Following up on our August 28, 2008, post about the September 2008 issue of National Geographic:
The cover article “Our Good Earth” reported dangers to soils around the world. Although their map showed the Blackland Prairie through the middle of Texas (and the nation) as one of the largest areas of the most highly fertile soil in the world, the article did not mention the danger to this valuable area posed by the Trans-Texas Corridor (and the NAFTA Supercorridor) which have been proposed to pave over a good bit of this land through the middle of our country.
Even though some of us wrote letters to the editor pointing this out, the letters published about this article (in National Geographic’s January 2009 issue) did not include any about the Corridor or the endangered Blackland Prairie.
One letter writer mentioned “the construction of new highways” generally as a problem. Another mentioned urban sprawl and criticized “using the best land for subdivisions,” although didn’t cover using the best land for highways. A third letter criticized “the replacement of arable soil with concrete.”
Why do the National Geographic editors refuse to recognize the biggest threat to one of the biggest areas of the most fertile soil in the world if they are concerned about threats to valuable soil? The letters were chosen and the January issue had gone to press well before some Texas officials started calling the Corridor “dead” during the first few days of January, so it couldn’t be that the National Geographic editors thought the Corridor was not a threat anymore.
Are some most highly fertile soils more valuable than others? Does National Geographic agree with Gov. 39% that Texas (and American) rural residents and their land are just not that important?