By Eric Ruark

Ask most Republicans or right-leaning voters for their thoughts on “environmentalism,” and you'll hear a litany of complaints about progressives' attempts to remake our economy, increase the cost of living, and regulate small businesses into the ground. 

It's simply a political reality that campaigns against eating meat and zoning battles to outlaw single-family homes -- not to mention the war on oil and natural gas -- have made "environmentalist" practically a dirty word on the Right.

And that's a problem, because protecting our environment, conserving our natural resources for future generations, and promoting a high quality of life for all Americans are fundamentally conservative endeavors. 

This isn't an attack on or a defense of the political Right. It's an argument that it's long past time for the Right to seriously take up the mantle of environmental stewardship rather than ceding it to the radical Left. And that project must begin with addressing the urban sprawl that's been devouring our fields, forests, coasts, and rivers for decades -- largely thanks to population growth driven by immigration. 

The United States gained almost 90 million people over the last forty years. We're on track to add another 65 million or so by 2060. 

All that growth has consequences. Between 2002 and 2017, urban sprawl consumed more than 17,000 square miles of previously open spaces -- an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey. And a whopping two-thirds (67%) of that land loss resulted from constructing new houses, shopping venues, roads, and other infrastructure to accommodate increased demand from a growing population. 

All this sprawl fundamentally disrupts the places and ways of life we hold dear. A study from the U.S. Department of the Interior and North Carolina State University predicts that, based on current trends, the Southeast will eventually become one "megalopolis," a "seamless" urban corridor stretching from Raleigh, NC to Atlanta, GA, “at the expense of agricultural and forest lands.”

There's nothing conservative about that. 

Fortunately, this future isn't inevitable. Voters have the power to chart a different course. 

Local ordinances are a good place to start. Consider how zoning regulations can protect certain areas from new development. Libertarians may gripe about government overreach, but reasonable people recognize zoning for what it is: a legitimate way for local citizens to prevent unwanted growth and unwelcome change. 

The federal government, though, plays the biggest role. It grants lifetime residency and work permits to over one million legal immigrants each year -- a number that has stayed relatively consistent for decades, regardless of which party holds the White House. 

Republicans in Congress have proposed reforms to decrease both legal and illegal immigration -- which would curtail the population growth that's transforming communities nationwide. 

In 2023, the House passed a sweeping immigration bill that would end catch-and-release, end abuse of parole that was rampant under the Biden-Harris administration, and require every U.S. employer to check the legal status of recent hires through E-Verify. Republicans have also sponsored bills that would reduce "chain migration," which enables recent immigrants to sponsor their overseas relatives for green cards -- regardless of whether those relatives have the skills to succeed in the 21st century economy.

If tens of millions more people move to the United States in the coming years, the dreaded army of bulldozers, cement-rollers, and tree-cutters will only keep advancing. There's no way around it.

For too long, the environmental movement has been dangerously politicized. While the Left has done little actual conservation, many on the Right have defaulted to opposing conservation efforts on "principle." This has to change. Maybe the debate over how to manage future immigration flows will be the catalyst.  

Eric Ruark is Director of Research for NumbersUSA. This piece originally appeared in the Palm Beach Post.