Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#21

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #18

throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana (from the map on the American Prairie site). It's not clear from a cursory glance at the site whether American Prairie is giving the land to the public, or whether they retain ownership and are simply allowing public access. I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. I'm also curious if…

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. Not really. Federal agencies sell parklands from time to time. It's easier to have an NGO that won't sell the land for a long time.

There’s two parts. The conservation easement strips the land of its development capacity, and that restriction rides with the land to future owners in perpetuity, while the non profit stewards the land and enforces those legal claims if necessary.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#22

Post by jen20 » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

qchris wrote: post #7

In the United States, the American Prairie Reserve [1] is doing something along these lines in the area around the Wyoming/Montana border. In particular, their purchases (which often include private ranches that come up for sale) focus on building those corridors between existing public lands, effectively creating much larger continuous ecosystems that this article mentioned. It's probably easier to do in the United…

Wow, TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana (from the map on the American Prairie site). It's not clear from a cursory glance at the site whether American Prairie is giving the land to the public, or whether they retain ownership and are simply allowing public access. I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. I'm also curious if…

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide.

This largely depends on whether an NGO is more trustworthy than the party in control of the federal government when it comes to conservation. Half the time, the answer seems to be "yes".

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#23

Post by xeromal » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:37 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #15

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #3

No. Most places have 'immanent domain' type laws were the gov can essentially seize your property (forcing a sale) to give to someone else. A rich developer could see all that sweet sweet natural land and make a strong case (with lobbying, backroom deals, the usual) that it would be better used with a new condo or factory or strip mine and get it anyway.

Eminent domain is close to dead in the US. We nearly always lack sufficient political consensus to use it. It is partly why new infrastructure projects are increasingly rare and significantly more expensive.

It's probably for the better. It generally just gets used on people who lack the resources to fight back. It just doesn't sit well with me that a government can force you to sell your land at a price they determine.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#24

Post by GavinMcG » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:38 PM UTC

0000011111 wrote: post #20

In the US we struggle to protect the land that is already owned by state and federal agencies. For example, each year we spend billions on fire suppression on public land. And most year more acres burn and the cost increases. https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics 5,510,675 Acres Year-to-date Acres Burned FY 2021 suppression cost $4,389,000,000 Conservation his hard especially in a landscape where we fail t…

This presupposes that fire suppression is an important goal. Obviously carbon storage is only possible if it isn’t all routinely released as smoke, but it’s not obvious to me that fire reduces carbon capture so much that other alternatives are better—and preservation may be a net good if other conservation/recreation/quality-of-life goals are accomplished alongside carbon capture.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#25

Post by frobishercresc » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:39 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #16

nimbius wrote: post #14

Its an unpopular opinion but no. Much as we cannot stop drowning in water with more water, we cannot extinguish climate change caused by technocratic neoliberal consumer capitalism with more of the same. The effort must exist outside a market. it cannot be commercialized, it exists as an inefficiency, and it remains a corrective action to right some of the most egregious hubris of mankinds existence on this planet. i…

You say that as though no one outside of a market economy every burned coal or clear cut a forrest.

Technocratic neoliberal consumer capitalism isn't the only form of market economy, it's just the form that uses up the most land without regard to social and environmental impact because it is inherently focused on capital gains.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#26

Post by nightshift1 » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

derwiki wrote: post #2

James Hetfield of Metallica was doing something like this in Marin: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/metallica-james-he...

According to the article, he gave the land to preserve it for agricultural use after failing to build houses on it.

I guess it's better than nothing but I dont think we should label this as "Preserved Land".

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#27

Post by Simon_O_Rourke » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:44 PM UTC

In the US, almost certainly, you would probably get a few bad actors though coming in and using the land thinking it was a free for all.

Can't see it happening in places like Holland or Japan where every inch of land is worked relentlessly. In fact in Holland someone would probably complain.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#28

Post by ch4s3 » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:44 PM UTC

frobishercresc wrote: post #25

ch4s3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that as though no one outside of a market economy every burned coal or clear cut a forrest.

Technocratic neoliberal consumer capitalism isn't the only form of market economy, it's just the form that uses up the most land without regard to social and environmental impact because it is inherently focused on capital gains.

> uses up the most land

How are you quantifying that?

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#29

Post by GavinMcG » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:46 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #16

nimbius wrote: post #14

Its an unpopular opinion but no. Much as we cannot stop drowning in water with more water, we cannot extinguish climate change caused by technocratic neoliberal consumer capitalism with more of the same. The effort must exist outside a market. it cannot be commercialized, it exists as an inefficiency, and it remains a corrective action to right some of the most egregious hubris of mankinds existence on this planet. i…

You say that as though no one outside of a market economy every burned coal or clear cut a forrest.

That’s a non sequitur. So what if bad things have happened outside of a market? The question is whether a solution can be found outside one.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#30

Post by RajT88 » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #3

No. Most places have 'immanent domain' type laws were the gov can essentially seize your property (forcing a sale) to give to someone else. A rich developer could see all that sweet sweet natural land and make a strong case (with lobbying, backroom deals, the usual) that it would be better used with a new condo or factory or strip mine and get it anyway.

I have also read about cases where foreign owners just have their land straight up taken.

Locals just assume the property while the owners are away and force them into a court unfriendly to foreigners.