 2020 (6) and in January 2021, the Biden administration’s Executive Order “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad” (7), both contain important climate related initiatives that will impact on how public land is used. Both are also already causing an incremental increase in political tensions over land use policy – an area which is likely to become more politically fraught over the next decade or so.
The Energy Act of 2020, cosponsored by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R – Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D – West Virginia) and passed with bipartisan support, directs the Department of the Interior to set a goal of increasing the amount of renewable generation on federal lands from 8 GW to at least 25 GW by 2025. This increase is, however, unlikely to be anywhere near enough if the US is to reach its net zero by 2050 climate target. A recent report into pathways to net zero from Princeton University (8) predicts the US will need a total of 2,900 GW of new wind and solar by 2050 which will require and sterilise an area covering 5 – 10% of the total US land mass. While Congress is giving a clear bipartisan signal that the federal government needs to use its massive land holdings for new low energy generation the reality is that it will need to do much more.
The Executive Order issued by the White House, on the other hand, imposes two competing land use changes – firstly a ban on new oil and gas leases and, perhaps of more importance to this discussion, establishing a “goal of conserving 30% of our lands and waters by 2030”. The ban on fossil fuel leases was not unexpected but the “30 x 30” announcement, while part of the 2020 Biden climate program and popular among conservation groups, has created some confusion – not just among western ranchers and conservative advocates but also among progressives. Does it mean more land will be taken under federal control? Will commercial interests, including tourism be frozen out? Is conserving the same as protecting or does it mean something different? Is this climate action or something much broader?
The “30 by 30” conservation target in its current form is a relatively new concept having been introduced in 2019 by environmental scientists (9) active in the global climate debate. The rationale for preserving 30% of global land and water is to protect and maintain global biodiversity as well as facilitating carbon storage within the natural environment. Now that “30 x 30” is formally part of the US climate debate, divergent groups want clarity on “conserving” and insight into what lands might be subject to new restrictions. For example, the American Farm Bureau Federation’s letter (10) to the White House asked the president “to provide clarity about your intentions” and reminded him that farmers and ranchers “deserve to have their voices heard”. Similar concerns have been raised by coalitions representing hunting and fishing enthusiasts and the administration has been very clear that tribal groups will be closely involved in the roll out of this initiative.
The first six months of the Biden administration has seen significant and conflicting land use demands entering the public discourse creating the potential for a progressive turf war. Are public lands to be protected in the traditional sense to conserve wildlife and habitat as suggested by the “30 x 30” target or utilised as prime real estate for the massive amount of new low carbon generation that the nation needs to get to net zero?
To understand this developing conflict it is important to get some context – first covering the history and governance structures for federal land holdings and second some more detail on emerging CDR technologies.
SECTION 2: CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND – PUBLIC LAND IN THE US
Where does the US Federal Government own land?
As shown in the map below, US federal land ownership is predominantly in twelve states – Alaska and eleven contiguous western states (Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona). Average Federal ownership in these twelve states is 45.9%, compared with only 4.1% in the rest of the nation (1).
While most arms of the US federal government have some land holdings, federal lands are predominantly split between the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Defence (DOD), as shown in the Table below (1). The DOI, through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), also controls and administers the subsurface mineral resources below an area of more than 700 million acre for about 30% of the US land. These include oil and gas reserves, which were the subject of a recent leasing moratorium by the Biden administration as foreshadowed during the presidential campaign. This is the portion of the nation now off limits for new oil and gas extraction as mentioned above
Table 1 Breakdown of Federal Land ownership by Department
| Federal Department | Federal Land(Millions of acres) | Federal land(%) |
| Department of Interior (DOI) | 413 | |
| Bureau of Land Management | 244 | 38% |
| Fish and Wildlife | 89 | 14% |
| National Parks Service | 80 | 13% |
| Department of Agriculture | ||
| Forest Service | 193 | 30% |
| Department of Defence | 9 | 1% |
| Other departments and agencies | 25 | 4% |
| Total | 640 | 100% |
Federal land management
The history of US federal land ownership began when the United States was formed at the end of the Revolutionary War with Britain. It’s history is somewhat complex and well described elsewhere (1) but obviously it began has its origins with the gradual dispossession of land originally occupied by indigenous groups, initially by the original thirteen colonies (1620 – 1789) and then under the auspices of the central government (1789 onwards). Land policies initially emphasised western migration and land settlement based on grazing and agriculture. These policies shifted in the late 1800’s, with significant tracts of land remaining under federal control, ostensibly to ensure that resources, initially timber and later grassland and minerals, were being responsibly managed. By the start of the 20th century, the focus on economic exploitation was expanded to include consideration to conservation and protection.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forestry Service (FS) – balancing competing priorities.
The BLM, whose jurisdiction covers mostly open rangelands and semi-arid deserts, is required to “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations”. The “use” of land includes raising revenue and supporting economic activity through issuing commercial leases to both ranching interests and mining companies seeking minerals such as coal, oil, and soda ash. The BLM also manages recognised wilderness areas as well as national monuments such as Devils Tower, shown below
The nation’s first National Monument is Devils Tower in Wyoming, given federal protection in 1906 under Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency. It is popular with rock climbers, an activity that local Indian groups oppose.
The FS, which is part of the Department of Agriculture, seeks to strike a similar land use balance. As the name suggests, the FS controls mostly forested lands and creates value through commercial logging and forestry operations.
Both the BLM and FS are required to meet competing priorities – sustaining the health and diversity of the land on the one hand and ensuring productivity and raising revenue through leases and royalties on the other. Management priorities for the BLM and FS shift under different Presidential and congressional directives favouring, at different times, end goals such as economic exploitation, conservation and protection or tourism and recreation.
Powder River coal mines in Wyoming are mostly on privately owned land but the subsurface minerals are owned and leased by the BLM.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Park Service (NPS) – Conservation and Protection
The FWS in its current form dates from 1940 and is an amalgamation of entities started in the late 1800’s. These include the Bureau of Fisheries and the Division of Biological Survey, which was charged with monitoring native bird and animal stocks. The NPS was formed in 1916 to manage the growing number of national parks which hitherto had been managed as stand-alone entities. Both the FWS and NPS have a much stronger focus on conservation and protection than the BLM and FS. The key point of management balance lies with the amount and type of public access and tourism allowed, especially in areas of conservative, historical or cultural significance.
Lands controlled by the FWS and the NPS form the majority backbone of the area currently designated under the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The NWPS was created following the Wilderness Act of 1964 which instructed federal government agencies to identify and protect pristine federal lands where, among other criteria, the level of human impact was “substantially un-noticeable”. The NWPS now covers 111 million acres or 4.5% of the total US land area. This land has the highest level of protection with commercial activities and motorised access is generally forbidden, an important point suggesting that decarbonisation activities like renewable generation, power storage and transmission, reforestation and soil carbon sequestration are likely to be precluded.
It is currently not clear if meeting the “30 x 30” target requires satisfying the stringent standards used for NWPS classification or if a lower standard of protection is acceptable. Obviously the stricter the standard the harder it will be to meet “30 x 30” and the more likely that land currently used for tourism or economic purposes will need to be reclassified.
SECTION 3: COMPARISON WITH AUSTRALIA
Public Land ownership
Getting a detailed breakdown of Australian land ownership is not as straightforward as one might expect, with public land being owned and held at a state level rather than under a centralised federal register. This arrangement is a sharp contrast with the United States, where public lands are predominantly under federal control. Being state based, Australian public land management regulations, governance structures and management priorities vary across the country with income from mining leases being a much larger part of state revenues in Western Australia and Queensland relative to Tasmania and Victoria.
The table below shows that Australia, at least in nominal terms, has much more public land in both percentage and absolute terms than in the US.
| Land Mass(Billions of Acres) | Public Land(Billions of Acres) | % Public Land | |
| Australia | 1.9 | ~1.35 | 70 |
| United States | 2.3 | 0.9 | 39 |
Note
The distribution of Australian public land is predominantly in the northern two thirds of the nation and includes in western New South Wales and northern South Australia. Tasmania and Victoria are the only states without significant state-controlled land holdings. While Australian public land is not evenly distributed among the states, it is far more even than in the United States, where 38 states have de minimis levels of public land.
Pastoral leases in Australia
The high level of public land in Australia is, however, a little misleading as over 60% of it is held as long-term pastoral leases (11). While the BLM in the US also issues grazing leases, they are very different from the leases issued by Australian state governments.
The map (12) above shows that grazing, both on native and modified pasture, occupies a vast area in the northern half of Australia. The “other” category includes mining, defense installations and unused crown.
Australian pastoral leases are, for the most part, semi-permanent arrangements with state governments, despite having redemption rights, routinely rolling over leases to the incumbent holder. redemption provisions that are rarely, if ever, used. Clearly there has not been pressure to reuse the land for other purposes, a reflection, at least in part, of the vast area of lightly populated land in northern Australia. This suggests state governments, both currently and historically, have seen no higher or better use for the land. These de facto permanent arrangements have meant that lease holders, who can be individuals, publicly listed companies or foreign entities, have been able to make major investments in housing, cattle yards, fencing and irrigation are made by the lease holders who can be individuals or publicly listed companies.
Pastoral leases do generate lease payments, but the Productivity Committee (13) reported that these were only around US$8 million in 2002. Presumably, state governments see remote cattle stations providing societal, cultural and other less tangible benefits that justify this use of public land – either that, or they see no other use for the land. It would also be politically difficult and perhaps legally problematic to make dramatic changes to pastoral leasing policies – any shift in policy would need to be well communicated and carefully implemented to avoid creating a well financed opposition led by disgruntled ex leaseholders and their employees. That said, global actions to reduce agricultural methane and reduce red meat intake could severely impact the profitability of the vast cattle stations in Australia’s north.
Pastoral leases in the US cover 155 million acres (24% of federal land and 7% of the US), are limited to a 10-year term with renewal dependent on the land being managed according to BLM terms and conditions – including stipulations on forage usage and when grazing can take place (14). Payments, which are based on a monthly per head of cattle basis, totalled about US$15 million in 2015, not a large figure for the US federal government but greater on a per acre basis than Australia. BLM pastoral leaseholders do not have rights to make capital improvements and don’t live on the land – the lands are effectively being used as supplemental pastureland for existing ranches and not the core land holding on which a ranching business is based. This is a much more restricted and regulated arrangement than in Australia, where public land is, in practical terms, provided to cattle farms on a permanent basis to do as they please – as long it is related to grazing.
Overall, BLM pastoral leases have more constraints and imposts than the situation in Australia. Complaints from Australian pastoral lease holders seldom reach the national media, perhaps because they are on a pretty good deal, while in the United States it is not uncommon for ranchers to protest what they claim is heavy handed treatment from the BLM. Often these claims have a conservative political stance with demands that federal land is given back to states or private interests (15).
Mining and Drilling Leases
Mining leases take up much less land than pastoral leases but, depending on the type of mining, can cause both a greater level of disturbance and generate more public (and private) revenue. Mining and drilling for oil and gas supports economically important industries in both Australia and the US. Australian coal and iron ore exports, forecast to be US$145 billion or 56% of total export earnings in 2020/21 (16), are major components of the national economy while in the US coal, oil and gas all make a significant contribution to economic activity and a growing level of energy independence.
The table below gives a rough breakdown of different royalty streams in both the United States and Australia – the revenue in any given year will depend on volumes produced and depending on the royalty mechanism, the selling price of the commodity and, in the case of Australian Oil and Gas, on the deemed profit after capital.
| Annual Royalties(US$ billions) | Source | Comment | |
| Australian Mining | 4.5 – 9 | Mineral Council of Australia (17) | 2008 – 2018 |
| Australia Oil and Gas | 1 – 1.5 | various | |
| US Coal | 1.5 – 0.5 | BLM (18) | 2008 – 2018 |
| US Oil and Gas | 3.0 | Government Accountability Office (19) |
The royalty estimates in the table above show that both Australian and United States revenue from minerals and mining is vastly greater than from pastoral leases. A portion of this revenue is clearly under threat as the use of fossil fuels declines – a more economically damaging scenario for Australia but a cost nonetheless to the US federal budget and especially for western states who share in these revenues. If public land is still expected to generate revenue, one would expect the BLM and the various Australian state governments to be looking at wind and solar installations as replacement sources of revenue. The DOI is clearly in the process of shifting focus away from fossil fuels to renewable generation and other land use activities. In a recent Senate Energy Committee submission (20), a BLM’ spokesperson stated that “we simply cannot continue doing business as we have in the past” while announcing that 19 million acres suitable for solar and 20 million acres for wind generation has been identified for future development. As discussed above, it is inevitable that the BLM will soon be asked to increase this offering.
It should be noted that in Australia, mineral rights typically lie with state governments and not with surface owners. In the United States, owners of land granted under the Homestead Act of 1862 (mostly east of the Mississippi) have rights to both the surface and any underlying minerals. As settlement moved west, surface and mineral ownership were separated with the federal government retaining mineral rights of vast areas of land that is under private surface ownership. The BLM oversees subsurface mineral rights of an area covering over 700 million acres (1) – roughly one third of the total US land mass
Protected Lands
Both the United States and Australia have a long tradition setting aside public land for recreation and the preservation of nature. Yellowstone National Park (1872) and the Royal National Park south of Sydney (1879) have claims to being among the world’s earliest such designations with governments in both countries subsequently creating more protected areas including historical and cultural sites as well as recognising areas with different ecologies and habitat.
The Figure Eight Pools in the Royal National Park south of Sydney are a popular tourist destination for local and in pre-covid times international backpackers
Australia’s protected areas are managed under a range of different classifications and by different state and federal entities. Collectively these areas form the National Reserve System (NRS) and are recorded on the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD).
Definitions of protected lands and wilderness vary between Australia and the United States, but the table below shows a high level overview of the amount of protected land in each country.
| Million acres | % of the total National Land Mass | ||
| US | Total Protected Lands | 240 | 12 |
| includes | |||
| Wilderness (NWPS) | 111 | 4.5 | |
| NPS | 80 (44 included in NWPS) | ||
| FWS | 89 (21 included in NWPS) | ||
| Australia | Total Protected Lands NRS | 387 | 20.4 |
| includes | |||
| Wilderness | 49 | 2.6 | |
| Indigenous controlled | 164 | 8.7 |
The proportion of public land designated as protected is roughly 28% in both countries, though, in absolute terms, Australia with more nominally public land has considerably more under some degree of protection. The United States has relatively more “official” wilderness, though this could be down to differences in definitions.
Indigenous Land
One final point of comparison between Australia and the United States is the amount of land under indigenous management. In Australia, after the Aboriginal Land Rights Act of 1976, indigenous groups now have considerable controls over significant areas of land. A summary (21) of the different levels of indigenous control in Australia is given in the table below
| Acres(millions) | % of the National Land Mass | |
| Australia | ||
| Owned Land | 331 | 17 |
| Managed or Co-Managed Land | 430 | 22 (includes all Indigenous owned land) |
| Indigenous Special Rights | 833 | 43 |
| Total Indigenous Estate | 1080 | 57 |
| United States | ||
| DOI/ Bureau of Indian Affairs | 56 | 2.5 |
The total indigenous estate, which covers 57% of the Australian land mass, has significant overlap with other land designations. Some of Australia’s protected lands as well as a portion of the nation’s pastoral leases are, for example, subject to some level of indigenous oversight and control.
In the US the Department of the Interior (DOI) through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (22), holds about 56 million acres in trust for Indian tribes and individuals. This is around 2.5% of the national landmass and according to the DOI, “involves a complex patchwork of titles, restrictions, obligations, statutes, and regulations”.
The most obvious point of similarity between Australian and United States public land ownership is that both are based on land taken from indigenous groups and either given as land grants to European settlers or retained as government property. While land rights rulings in Australia seem to have gone some way toward redressing, or at least recognising these injustices, it is outside the scope of this work to compare in detail the relative treatment of indigenous groups. Australia does seem, however, to have vastly more land either under indigenous ownership or with indigenous rights and interests recognised. In the context of this discussion, it is worth noting that indigenous rights are a topic that remains contentious and could become a frontline issue as land use and ownership continue to be pulled into the climate debate.
SECTION 4: Current political land use pressures
Recent Washington announcements have pushed aspects of public land management into the spotlight. Public access, development of zero carbon energy resources as well as biodiversity and habitat protection are now on the agenda for the Biden White House. Over the past decade the focus of climate activists has been more or less limited to ending fossil leases on public land and high profile opposition to specific projects like the Keystone pipeline. This is likely to change and drive all stakeholders to call for a comprehensive public land use policy that outlines how federal lands are to be used and how the different competing goals are to be satisfied.
Some elements of a more integrated approach are reasonably predictable. For example, public land formerly used for fossil fuel extraction will be freed up and new areas allocated for renewable generation. In the US, look for states like Wyoming, whose revenue base has relied heavily on mining of federal coal in the Powder River Valley, to push the BLM to get its share of new renewables. Similar moves could be made in North Dakota, New Mexico and Montana all of whom have benefitted from fossil fuel extraction at least in part from federally owned leases. If the federal government signals that they are willing to reassess how their land is best used there is scope of western states with significant federal land ownership to be proactive and lobby the federal government to allocate land within its boundaries for energy production (plus transmission and storage), tourism and conservation in whatever combination best suits their political goals.
There will also be scope for land reallocation between federal, state and private entities. This follows the logic that in addition to physical location, the size and continuity of individual land holdings are important for the purposes of both conservation and commercial exploitation. The BLM may be willing, for example, to trade areas suitable for renewable generation, transmission or storage to states or private entities in return for land elsewhere that has value in expanding threatened habitat. One also wonders if the large land holdings of wealthy private individuals will become part of this discussion – either willingly or under political duress. John D Rockefeller set a precedent for the former in 1943 when the federal government accepted his gift of 33,0000 acres to expand the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Other progressive billionaires may be persuaded to follow the same path. Observers will be watching for private lands to be incorporated into the “30 x 30” calculation and what this might mean for property rights.
In Australia, states won’t need to lobby the federal government to get their share of revenue from new renewables, but will need to manage the reality that much of their land is allocated to pastoral lease holders – these leases are often so vast and with low cattle numbers per acre that it should be relatively easy to either allow the leases holders themselves to diversify into energy production or for states to exercise their rights and grant energy generators access to the land.
With a much higher and more widely spread population, concerns over public access are more acute in the United States than in Australia. A preliminary report (23) issued by the Biden administration as a follow up to the January Executive Order pushes public access up a notch or two in the land use debate. The report identifies “inequitable access to the outdoors” as an issue on par with loss of diversity and climate concerns. It is communities of colour and low income – typically inner city communities – who are identified as not having the same access to and hence share of public lands that many other Americans do. It is not clear how the administration proposes to address this issue or if there will be a campaign to add parks and public lands closer to population centres. It is possible, of course, that the announcement is simply a symbolic statement to keep part of the Biden base happy and doesn’t signal a major logistics or land procurement program. In Australia, by contrast, major population centres are adjacent to the coast and with beaches and headlands well serviced by public transport and available to everyone the access issue raised in the recent executive order is likely to be a point of contention in Australia
The “30 x 30” campaign is a clear win for traditional conservation groups who have been long term advocates for increased protections and restrictions on public use for areas identified as representative of unique or scarce habitat or containing endangered flora and fauna. The fault lines in both Australia and the United States are likely to be twofold. The first will be around protected areas being measured simply by area on the one hand rather than as a national cross section of different habitats and ecosystems. It is politically easier to designate vast areas of desert and scrubland than lock up coastal forest adjacent to population centres.
The second fault line will pit low impact activities such as hiking and camping against more intrusive pursuits such as hunting, fishing and motorised access. The latter groups already have a political dimension, being a traditional Republican constituency in the US and emerging conservative force in the parts of rural Australia.
Examples of this political alignment include the view of the US National Rifle Association, whose policy platform includes strong support for hunting and public access (24). Another example is the current makeup of the notionally bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (25), with 175 Republicans and only 47 Democrats it seems clear that “championing the Sportsmen’s Agenda” is a higher priority for conservative politicians.
In Australia, the Hunters, Fishers and Farmers Party have established themselves as a legitimate conservative alternative with elected officials in NSW, Victorian and Western Australian state legislatures. Prominent policies (26) highlight their opposition to what they see as extreme green attempts to prevent public land access, create marine sanctuaries and “lock away” public land.
While these conservative voices will oppose restrictive public land use policies, environmental groups will counter with calls for higher levels of both protection and habitat diversity in “30 x 30” classifications. In parallel, pressure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will continue unabated.
The current landscape and the political forces that shape it are about protecting habitat and diversity while allocating public land for both public access as well as renewables, ranching and mining. The future, as 2050 approaches, could well be dominated by the need to go from less carbon to zero carbon.
SECTION 5: Next generation challenges – deep decarbonisation
Carbon Dioxide Reduction technologies – the push to zero?
What Biden, US Congress and Prime Minister Morrison for that matter, have not yet referenced in their recent announcements are the tougher and less politically palatable elements of the decarbonisation journey, such as the need to reduce agricultural methane emissions and deploy Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies. As mentioned above, these are key parts of hypothetical decarbonisation pathways provided in the Summary for Policymakers section of the 2016 UN climate report (3). Reducing agricultural methane either means reducing global cattle and sheep herds or changing their diets, while the primary examples of CDR technologies are:
· Afforestation – growing trees to sequester carbon on grasslands and other areas that have not historically had forests.
· Reforestation – growing trees (native or otherwise) on land that previously supported forests
· Direct Air Capture – extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air and storing it in suitable geologic formations
· Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) – a complex system that involves growing energy crops that are used for power generation with the resultant carbon dioxide geologically stored
· Soil Carbon optimisation – maximising the amount of carbon that can be stored as organic matter in the soil
While there are arguments and counter arguments for the individual CDR strategies listed above and there is no guarantee they will all be major contributors, UNIPCC reports make it very clear that elements of CDR are essential for full decarbonisation. For both the US and Australia, wind, solar and electric vehicles alone will not be enough. For this discussion, it is important to understand that collectively CDR requires a lot of land as well as significant changes to the way land is used and managed. In addition, the storage based methodologies (DAC and BECCS) require access to and ongoing monitoring of subsurface geologic structures.
It is therefore clear that as 2050 approaches, pressures US and Australian governments face over complex and often conflicting land use questions will only get more problematic as they are forced to balance escalating demands over conservation, tourism and access, economic exploitation and the need to reduce carbon. The massive public land holdings in both countries means that public land will have to play a part in getting to a net zero future.
Long term power storage – a role for government investment
To date western governments have, for the most part, shied away from a direct leadership role in action on climate, relying instead on incentives and tax breaks on the one hand and putting up permitting roadblocks on the other to push the private sector into desired outcomes. In a different world a carbon tax would have been used to similar effect. As the realisation grows decarbonisation is happening too slowly, it is increasingly likely that administrations will become more proactive in seeking reduced emissions. The BLM’s initiative to identify its best wind and solar resources is a small step in this direction.
Whether this will drive direct government ownership and operation of new low carbon assets is an open question, doing so would need to reverse decades of privatisation. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that hydro assets in both the US and Australia remain predominantly government owned, hence providing a vehicle for future direct investment. The increasing cost competitiveness of wind and solar means, however, that this can perhaps be left to private interests with governments looking instead at long term storage. The Turnbull government’s investment in Snowy 2.0, is an example of this logic. It is no secret that long term storage is vital for a grid dominated by wind and solar and simply building it with government funds may prove easier than creating an artificial business case for private investment.
Will red meat be come the new coal?
Agricultural methane emissions from cattle and sheep have climate advocates pushing for reduced consumption of red meat. This advocacy is currently much more muted than campaigns against coal, fracking and investment in fossil fuel infrastructure but that doesn’t mean it will remain a secondary issue. If red meat becomes the new coal it is not inconceivable that both the United States and Australia will come under pressure to stop leasing public land to cattle ranchers and graziers. Procedurally this will be easier in the United States given the shorter leases and the lack of leaseholder investment on public lands. Australian state governments could conceivably be tempted to simply wait for beef markets to decline and let market forces dictate the future of remote cattle stations.
Opportunities for geological carbon storage
Geologic carbon storage has been actively opposed by environmental groups for several decades despite the UNIPCC consistently endorsing this approach as an important decarbonisation tool. The basis for much of the opposition is that it is seen as a vehicle to preserve fossil fuel power generation. With coal power on the decline in the United States, and to a lesser extent, in Australia perhaps this opposition will decline. Some level of acceptance will be needed if Direct Air Capture (DAC) or Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) are required to achieve decarbonisation targets.
It should be noted that while these technologies are not ready for commercial deployment and probably won’t be for some time. This does not mean, however, that a discussion of their land use implications is premature. Without getting into too much detail, the technical steps involved in separating carbon dioxide from ambient air as well as pressurizing and transporting it via pipeline are all reasonably well understood, as is running power plants on wood chips or something similar. DAC and BECCS aren’t ready not so much because the science is unproven but because there hasn’t been investment in large scale demonstration plants. This contrasts with wind and solar which have benefitted from vast sums in the form of both investments and incentives.
The other reason DAC and BECCS remain relevant to this discussion is that their deployment will be the result of current decarbonisation actions proving inadequate and climate damage becoming so obvious that a major roll out will be required. Land use implications from these technologies are therefore binary, either minor or hugely impactful.
This all or nothing logic does not, however, apply to the carbon capture and storage (CCS). Claims that CCS has been an expensive failure are, for the most part, based on mixed results with attempts to use it on coal fired power plants. With decarbonised coal generation is rapidly becoming unnecessary, CCS remains a viable and potentially important technology for smaller scale, hard to decarbonise activities like the production of cement, steel, aluminium, plastics and other petrochemicals as well as a host of other industrial applications which cannot simply be decarbonised by switching to renewables. Emissions from these industries are minor in comparison with power generation and transportation but they will still need to be reduced as close to net zero as possible to achieve full decarbonisation. CCS will be part of deep decarbonisation – perhaps at a niche level for selected industries in specific locations or potentially as part of major CDR facilities.
The figure below shows that the United States is blessed with many areas potentially suitable for CCS, some of which lies directly under federal land. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates a geologic storage capacity of between 1,800 and 20,000 billion tons. Even at the low end of this range it far exceeds the 400 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide that the US has emitted over the past 150 years. Put simply, the DOE data suggests all of the United States’ historic carbon dioxide emissions could be easily stored within its national boundaries. Carbon capture and storage will be not easy or cheap and optimists will hope that this approach won’t be required but if it is needed then some of it will need to be done under public lands.
Areas the US Department of Energy considers suitable for carbon storage (27)
Mitigation through growth and regrowth of forests?
At first glance reforestation, afforestation and growing bio energy crops seem to be less controversial than storing gigatonnes of carbon dioxide under the ground. This misses the fact that to have a meaningful impact on the trajectory of decarbonisation they will need to be done at a massive scale requiring a significant shift in land use priorities. There is likely to cause conflict with both the food production industry and diversity and habitat conservationists. The United States is blessed with large areas of productive croplands giving it a reasonable level of food security, meaning there will be inevitable opposition to using any of this land to grow trees. If, on the other hand, afforestation is proposed for public land not currently used for food production there will be strong opposition to the creation of single species plantations by those already concerned at the loss of habitat and diversity from climate change.
When one considers the implications of widespread deployment of CDR technologies, implications well understood by those on the inside of the climate debate, the recent announcements about public access, the “30 x 30” target and the increased use of public land for energy generation can be considered as preliminary jostling for position by key interest groups. As land use demands grow, this tension will escalate. Progressive groups will need to balance demands for conservation and protection with the need to encourage renewables. Conservative and business groups might be aligned in opposition to what they will see as regulatory overreach, but the former will want to prevent any changes to land access and land use rules while the latter, seeking new business opportunities, will want quick and easy access to land for wind and solar developments and perhaps other green investments.
Reallocation of federal land to meet emerging priorities
While the 640 million acres under federal ownership is a vast area, the “30 x 30” target requires a total closer to 700 million acres to be “conserved”. Conservationists will start with the 240 million acres or 10% of the national land mass that is currently designated as wilderness and protected land. While this area, which includes the most pristine and scenic parts of the country, is unlikely to be opposed, finding an additional 460 million acres won’t be a straightforward task, especially with other important land use requirements on the horizon. The federal government may find itself wishing that it had more land at its disposal.
At the other end of the scale the BLM currently leases out 155 million acres for grazing. One imagines that this land is less likely to be suitable for inclusion into the “30 x 30” portfolio and open rangeland may be less attractive for tourists and hunters (at least relative to mountains and wooded areas). This part of the portfolio would therefore seem to be the obvious choice to support new wind and solar. The complication will be if this reduces the amount of land available for grazing leases. It will be interesting to see how much of the 39 million acres recently earmarked for new wind and solar is currently used for grazing and if ranchers oppose this allocation. In the longer term demand from ranchers may decline but this is unlikely to occur soon enough to prevent at least some tensions with those wanting to build massive wind farms and solar arrays
This leaves around 250 million acres of public land that is not either protected wilderness or BLM managed grazing land. By a process of elimination much of this must be controlled by the FS. Forests are increasingly valuable from multiple perspectives – tourism, hunting, conservation and climate – and are not obviously suitable for new generation, power transmission or large scale energy storage. What is more likely is that some of this area is given a greater level of protection with limits placed on public access with the balance, especially where it is close to population centres, being prioritised for public use.
Finally it is obvious that not everything needs to be done on public land meaning the federal government will increasingly need to articulate what it sees as the best use of its public land holdings and what activities need to disproportionately take place on private lands. This may drive a consolidation or rearrangement of the current split DOI/USDA accountability that runs through four key agencies. Expect also to see some level of discussion about a “hybrid” model that allows some private land to be included in the “30 x 30” total perhaps as a buffer zone or as corridors allowing wildlife migration.
In Australia, with 70% of the land mass being nominally public, excluding protected lands and those under direct indigenous ownership, still leaves a vast area nominally available to help alleviate climate concerns. The challenge in Australia will be the amount of land currently locked up under long term pastoral leases and held by lease holders who have made significant investments in the property. As is the case in the United States, if there is a strong global move away from beef consumption, then this equation will become easier for state governments. In meeting a “30 x 30” target Australia is well placed from an overall land area perspective but may struggle to meet habitat diversity metrics. Coastal habitat in the southern half of the continent will be much tougher to find and protect than land in parts of central Australia, pastoral leases and indigenous ownership notwithstanding.
Final thoughts
The climate debate over the next decade will increasingly focus on land use issues. While coal, fracking and fossil fuel investments currently have the headlines, advocates in the land use space know their time is coming and we are seeing the early political manoeuvring in both Australia and particularly the United States. Expect to see this heating up as we get closer to 2050 and the next round or two of COP meetings.
If it is just more renewables, conservation and public access then countries the size of the US and Australia should be able to come up with compromises that leave everyone equally unhappy but with some of what they want. If, however, vast areas of plantation forest are needed to soak up carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and significant volumes of captured carbon dioxide are being stored underground, finding a compromise will become more difficult. Adding to the complexity will be the reaction of the agricultural sector, based mostly on private land in the US but occupying public lands in Australia, to regulations and market reactions impacting the sheep and cattle industries, the way soils are cultivated and fertilised as well as having land reallocated away from food production for any number of reasons.
Finally, there are the reportedly inevitable changes to the natural and agricultural environments from climate change itself. Provided the goal remains net zero, there will be no easy way to navigate through all of this. Future governments in the US and Australia will struggle to keep key constituents happy but the task would be even harder if everything was privately owned, requiring the acquiescence of thousands of individual landowners. They may pause briefly to thank their predecessors for the vast amount of land under direct government and the flexibility and control this gives them.
1. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/21/american-land-barons
-100-wealthy-families-now-own-nearly-as-much-land-as-that-of-new-england/
3. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-4
4. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
5. https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/nggi-quarterly-update-
6. https://www.energy.senate.gov/2020/12/murkowski-manchin-house-
colleagues-reach-agreement-on-energy-package-for-year-end-appropriations-bill
7. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/
executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/
8. https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec
_2020_FINAL.pdf
9. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaaw2869
10. https://www.fb.org/files/Public_Lands.30X30_Letter_to_White_House.AFBFLTR
.04.22.21.pdf
11. https://www.austrade.gov.au/land-tenure/land-tenure/about-land-tenure
12. https://www.climateworksaustralia.org/land-use-futures/australias-land-use/
13. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/pastoral-leases/pastoralleases.pdf
14. https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-grazing/livestock
15. https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/27/hammonds-grazing-permit-rescinded-biden/
16. https://publications.industry.gov.au/publications/resourcesandenergyquarterly
december2020/documents/Resources-and-Energy-Quarterly-Dec-2020.pdf
17. https://www.minerals.org.au/sites/default/files/Deloitte_Access_Economics_
Estimates_of_royalties_and_company_tax_report_1_May_2020_FINAL.pdf
18. https://www.doi.gov/ocl/blm-2021-budget-0
19. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-138.pdf
20. https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/7D526CBD-0034-437C-914B-
3A70A63FA287
21. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/ABARES_Aus_Indig_
land_forest_estate-Separate_reporting_FINAL_02Dec20.pdf
22. https://revenuedata.doi.gov/how-revenue-works/native-american-ownership-
23. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-conserving-and-restoring-america-the
24. https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/huntingconservation/without-hunters/
25. https://congressionalsportsmen.org/caucuses/congressional
26. https://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.org.au/nsw_policies-new
27. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/carbon-dioxide-capture-and
INTRODUCTION
The US Federal Government is by far the nation’s largest landowner with control over 640 million acres or just over 28% of the total landmass (1). A further 2.5 % of the land mass or 56 million acres are held in trust by the federal government on behalf of Indian tribes and individuals. Most of the balance of the nation is privately owned with a small amount managed by states, counties and cities.
Schematic of US land ownership (2)
The Biden administration, like its predecessors, faces competing pressures in deciding what can and can’t happen on over more than a quarter of the US landmass. These pressures reflect both well established and sharply divergent views as well as new challenges driven by both climate change and ambitious plans to combat it through decarbonisation.
Pressures to carbonise will continue to grow, a fact President Biden is only too well aware of. He will also know that passing a comprehensive climate response plan is not politically possible, a situation unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The result is a piecemeal approach to climate that seeks to promote elements of the decarbonisation portfolio as technology and public opinion creates windows of opportunity. Currently the focus of decarbonisation is centred around renewable power generation and electric vehicles (EVs). While these are critically important, renewables and EVs alone won’t get the US (or any other country) to net zero. This may come as a surprise for some but the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (UNIPCC) has been consistent (3) in highlighting that decarbonisation requires not just renewables and electric vehicles but action in a wide range of other areas.
The 2019 US Greenhouse Gas Inventory report (4) shows, for example, that 10% of US emissions comes from agriculture. These emissions include methane from cattle and sheep as well as nitrous oxide from fertilisers – emissions which will not be reduced by renewable energy or EVs. It also documents that Land Use and Forestry (LULUCF in the language of the report) contributed negative 12 per cent to total emissions. Negative emissions are the result of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies – these include a range of decarbonisation strategies – both proven and more conceptual that result in carbon dioxide being extracted from the atmosphere and stored or converted into a climate neutral form. The most common example is growing new forests – as trees grow they take in atmospheric carbon dioxide and convert it into wood. This is a natural form of carbon capture and storage (CCS), other forms of this approach will look to store carbon dioxide underground in stable geological regions.
CDR technologies are the reason climate targets are set as “net” zero – activities like growing new forests and storage of carbon either underground or as organic matter in soils can be netted out against residual emissions from essential, hard to decarbonise activities. CDR technologies become critically important if, as some believe is already the case, decarbonisation is too slow. Under this scenario, CDR technologies that actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are the only way to re-establish safe levels and stabilise the climate. They could literally become mankind’s last hope.
In Australia, while GHG emissions are far lower in absolute terms (5) than the US those from the agricultural sector (15% of the national total) and LULUCF (negative 5%) are not dissimilar. Both nations rely on organic and synthetic fertilisers, adopt practices that maximise output rather than organic soil content and are home to significant sheep and cattle herds.
Whether you are in the US or Australia, don’t be too surprised if, as the decarbonisation war continues to escalate, to see agriculture, land management and different forms of CDR to become a new climate battleground. For advocates deeply involved in the analysis of pathways to net zero carbon this won’t come as a surprise but for those on the periphery of the debate, it is worth noting that agriculture and land currently represents about a quarter of the current total carbon equation and potentially much more if CDR methodologies are needed on a large scale.
SECTION 1: THE CHALLENGES AHEAD: CONSERVATION, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ACCESS
Meeting current and future climate demands are only one dimension of the land use equation. Private land owners obviously have rights and many believe they can use the land as they see fit. In many instances this is for the public good – producing food, providing housing and supporting important industries. Public land, which the US federal government owes plenty of, is different. It needs to satisfy demands for conservation and habitat protection, allow different groups to pursue recreation activities, support economic development through mining and grazing as well as providing a resource to educate the nation about its history, culture and natural diversity.
“30 x 30” campaign
The growing linkage between historic elements of public land management and climate policy is evident from the recent Washington announcements. The Energy Act of 2020 (6) and in January 2021, the Biden administration’s Executive Order “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad” (7), both contain important climate related initiatives that will impact on how public land is used. Both are also already causing an incremental increase in political tensions over land use policy – an area which is likely to become more politically fraught over the next decade or so.
The Energy Act of 2020, cosponsored by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R – Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D – West Virginia) and passed with bipartisan support, directs the Department of the Interior to set a goal of increasing the amount of renewable generation on federal lands from 8 GW to at least 25 GW by 2025. This increase is, however, unlikely to be anywhere near enough if the US is to reach its net zero by 2050 climate target. A recent report into pathways to net zero from Princeton University (8) predicts the US will need a total of 2,900 GW of new wind and solar by 2050 which will require and sterilise an area covering 5 – 10% of the total US land mass. While Congress is giving a clear bipartisan signal that the federal government needs to use its massive land holdings for new low energy generation the reality is that it will need to do much more.
The Executive Order issued by the White House, on the other hand, imposes two competing land use changes – firstly a ban on new oil and gas leases and, perhaps of more importance to this discussion, establishing a “goal of conserving 30% of our lands and waters by 2030”. The ban on fossil fuel leases was not unexpected but the “30 x 30” announcement, while part of the 2020 Biden climate program and popular among conservation groups, has created some confusion – not just among western ranchers and conservative advocates but also among progressives. Does it mean more land will be taken under federal control? Will commercial interests, including tourism be frozen out? Is conserving the same as protecting or does it mean something different? Is this climate action or something much broader?
The “30 by 30” conservation target in its current form is a relatively new concept having been introduced in 2019 by environmental scientists (9) active in the global climate debate. The rationale for preserving 30% of global land and water is to protect and maintain global biodiversity as well as facilitating carbon storage within the natural environment. Now that “30 x 30” is formally part of the US climate debate, divergent groups want clarity on “conserving” and insight into what lands might be subject to new restrictions. For example, the American Farm Bureau Federation’s letter (10) to the White House asked the president “to provide clarity about your intentions” and reminded him that farmers and ranchers “deserve to have their voices heard”. Similar concerns have been raised by coalitions representing hunting and fishing enthusiasts and the administration has been very clear that tribal groups will be closely involved in the roll out of this initiative.
The first six months of the Biden administration has seen significant and conflicting land use demands entering the public discourse creating the potential for a progressive turf war. Are public lands to be protected in the traditional sense to conserve wildlife and habitat as suggested by the “30 x 30” target or utilised as prime real estate for the massive amount of new low carbon generation that the nation needs to get to net zero?
To understand this developing conflict it is important to get some context – first covering the history and governance structures for federal land holdings and second some more detail on emerging CDR technologies.
SECTION 2: CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND – PUBLIC LAND IN THE US
Where does the US Federal Government own land?
As shown in the map below, US federal land ownership is predominantly in twelve states – Alaska and eleven contiguous western states (Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona). Average Federal ownership in these twelve states is 45.9%, compared with only 4.1% in the rest of the nation (1).
While most arms of the US federal government have some land holdings, federal lands are predominantly split between the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Defence (DOD), as shown in the Table below (1). The DOI, through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), also controls and administers the subsurface mineral resources below an area of more than 700 million acre for about 30% of the US land. These include oil and gas reserves, which were the subject of a recent leasing moratorium by the Biden administration as foreshadowed during the presidential campaign. This is the portion of the nation now off limits for new oil and gas extraction as mentioned above
Table 1 Breakdown of Federal Land ownership by Department
| Federal Department | Federal Land(Millions of acres) | Federal land(%) |
| Department of Interior (DOI) | 413 | |
| Bureau of Land Management | 244 | 38% |
| Fish and Wildlife | 89 | 14% |
| National Parks Service | 80 | 13% |
| Department of Agriculture | ||
| Forest Service | 193 | 30% |
| Department of Defence | 9 | 1% |
| Other departments and agencies | 25 | 4% |
| Total | 640 | 100% |
Federal land management
The history of US federal land ownership began when the United States was formed at the end of the Revolutionary War with Britain. It’s history is somewhat complex and well described elsewhere (1) but obviously it began has its origins with the gradual dispossession of land originally occupied by indigenous groups, initially by the original thirteen colonies (1620 – 1789) and then under the auspices of the central government (1789 onwards). Land policies initially emphasised western migration and land settlement based on grazing and agriculture. These policies shifted in the late 1800’s, with significant tracts of land remaining under federal control, ostensibly to ensure that resources, initially timber and later grassland and minerals, were being responsibly managed. By the start of the 20th century, the focus on economic exploitation was expanded to include consideration to conservation and protection.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forestry Service (FS) – balancing competing priorities.
The BLM, whose jurisdiction covers mostly open rangelands and semi-arid deserts, is required to “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations”. The “use” of land includes raising revenue and supporting economic activity through issuing commercial leases to both ranching interests and mining companies seeking minerals such as coal, oil, and soda ash. The BLM also manages recognised wilderness areas as well as national monuments such as Devils Tower, shown below
The nation’s first National Monument is Devils Tower in Wyoming, given federal protection in 1906 under Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency. It is popular with rock climbers, an activity that local Indian groups oppose.
The FS, which is part of the Department of Agriculture, seeks to strike a similar land use balance. As the name suggests, the FS controls mostly forested lands and creates value through commercial logging and forestry operations.
Both the BLM and FS are required to meet competing priorities – sustaining the health and diversity of the land on the one hand and ensuring productivity and raising revenue through leases and royalties on the other. Management priorities for the BLM and FS shift under different Presidential and congressional directives favouring, at different times, end goals such as economic exploitation, conservation and protection or tourism and recreation.
Powder River coal mines in Wyoming are mostly on privately owned land but the subsurface minerals are owned and leased by the BLM.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Park Service (NPS) – Conservation and Protection
The FWS in its current form dates from 1940 and is an amalgamation of entities started in the late 1800’s. These include the Bureau of Fisheries and the Division of Biological Survey, which was charged with monitoring native bird and animal stocks. The NPS was formed in 1916 to manage the growing number of national parks which hitherto had been managed as stand-alone entities. Both the FWS and NPS have a much stronger focus on conservation and protection than the BLM and FS. The key point of management balance lies with the amount and type of public access and tourism allowed, especially in areas of conservative, historical or cultural significance.
Lands controlled by the FWS and the NPS form the majority backbone of the area currently designated under the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The NWPS was created following the Wilderness Act of 1964 which instructed federal government agencies to identify and protect pristine federal lands where, among other criteria, the level of human impact was “substantially un-noticeable”. The NWPS now covers 111 million acres or 4.5% of the total US land area. This land has the highest level of protection with commercial activities and motorised access is generally forbidden, an important point suggesting that decarbonisation activities like renewable generation, power storage and transmission, reforestation and soil carbon sequestration are likely to be precluded.
It is currently not clear if meeting the “30 x 30” target requires satisfying the stringent standards used for NWPS classification or if a lower standard of protection is acceptable. Obviously the stricter the standard the harder it will be to meet “30 x 30” and the more likely that land currently used for tourism or economic purposes will need to be reclassified.
SECTION 3: COMPARISON WITH AUSTRALIA
Public Land ownership
Getting a detailed breakdown of Australian land ownership is not as straightforward as one might expect, with public land being owned and held at a state level rather than under a centralised federal register. This arrangement is a sharp contrast with the United States, where public lands are predominantly under federal control. Being state based, Australian public land management regulations, governance structures and management priorities vary across the country with income from mining leases being a much larger part of state revenues in Western Australia and Queensland relative to Tasmania and Victoria.
The table below shows that Australia, at least in nominal terms, has much more public land in both percentage and absolute terms than in the US.
| Land Mass(Billions of Acres) | Public Land(Billions of Acres) | % Public Land | |
| Australia | 1.9 | ~1.35 | 70 |
| United States | 2.3 | 0.9 | 39 |
Note
The distribution of Australian public land is predominantly in the northern two thirds of the nation and includes in western New South Wales and northern South Australia. Tasmania and Victoria are the only states without significant state-controlled land holdings. While Australian public land is not evenly distributed among the states, it is far more even than in the United States, where 38 states have de minimis levels of public land.
Pastoral leases in Australia
The high level of public land in Australia is, however, a little misleading as over 60% of it is held as long-term pastoral leases (11). While the BLM in the US also issues grazing leases, they are very different from the leases issued by Australian state governments.
The map (12) above shows that grazing, both on native and modified pasture, occupies a vast area in the northern half of Australia. The “other” category includes mining, defense installations and unused crown.
Australian pastoral leases are, for the most part, semi-permanent arrangements with state governments, despite having redemption rights, routinely rolling over leases to the incumbent holder. redemption provisions that are rarely, if ever, used. Clearly there has not been pressure to reuse the land for other purposes, a reflection, at least in part, of the vast area of lightly populated land in northern Australia. This suggests state governments, both currently and historically, have seen no higher or better use for the land. These de facto permanent arrangements have meant that lease holders, who can be individuals, publicly listed companies or foreign entities, have been able to make major investments in housing, cattle yards, fencing and irrigation are made by the lease holders who can be individuals or publicly listed companies.
Pastoral leases do generate lease payments, but the Productivity Committee (13) reported that these were only around US$8 million in 2002. Presumably, state governments see remote cattle stations providing societal, cultural and other less tangible benefits that justify this use of public land – either that, or they see no other use for the land. It would also be politically difficult and perhaps legally problematic to make dramatic changes to pastoral leasing policies – any shift in policy would need to be well communicated and carefully implemented to avoid creating a well financed opposition led by disgruntled ex leaseholders and their employees. That said, global actions to reduce agricultural methane and reduce red meat intake could severely impact the profitability of the vast cattle stations in Australia’s north.
Pastoral leases in the US cover 155 million acres (24% of federal land and 7% of the US), are limited to a 10-year term with renewal dependent on the land being managed according to BLM terms and conditions – including stipulations on forage usage and when grazing can take place (14). Payments, which are based on a monthly per head of cattle basis, totalled about US$15 million in 2015, not a large figure for the US federal government but greater on a per acre basis than Australia. BLM pastoral leaseholders do not have rights to make capital improvements and don’t live on the land – the lands are effectively being used as supplemental pastureland for existing ranches and not the core land holding on which a ranching business is based. This is a much more restricted and regulated arrangement than in Australia, where public land is, in practical terms, provided to cattle farms on a permanent basis to do as they please – as long it is related to grazing.
Overall, BLM pastoral leases have more constraints and imposts than the situation in Australia. Complaints from Australian pastoral lease holders seldom reach the national media, perhaps because they are on a pretty good deal, while in the United States it is not uncommon for ranchers to protest what they claim is heavy handed treatment from the BLM. Often these claims have a conservative political stance with demands that federal land is given back to states or private interests (15).
Mining and Drilling Leases
Mining leases take up much less land than pastoral leases but, depending on the type of mining, can cause both a greater level of disturbance and generate more public (and private) revenue. Mining and drilling for oil and gas supports economically important industries in both Australia and the US. Australian coal and iron ore exports, forecast to be US$145 billion or 56% of total export earnings in 2020/21 (16), are major components of the national economy while in the US coal, oil and gas all make a significant contribution to economic activity and a growing level of energy independence.
The table below gives a rough breakdown of different royalty streams in both the United States and Australia – the revenue in any given year will depend on volumes produced and depending on the royalty mechanism, the selling price of the commodity and, in the case of Australian Oil and Gas, on the deemed profit after capital.
| Annual Royalties(US$ billions) | Source | Comment | |
| Australian Mining | 4.5 – 9 | Mineral Council of Australia (17) | 2008 – 2018 |
| Australia Oil and Gas | 1 – 1.5 | various | |
| US Coal | 1.5 – 0.5 | BLM (18) | 2008 – 2018 |
| US Oil and Gas | 3.0 | Government Accountability Office (19) |
The royalty estimates in the table above show that both Australian and United States revenue from minerals and mining is vastly greater than from pastoral leases. A portion of this revenue is clearly under threat as the use of fossil fuels declines – a more economically damaging scenario for Australia but a cost nonetheless to the US federal budget and especially for western states who share in these revenues. If public land is still expected to generate revenue, one would expect the BLM and the various Australian state governments to be looking at wind and solar installations as replacement sources of revenue. The DOI is clearly in the process of shifting focus away from fossil fuels to renewable generation and other land use activities. In a recent Senate Energy Committee submission (20), a BLM’ spokesperson stated that “we simply cannot continue doing business as we have in the past” while announcing that 19 million acres suitable for solar and 20 million acres for wind generation has been identified for future development. As discussed above, it is inevitable that the BLM will soon be asked to increase this offering.
It should be noted that in Australia, mineral rights typically lie with state governments and not with surface owners. In the United States, owners of land granted under the Homestead Act of 1862 (mostly east of the Mississippi) have rights to both the surface and any underlying minerals. As settlement moved west, surface and mineral ownership were separated with the federal government retaining mineral rights of vast areas of land that is under private surface ownership. The BLM oversees subsurface mineral rights of an area covering over 700 million acres (1) – roughly one third of the total US land mass
Protected Lands
Both the United States and Australia have a long tradition setting aside public land for recreation and the preservation of nature. Yellowstone National Park (1872) and the Royal National Park south of Sydney (1879) have claims to being among the world’s earliest such designations with governments in both countries subsequently creating more protected areas including historical and cultural sites as well as recognising areas with different ecologies and habitat.
The Figure Eight Pools in the Royal National Park south of Sydney are a popular tourist destination for local and in pre-covid times international backpackers
Australia’s protected areas are managed under a range of different classifications and by different state and federal entities. Collectively these areas form the National Reserve System (NRS) and are recorded on the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD).
Definitions of protected lands and wilderness vary between Australia and the United States, but the table below shows a high level overview of the amount of protected land in each country.
| Million acres | % of the total National Land Mass | ||
| US | Total Protected Lands | 240 | 12 |
| includes | |||
| Wilderness (NWPS) | 111 | 4.5 | |
| NPS | 80 (44 included in NWPS) | ||
| FWS | 89 (21 included in NWPS) | ||
| Australia | Total Protected Lands NRS | 387 | 20.4 |
| includes | |||
| Wilderness | 49 | 2.6 | |
| Indigenous controlled | 164 | 8.7 |
The proportion of public land designated as protected is roughly 28% in both countries, though, in absolute terms, Australia with more nominally public land has considerably more under some degree of protection. The United States has relatively more “official” wilderness, though this could be down to differences in definitions.
Indigenous Land
One final point of comparison between Australia and the United States is the amount of land under indigenous management. In Australia, after the Aboriginal Land Rights Act of 1976, indigenous groups now have considerable controls over significant areas of land. A summary (21) of the different levels of indigenous control in Australia is given in the table below
| Acres(millions) | % of the National Land Mass | |
| Australia | ||
| Owned Land | 331 | 17 |
| Managed or Co-Managed Land | 430 | 22 (includes all Indigenous owned land) |
| Indigenous Special Rights | 833 | 43 |
| Total Indigenous Estate | 1080 | 57 |
| United States | ||
| DOI/ Bureau of Indian Affairs | 56 | 2.5 |
The total indigenous estate, which covers 57% of the Australian land mass, has significant overlap with other land designations. Some of Australia’s protected lands as well as a portion of the nation’s pastoral leases are, for example, subject to some level of indigenous oversight and control.
In the US the Department of the Interior (DOI) through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (22), holds about 56 million acres in trust for Indian tribes and individuals. This is around 2.5% of the national landmass and according to the DOI, “involves a complex patchwork of titles, restrictions, obligations, statutes, and regulations”.
The most obvious point of similarity between Australian and United States public land ownership is that both are based on land taken from indigenous groups and either given as land grants to European settlers or retained as government property. While land rights rulings in Australia seem to have gone some way toward redressing, or at least recognising these injustices, it is outside the scope of this work to compare in detail the relative treatment of indigenous groups. Australia does seem, however, to have vastly more land either under indigenous ownership or with indigenous rights and interests recognised. In the context of this discussion, it is worth noting that indigenous rights are a topic that remains contentious and could become a frontline issue as land use and ownership continue to be pulled into the climate debate.
SECTION 4: Current political land use pressures
Recent Washington announcements have pushed aspects of public land management into the spotlight. Public access, development of zero carbon energy resources as well as biodiversity and habitat protection are now on the agenda for the Biden White House. Over the past decade the focus of climate activists has been more or less limited to ending fossil leases on public land and high profile opposition to specific projects like the Keystone pipeline. This is likely to change and drive all stakeholders to call for a comprehensive public land use policy that outlines how federal lands are to be used and how the different competing goals are to be satisfied.
Some elements of a more integrated approach are reasonably predictable. For example, public land formerly used for fossil fuel extraction will be freed up and new areas allocated for renewable generation. In the US, look for states like Wyoming, whose revenue base has relied heavily on mining of federal coal in the Powder River Valley, to push the BLM to get its share of new renewables. Similar moves could be made in North Dakota, New Mexico and Montana all of whom have benefitted from fossil fuel extraction at least in part from federally owned leases. If the federal government signals that they are willing to reassess how their land is best used there is scope of western states with significant federal land ownership to be proactive and lobby the federal government to allocate land within its boundaries for energy production (plus transmission and storage), tourism and conservation in whatever combination best suits their political goals.
There will also be scope for land reallocation between federal, state and private entities. This follows the logic that in addition to physical location, the size and continuity of individual land holdings are important for the purposes of both conservation and commercial exploitation. The BLM may be willing, for example, to trade areas suitable for renewable generation, transmission or storage to states or private entities in return for land elsewhere that has value in expanding threatened habitat. One also wonders if the large land holdings of wealthy private individuals will become part of this discussion – either willingly or under political duress. John D Rockefeller set a precedent for the former in 1943 when the federal government accepted his gift of 33,0000 acres to expand the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Other progressive billionaires may be persuaded to follow the same path. Observers will be watching for private lands to be incorporated into the “30 x 30” calculation and what this might mean for property rights.
In Australia, states won’t need to lobby the federal government to get their share of revenue from new renewables, but will need to manage the reality that much of their land is allocated to pastoral lease holders – these leases are often so vast and with low cattle numbers per acre that it should be relatively easy to either allow the leases holders themselves to diversify into energy production or for states to exercise their rights and grant energy generators access to the land.
With a much higher and more widely spread population, concerns over public access are more acute in the United States than in Australia. A preliminary report (23) issued by the Biden administration as a follow up to the January Executive Order pushes public access up a notch or two in the land use debate. The report identifies “inequitable access to the outdoors” as an issue on par with loss of diversity and climate concerns. It is communities of colour and low income – typically inner city communities – who are identified as not having the same access to and hence share of public lands that many other Americans do. It is not clear how the administration proposes to address this issue or if there will be a campaign to add parks and public lands closer to population centres. It is possible, of course, that the announcement is simply a symbolic statement to keep part of the Biden base happy and doesn’t signal a major logistics or land procurement program. In Australia, by contrast, major population centres are adjacent to the coast and with beaches and headlands well serviced by public transport and available to everyone the access issue raised in the recent executive order is likely to be a point of contention in Australia
The “30 x 30” campaign is a clear win for traditional conservation groups who have been long term advocates for increased protections and restrictions on public use for areas identified as representative of unique or scarce habitat or containing endangered flora and fauna. The fault lines in both Australia and the United States are likely to be twofold. The first will be around protected areas being measured simply by area on the one hand rather than as a national cross section of different habitats and ecosystems. It is politically easier to designate vast areas of desert and scrubland than lock up coastal forest adjacent to population centres.
The second fault line will pit low impact activities such as hiking and camping against more intrusive pursuits such as hunting, fishing and motorised access. The latter groups already have a political dimension, being a traditional Republican constituency in the US and emerging conservative force in the parts of rural Australia.
Examples of this political alignment include the view of the US National Rifle Association, whose policy platform includes strong support for hunting and public access (24). Another example is the current makeup of the notionally bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (25), with 175 Republicans and only 47 Democrats it seems clear that “championing the Sportsmen’s Agenda” is a higher priority for conservative politicians.
In Australia, the Hunters, Fishers and Farmers Party have established themselves as a legitimate conservative alternative with elected officials in NSW, Victorian and Western Australian state legislatures. Prominent policies (26) highlight their opposition to what they see as extreme green attempts to prevent public land access, create marine sanctuaries and “lock away” public land.
While these conservative voices will oppose restrictive public land use policies, environmental groups will counter with calls for higher levels of both protection and habitat diversity in “30 x 30” classifications. In parallel, pressure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will continue unabated.
The current landscape and the political forces that shape it are about protecting habitat and diversity while allocating public land for both public access as well as renewables, ranching and mining. The future, as 2050 approaches, could well be dominated by the need to go from less carbon to zero carbon.
SECTION 5: Next generation challenges – deep decarbonisation
Carbon Dioxide Reduction technologies – the push to zero?
What Biden, US Congress and Prime Minister Morrison for that matter, have not yet referenced in their recent announcements are the tougher and less politically palatable elements of the decarbonisation journey, such as the need to reduce agricultural methane emissions and deploy Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies. As mentioned above, these are key parts of hypothetical decarbonisation pathways provided in the Summary for Policymakers section of the 2016 UN climate report (3). Reducing agricultural methane either means reducing global cattle and sheep herds or changing their diets, while the primary examples of CDR technologies are:
· Afforestation – growing trees to sequester carbon on grasslands and other areas that have not historically had forests.
· Reforestation – growing trees (native or otherwise) on land that previously supported forests
· Direct Air Capture – extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air and storing it in suitable geologic formations
· Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) – a complex system that involves growing energy crops that are used for power generation with the resultant carbon dioxide geologically stored
· Soil Carbon optimisation – maximising the amount of carbon that can be stored as organic matter in the soil
While there are arguments and counter arguments for the individual CDR strategies listed above and there is no guarantee they will all be major contributors, UNIPCC reports make it very clear that elements of CDR are essential for full decarbonisation. For both the US and Australia, wind, solar and electric vehicles alone will not be enough. For this discussion, it is important to understand that collectively CDR requires a lot of land as well as significant changes to the way land is used and managed. In addition, the storage based methodologies (DAC and BECCS) require access to and ongoing monitoring of subsurface geologic structures.
It is therefore clear that as 2050 approaches, pressures US and Australian governments face over complex and often conflicting land use questions will only get more problematic as they are forced to balance escalating demands over conservation, tourism and access, economic exploitation and the need to reduce carbon. The massive public land holdings in both countries means that public land will have to play a part in getting to a net zero future.
Long term power storage – a role for government investment
To date western governments have, for the most part, shied away from a direct leadership role in action on climate, relying instead on incentives and tax breaks on the one hand and putting up permitting roadblocks on the other to push the private sector into desired outcomes. In a different world a carbon tax would have been used to similar effect. As the realisation grows decarbonisation is happening too slowly, it is increasingly likely that administrations will become more proactive in seeking reduced emissions. The BLM’s initiative to identify its best wind and solar resources is a small step in this direction.
Whether this will drive direct government ownership and operation of new low carbon assets is an open question, doing so would need to reverse decades of privatisation. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that hydro assets in both the US and Australia remain predominantly government owned, hence providing a vehicle for future direct investment. The increasing cost competitiveness of wind and solar means, however, that this can perhaps be left to private interests with governments looking instead at long term storage. The Turnbull government’s investment in Snowy 2.0, is an example of this logic. It is no secret that long term storage is vital for a grid dominated by wind and solar and simply building it with government funds may prove easier than creating an artificial business case for private investment.
Will red meat be come the new coal?
Agricultural methane emissions from cattle and sheep have climate advocates pushing for reduced consumption of red meat. This advocacy is currently much more muted than campaigns against coal, fracking and investment in fossil fuel infrastructure but that doesn’t mean it will remain a secondary issue. If red meat becomes the new coal it is not inconceivable that both the United States and Australia will come under pressure to stop leasing public land to cattle ranchers and graziers. Procedurally this will be easier in the United States given the shorter leases and the lack of leaseholder investment on public lands. Australian state governments could conceivably be tempted to simply wait for beef markets to decline and let market forces dictate the future of remote cattle stations.
Opportunities for geological carbon storage
Geologic carbon storage has been actively opposed by environmental groups for several decades despite the UNIPCC consistently endorsing this approach as an important decarbonisation tool. The basis for much of the opposition is that it is seen as a vehicle to preserve fossil fuel power generation. With coal power on the decline in the United States, and to a lesser extent, in Australia perhaps this opposition will decline. Some level of acceptance will be needed if Direct Air Capture (DAC) or Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) are required to achieve decarbonisation targets.
It should be noted that while these technologies are not ready for commercial deployment and probably won’t be for some time. This does not mean, however, that a discussion of their land use implications is premature. Without getting into too much detail, the technical steps involved in separating carbon dioxide from ambient air as well as pressurizing and transporting it via pipeline are all reasonably well understood, as is running power plants on wood chips or something similar. DAC and BECCS aren’t ready not so much because the science is unproven but because there hasn’t been investment in large scale demonstration plants. This contrasts with wind and solar which have benefitted from vast sums in the form of both investments and incentives.
The other reason DAC and BECCS remain relevant to this discussion is that their deployment will be the result of current decarbonisation actions proving inadequate and climate damage becoming so obvious that a major roll out will be required. Land use implications from these technologies are therefore binary, either minor or hugely impactful.
This all or nothing logic does not, however, apply to the carbon capture and storage (CCS). Claims that CCS has been an expensive failure are, for the most part, based on mixed results with attempts to use it on coal fired power plants. With decarbonised coal generation is rapidly becoming unnecessary, CCS remains a viable and potentially important technology for smaller scale, hard to decarbonise activities like the production of cement, steel, aluminium, plastics and other petrochemicals as well as a host of other industrial applications which cannot simply be decarbonised by switching to renewables. Emissions from these industries are minor in comparison with power generation and transportation but they will still need to be reduced as close to net zero as possible to achieve full decarbonisation. CCS will be part of deep decarbonisation – perhaps at a niche level for selected industries in specific locations or potentially as part of major CDR facilities.
The figure below shows that the United States is blessed with many areas potentially suitable for CCS, some of which lies directly under federal land. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates a geologic storage capacity of between 1,800 and 20,000 billion tons. Even at the low end of this range it far exceeds the 400 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide that the US has emitted over the past 150 years. Put simply, the DOE data suggests all of the United States’ historic carbon dioxide emissions could be easily stored within its national boundaries. Carbon capture and storage will be not easy or cheap and optimists will hope that this approach won’t be required but if it is needed then some of it will need to be done under public lands.
Areas the US Department of Energy considers suitable for carbon storage (27)
Mitigation through growth and regrowth of forests?
At first glance reforestation, afforestation and growing bio energy crops seem to be less controversial than storing gigatonnes of carbon dioxide under the ground. This misses the fact that to have a meaningful impact on the trajectory of decarbonisation they will need to be done at a massive scale requiring a significant shift in land use priorities. There is likely to cause conflict with both the food production industry and diversity and habitat conservationists. The United States is blessed with large areas of productive croplands giving it a reasonable level of food security, meaning there will be inevitable opposition to using any of this land to grow trees. If, on the other hand, afforestation is proposed for public land not currently used for food production there will be strong opposition to the creation of single species plantations by those already concerned at the loss of habitat and diversity from climate change.
When one considers the implications of widespread deployment of CDR technologies, implications well understood by those on the inside of the climate debate, the recent announcements about public access, the “30 x 30” target and the increased use of public land for energy generation can be considered as preliminary jostling for position by key interest groups. As land use demands grow, this tension will escalate. Progressive groups will need to balance demands for conservation and protection with the need to encourage renewables. Conservative and business groups might be aligned in opposition to what they will see as regulatory overreach, but the former will want to prevent any changes to land access and land use rules while the latter, seeking new business opportunities, will want quick and easy access to land for wind and solar developments and perhaps other green investments.
Reallocation of federal land to meet emerging priorities
While the 640 million acres under federal ownership is a vast area, the “30 x 30” target requires a total closer to 700 million acres to be “conserved”. Conservationists will start with the 240 million acres or 10% of the national land mass that is currently designated as wilderness and protected land. While this area, which includes the most pristine and scenic parts of the country, is unlikely to be opposed, finding an additional 460 million acres won’t be a straightforward task, especially with other important land use requirements on the horizon. The federal government may find itself wishing that it had more land at its disposal.
At the other end of the scale the BLM currently leases out 155 million acres for grazing. One imagines that this land is less likely to be suitable for inclusion into the “30 x 30” portfolio and open rangeland may be less attractive for tourists and hunters (at least relative to mountains and wooded areas). This part of the portfolio would therefore seem to be the obvious choice to support new wind and solar. The complication will be if this reduces the amount of land available for grazing leases. It will be interesting to see how much of the 39 million acres recently earmarked for new wind and solar is currently used for grazing and if ranchers oppose this allocation. In the longer term demand from ranchers may decline but this is unlikely to occur soon enough to prevent at least some tensions with those wanting to build massive wind farms and solar arrays
This leaves around 250 million acres of public land that is not either protected wilderness or BLM managed grazing land. By a process of elimination much of this must be controlled by the FS. Forests are increasingly valuable from multiple perspectives – tourism, hunting, conservation and climate – and are not obviously suitable for new generation, power transmission or large scale energy storage. What is more likely is that some of this area is given a greater level of protection with limits placed on public access with the balance, especially where it is close to population centres, being prioritised for public use.
Finally it is obvious that not everything needs to be done on public land meaning the federal government will increasingly need to articulate what it sees as the best use of its public land holdings and what activities need to disproportionately take place on private lands. This may drive a consolidation or rearrangement of the current split DOI/USDA accountability that runs through four key agencies. Expect also to see some level of discussion about a “hybrid” model that allows some private land to be included in the “30 x 30” total perhaps as a buffer zone or as corridors allowing wildlife migration.
In Australia, with 70% of the land mass being nominally public, excluding protected lands and those under direct indigenous ownership, still leaves a vast area nominally available to help alleviate climate concerns. The challenge in Australia will be the amount of land currently locked up under long term pastoral leases and held by lease holders who have made significant investments in the property. As is the case in the United States, if there is a strong global move away from beef consumption, then this equation will become easier for state governments. In meeting a “30 x 30” target Australia is well placed from an overall land area perspective but may struggle to meet habitat diversity metrics. Coastal habitat in the southern half of the continent will be much tougher to find and protect than land in parts of central Australia, pastoral leases and indigenous ownership notwithstanding.
Final thoughts
The climate debate over the next decade will increasingly focus on land use issues. While coal, fracking and fossil fuel investments currently have the headlines, advocates in the land use space know their time is coming and we are seeing the early political manoeuvring in both Australia and particularly the United States. Expect to see this heating up as we get closer to 2050 and the next round or two of COP meetings.
If it is just more renewables, conservation and public access then countries the size of the US and Australia should be able to come up with compromises that leave everyone equally unhappy but with some of what they want. If, however, vast areas of plantation forest are needed to soak up carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and significant volumes of captured carbon dioxide are being stored underground, finding a compromise will become more difficult. Adding to the complexity will be the reaction of the agricultural sector, based mostly on private land in the US but occupying public lands in Australia, to regulations and market reactions impacting the sheep and cattle industries, the way soils are cultivated and fertilised as well as having land reallocated away from food production for any number of reasons.
Finally, there are the reportedly inevitable changes to the natural and agricultural environments from climate change itself. Provided the goal remains net zero, there will be no easy way to navigate through all of this. Future governments in the US and Australia will struggle to keep key constituents happy but the task would be even harder if everything was privately owned, requiring the acquiescence of thousands of individual landowners. They may pause briefly to thank their predecessors for the vast amount of land under direct government and the flexibility and control this gives them.
1. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/21/american-land-barons
-100-wealthy-families-now-own-nearly-as-much-land-as-that-of-new-england/
3. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-4
4. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
5. https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/nggi-quarterly-update-
6. https://www.energy.senate.gov/2020/12/murkowski-manchin-house-
colleagues-reach-agreement-on-energy-package-for-year-end-appropriations-bill
7. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/
executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/
8. https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec
_2020_FINAL.pdf
9. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaaw2869
10. https://www.fb.org/files/Public_Lands.30X30_Letter_to_White_House.AFBFLTR
.04.22.21.pdf
11. https://www.austrade.gov.au/land-tenure/land-tenure/about-land-tenure
12. https://www.climateworksaustralia.org/land-use-futures/australias-land-use/
13. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/pastoral-leases/pastoralleases.pdf
14. https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-grazing/livestock
15. https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/27/hammonds-grazing-permit-rescinded-biden/
16. https://publications.industry.gov.au/publications/resourcesandenergyquarterly
december2020/documents/Resources-and-Energy-Quarterly-Dec-2020.pdf
17. https://www.minerals.org.au/sites/default/files/Deloitte_Access_Economics_
Estimates_of_royalties_and_company_tax_report_1_May_2020_FINAL.pdf
18. https://www.doi.gov/ocl/blm-2021-budget-0
19. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-138.pdf
20. https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/7D526CBD-0034-437C-914B-
3A70A63FA287
21. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/ABARES_Aus_Indig_
land_forest_estate-Separate_reporting_FINAL_02Dec20.pdf
22. https://revenuedata.doi.gov/how-revenue-works/native-american-ownership-
23. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-conserving-and-restoring-america-the
24. https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/huntingconservation/without-hunters/
25. https://congressionalsportsmen.org/caucuses/congressional
26. https://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.org.au/nsw_policies-new
27. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/carbon-dioxide-capture-and
