Golf courses may destroy some nature and other courses help nature to flourish. If the right sites are chosen, the courses built with care and maintained with the environment in mind, golf needn't be a net drag on nature. Its tough to do, but to a large degree its as much about lowered expectations as anything else.
However, the real point of the Trump deal is some plots of nature can be considered more valuable than other plots of nature and some links land is more valuable than other links land. There isn't much bloody point in saying its okay ransack unique links land today because they did 100 years ago. At some point, and I don't know when that is, people will have to adopt a hands off policy. Because we can build roads and airports to reach every corner of the earth and take the suburbs to the stars doesn't mean we ought to.
All that said, I wonder to what degree (if at all) that the reputation of golf course maintenance is worse than the reality? Yes, I am sure a huge percentage of clubs cause more damage to the environment than they really ought to, but I wonder if the rep isn't much worse than the reality. I have said it before, but I think it will behoove the fancy private clubs to start thinking about the positive environmental PR. The time may well be coming when resources such as water will not be so readily available for clubs - even at a premium. Hosting a hallf dozen charity events every year may soon not be seen as contributing enough to the local area. If the shit hit the fan, I wonder how many private clubs actually have a positive reputation as s boon for the community to te point of offsetting any possible environmental damage or "waste" of natural resources. Its a funny ole world where it seems the richer the rich become, the more to the left society seems to move.
Ciao