Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

Protect species? Curb warming? Save money? Biden’s big conservation goal means trade-offs

February 3, 2021 — President Joe Biden last week unveiled an ambitious conservation goal, unprecedented for the United States: conserving 30% of the country’s lands and waters by 2030, which would require more than doubling the area of public and private holdings under heightened protections.

Conservation scientists welcomed the so-called 30-by-30 goal, announced in an executive order on climate released 27 January. “The ambition is fantastic,” says ecologist Joshua Tewksbury, interim executive director of the nonprofit Future Earth.

But Biden’s order also raises a thorny practical question: Which swaths of land and sea should be the top targets for enhanced protection or management? The order says the effort should aim for a number of outcomes, including preserving biodiversity, curbing climate change, and even creating jobs and reducing social inequality. But researchers warn that difficult trade-offs lie ahead, because few chunks of territory are likely to provide all of the desired benefits. “The balancing act [will be] the hardest part of this work,” Tewksbury says.

Observers say the Biden administration could make rapid progress and contain costs by enhancing protections for territory already owned by the federal government. “We can make really huge gains on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands,” says Jacob Malcom, a conservation biologist with Defenders of Wildlife. That could mean reducing logging, mining, drilling, and grazing. “There will be vested interests who are not happy about that,” Malcom notes. “So I don’t want to make it seem like it’s going to be easy.” Fishing associations, for example, have already reacted with concern to proposals to ban commercial fishing in 30% of U.S. waters. “Thirty-by-thirty is a campaign slogan, not a scientific proposal,” Robert Vanasse, executive director of Saving Seafood, wrote last year.

Read the full story at Science Magazine

Recent Headlines

  • Ocean Indicators We’re Tracking for El Niño’s Arrival on the West Coast
  • eDNA could play a bigger role in stock assessments
  • CALIFORNIA: El Niño bringing changes to Northern California ocean conditions and marine life
  • US Court Says Gulf of Mexico Fishery Council Has Too Much Power, but Overfishing Rule Can Stand
  • Western Pacific Scientists to Review Fishing Rules and Bottomfish Catch
  • US appeals court rejects challenge to turtle excluder device requirements in Louisiana
  • ALASKA: Seagrant launches Alaska Oyster Voyage interactive map and logging tool to encourage oyster consumption
  • Seafood Task Force launches first-of-its-kind tuna vessel monitoring program

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Hawaii IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Virginia Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2026 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions