Undeveloped land in the USA vs Africa?

Nah. Think about it - the Sahara desert (which is for all intents and purposes, undeveloped) covers an area of about 3.5 million square miles. The USA is about 3.8 million square miles.

So 92% of the area of the USA can be accounted for in the Sahara desert alone. If you consider the rainforests of central Africa with its great lakes and other undeveloped areas such as the Savannas and plains, there is no way that the US can have more undeveloped area of land than Africa.

If you had said the North American continent vs. Africa, then perhaps, but not the USA (remember North America includes the vast Arctic wastelands of north Canada & Alaska).

If this was with reference to biofuels then it may have more logic. There is probably more UNDERDEVELOPED land in the USA which could easily be put to growing biomass, without excessive harm to nature conservation, than in Africa.

I think there is alot of land in the US which has been used for agriculture that is now lying fallow.

Plese note. I am not entering into the Biofuel debate here.

Rocky Mountain range cannot be developed... Alaska is VERY undeveloped

I am not sure where more un-developed land is - USA or Africa?

however Un-developed land is GOOD.. it is not land which we should develop.. we have raped enough of our planet... we need to slow down human population growth...at over 6.5 BILLION people we are destroying our own future by developing every spot of land we can.

It has been estimated that at continued population growth Americans will be forced to eat cat and dog like they do in China, because land for cattle will be a premium.. most being developed for housing or used to raise other food for people..

Someone who mentioned this might have been confusing USA with North America the continent which would include Canada. That would be more likely but this is only a suggestion..I cant back it up with facts and I'm far too lazy to go and work it out.....