The Sierra Club seems to have hired a few economists to demonstrate that our tree-hugging tendencies are actually good for the economy. From a report released yesterday called “The New Economy of the West: From Clear-cutting to Camping” (Note, the link is a PDF file):

The last several years have seen a radical shift in the way America’s public lands
are managed. The oil, gas, mining and timber industries are chomping at the
bit to pursue resources in previously unspoiled areas like Wyoming’s Red
Desert, Colorado’s Roan Plateau and Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.

But oil and gas resources in the Rocky Mountain West are limited, while recreational
opportunities are endless. In fact, according to U.S. Department of
Energy estimates, the Rockies hold enough oil to supply the United States for
just over three months. Even if oil prices skyrocketed beyond their current levels,
revenues would only be generated for a brief window of time. In contrast,
protecting western public lands for recreation would ensure revenues of more
than $65 billion a year for years to come.

A Sierra Club publicist sent me few more facts from the report:

• One in twenty Americans rely in some manner on outdoor recreation to make a living
• In 2006, outdoor recreation in the West generated $61 billion and 617,186 new jobs
• Communities that are closest to federally-protected public lands show the strongest economic growth

The trouble with the “save it all for recreation” ethos is the ol’ “be careful what you wish for” blowback. One one hand you’ve got people who hunt and fish paying taxes and fees to preserve wild habitat. On the other you’ve got tourists tearing through the woods on rented ATVs. Ski slopes generate tons of income but they’re not exactly kind to the forests they’re cut through.

And the same folks saying “wilderness is good for the economy” will fight tooth and nail against any recreational use they disapprove of, which will cast doubts on their devotion to the capitalist cause.

Overall, though, the thrust of the report is sound — that extractive industries bring temporary benefits that disappear when the resource is gone, while recreational industries sustain themselves as long as there are wild places that people want to visit. The latter certainly seems a more sane investment choice.

It’s kind of pathetic that we have to argue the economic worth of something whose value is so transparently transcendant, but if the idea catches on it might buy a few more generations for our species. A worthy compromise.