Should governments prioritize economic growth and human development over the preservation of untouched natural environments?

In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) made history as the first binding international agreement to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. As of 2026, it has been ratified by every UN member state, and its contents have served as the basis for both the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and Paris Agreement (2015), which are landmark achievements in the fight against climate change in their own right. Compared to other international treaties, climate agreements are unusual; it’s not every day that geopolitical rivals like the United States, the EU, Russia, China, and North Korea all agree on something, especially when these agreements come with economic constraints. Their collaboration underlines the well-documented urgency of climate issues, which made it all the more alarming when the U.S. announced it would withdraw from both the Paris Agreement and UNFCCC through executive orders 14162 and 14199 respectively. In a press statement regarding the latter on January 7th, 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the latter “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful,” declaring with dramatic fashion that “The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over” (Rubio).

The reasoning of the Trump Administration is dubious at best. Nevertheless, it does bring up an interesting point: Even at the cost of everyday concerns like economics, should we still prioritize the conservation of natural environments?

Conservation has become an increasingly prominent focus in environmental activism. It is often justified either through claims that nature has intrinsic value, or for pragmatic reasons; as the former is subjective, this article’s focus will be on the latter. In the United States, the conservation movement gained cultural significance in the 1800s, but its major entry into the political world was under the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt during the early-1900s “Progressive Era.” His administration established over 230 million acres of protected land, setting a precedent for the use of federal power to protect environmental resources (National Park Service). Since then, scientific research has generally concurred that the preservation of natural landscapes and biodiversity most often provide net positives even from the most cynical viewpoint. Dubbed as “ecosystem services,” benefits fall across all facets of society; for instance, natural wetlands act as buffers against floods, balanced aquatic ecosystems yield higher long-term fish production, and ecotourism (tourism surrounding natural landmarks and attractions) bolster underdeveloped local economies and provide cultural value. 

Of course, in an ideal world it would be our choice to pursue policies of conservation, especially as the U.S. is already a developed nation without a pressing need for explosive short-term growth. But the unfortunate reality is that we do not live in an ideal world. While the structures of civilizations have changed throughout the last few thousand years, the basic nature of power—and by extension geopolitics—has not changed. Historically, powerful nations tend to dominate their peers, whether it be militarily or economically. Evidence is abundant: European colonialism, the expansion of Mesoamerican empires, and the fall of the Soviet Union during the Cold War are just a few examples. Even at the cost of the environment, the efficient utilization of more natural resources, either directly or indirectly, has always been a good option, at least on a national scale. While the argument addressed in this article might seem complicated at first glance, when you boil it down to the fundamentals, the conclusion becomes obvious: No matter the reason, asking everyone to stop consolidating riches and power for the sake of nature is unlikely to work on a global scale.

So why did conservation work during the Progressive Era? Theories vary, but one hypothesis addresses the differences between past and modern-day America. Historian and Harvard Ph.D. Samuel P. Hays argues in his book Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency that conservation under Theodore Roosevelt was motivated less by personal idealism, and more by the efficient management of resources and growth of long-term economic power (Hays 2). As stated previously, conservation is a net benefit in the long term, but that also means it’s an investment that takes a while to pay off.

The U.S. in the 1900s could afford this tradeoff; it was economically dominant as well as relatively self-sufficient, and the limitations of military technology at the time meant no rival European nation could overcome the country’s geographical isolation to present a direct threat. By contrast, the globalization and interconnectedness of the modern world has led to increased vulnerability.

While it remains true that no military can present a plausible danger to the U.S. mainland, changes in the nature of economics mean that the U.S. is dependent on imports and exports to survive, just like any other modern nation; semiconductors come from Taiwan, commercial ships are built in China, precious metals are shipped from sub-Saharan Africa, and pharmaceuticals from the European Union. Historian Daniel Immerwahr points out the strong correlation between the expansion of American overseas military assets with the rise of globalization in the 20th and 21st centuries in his book How to Hide an Empire (Immerwahr 16). Although a foreign invasion of the West Coast is unlikely, the U.S. now faces much deeper threats regarding trade and economics, threats that take more effort to counter and leave less leeway for long-term investments in conservation. After all, a mountain might provide freshwater, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration services just by being left alone; but you can also mine it for coal to power energy grids, metal to build machinery, gravel to make concrete, and minerals to manufacture electronics, all while bolstering industry and creating a temporary boon of local jobs. Which decision is more beneficial in an era where domestic socioeconomic conditions are reaching a breaking point and where the global balance of power might shift at any moment? Governments tend to choose the latter.

Conservation’s greatest successes have consistently been achieved through the government, be it federal natural parks or U.N. ratifications. But as long as this remains true, its success will be at the mercy of our governments’ priorities. And in a world where geopolitical rivalries are at an all-time high, in a world where the rapid pace of resource extraction is chillingly reminiscent of the age of colonial imperialism, in a world where the U.S. spent 997 billion USD on defense in 2024, our government’s priorities are elsewhere. And it’s important to realize that we’re talking about the most powerful and influential nation in history; for developing countries facing poverty, political instability, and foreign exploitation, conservation programs without immediate payoffs are an unaffordable luxury in the face of basic national survival, and it will remain as such without significant compromises.

There’s also the fact that governments are human institutions, made and run by humans to serve human wants and needs. Another reason behind conservation’s success during the early 1900s was that it was in line with societal priorities. The Progressive Era was one where poor industry regulations caused rampant pollution and subsequent health issues, where runaway manufacturing under free market capitalism depleted resources at alarming rates. As a result, it was beneficial to the vast majority of Americans to support policies that protected the environment. However, these are not the same circumstances that face America today. If our government ever fully commits to conservation once again, it will likely be because broader society supports it; but unfortunately, conservation is not perceived as a direct fix to modern-day problems, and as such, the requisite political support needed is not present.

While conservation is a well-intentioned goal, it's likely that our own enrichment and security will usually be a bigger priority. As previously discussed, conservation is not always in line with these priorities, especially today. In these circumstances, the best option is to concede that the realistic implementation of conservation will have to factor in pragmatic concerns; that is, how to address conservation while accommodating economic incentives.

Keeping this in mind, there have been key success stories for environmentalism in the relatively recent past. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was universally ratified by 197 countries, becoming the first international treaty to achieve this feat. In the midst of the Cold War, the entire world came together to protect the deteriorating ozone layer, and phase out ozone-depleting substances (ODS). As a result, over 99% of ODS were eliminated, and the ozone layer is steadily recovering, with the Kigali Amendment of 2016 continuing this success with a mandatory reduction of hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas initially introduced as an ODS alternative (United Nations Environment Programme). The success was due to scientific evidence, but also flexibility; under Article 5 of the treaty, developing countries were given 10 extra years to phase out ODS compared to their developed peers. Adding onto this concept of customized obligations, the Multilateral Fund offered financial and technical assistance to Article 5 nations, lessening their economic burden and minimizing controversy in their domestic politics.

The Montreal Protocol is a case study of what effective environmentalism—and by extension, conservation—looks like. By acknowledging and accommodating the pragmatic problems faced by nations and incorporating them into our plans, we’ve achieved great successes, and are sure to achieve more. Now, does that mean the U.S. should withdraw from “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful” climate agreements? Probably not; by most metrics, our country is far more well-off than the Secretary of State claims. But regardless, the most proactive solution to conservation is not to deny concerns about economics and human development. It’s to accept them, and integrate them into our solution.

Works Cited

Hays, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation

Movement, 1890–1920. Harvard University Press, 1959.

Immerwahr, Daniel. How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States. Picador,

2019.

National Park Service. “Theodore Roosevelt and Conservation.” National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-and-conservation.htm.

Rubio, Marco. “Withdrawal from Wasteful, Ineffective, or Harmful International Organizations.”

U.S. Department of State, 7 Jan. 2026, https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/01/withdrawal-from-wasteful-ineffective-or-harmful-international-organizations.

United Nations Environment Programme. “Most Widely Ratified Treaty in UN History Marks

25th Anniversary.” UNEP, 16 Sept. 2012, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/most-widely-ratified-treaty-un-history-marks-25th-anniversary.