Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

whoownsengland.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 156 posts

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

#31

Post by throwaway0a5e »

xeromal wrote: post #23
rootusrootus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. The more justified infrastructure use cases of the 20th century gave way to "economic development" crap where the city takes land it thinks the current owner isn't using effectively enough and then sells it to their cronies who promise to build a strip mall or a mixed use development or whatever (and some number of useful idiots support it because they like the idea of more taxable commerce). The government has zero business stomping on people to do the latter. Just buy the F-ing land outright the normal way if that's what you want to do.

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

#32

Post by radford-neal »

lbriner wrote: post #8

This is one issue like others where we have gone wrong a long time ago and don't have an easy way back. I think Scotland got it right when they passed a law that required a landowner to sell to a not-for-profit at the market rate if they were selling and they couldn't be outbid by a private buyer. I would be interested to know the proportion of non-wilded land and how much is private farming land, national parks, pri…

"...a law that required a landowner to sell to a not-for-profit at the market rate if they were selling and they couldn't be outbid by a private buyer"

Why would a law be required for this? Wouldn't the landowner just naturally be willing to sell to the not-for-profit entity if they were willing to pay as much or more than someone else?

I have to suspect that this is really about forcing the landowner to sell at less than market rate, with some sort of camouflage to conceal that that's what's happening.

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

#33

Post by Mtinie »

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…

While I agree with your assessment given the available data you shared, I have to wonder if we really have to spend that much?

From what I understand it's hard to separate how much of that spend is effective vs. how much of it is "bad money" tied up in modern forestry cargo cult practices carried over from the last 100 year.

With the increasing frequency of megafires in the Western United States (and other locations around the world) the discussion has shifted to reconsidering if the existing paradigm of prioritizing fire prevention over active fire management (planned burns, building code improvements, etc.) is in our best interests.

For example:

https://www.ctif.org/news/modern-forestry-practices-may-be-p...

http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?forum-post=preven...

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

#34

Post by rlpb »

lbriner wrote: post #8

This is one issue like others where we have gone wrong a long time ago and don't have an easy way back. I think Scotland got it right when they passed a law that required a landowner to sell to a not-for-profit at the market rate if they were selling and they couldn't be outbid by a private buyer. I would be interested to know the proportion of non-wilded land and how much is private farming land, national parks, pri…

If it's not possible to sell to a private buyer, how is it possible to determine a "market rate"? There would be no market.

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

#35

Post by ch4s3 »

GavinMcG wrote: post #29
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.

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.

It's not a non sequitur at all. The original claim was that contemporary market economies caused the problem so markets can't be part of the solution. I think this is first and foremost a logical fallacy. I'm also pointing out that the need for energy and resources created the problem, which is orthogonal to markets.

Markets are great for optimizing things that can be priced. Pricing carbon, and wild spaces can be really powerful levers for fixing some of these problems.

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

#36

Post by spurgu »

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…

Similar initiative for preserving ancient forests in Finland, originally founded by legendary Finnish environmental activist Pentti Linkola:

https://luonnonperintosaatio.fi/en/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Natural_Heritage_Found...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

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

#37

Post by ekidd »

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.

There is supposedly an island on the Maine coast that was given to the federal government for conservation purposes (probably for migratory birds). The feds later sold it off. Last I heard of it, people were raising money to buy it back and protect it again. Federal protection really only works in the long term if the land becomes part of a national park or other protected reserve.

In the US, conservation is often handled by "land trusts," private non-profits that protect land, and make it available for public uses. One common strategy is for two land trusts to work together: One will own the land, and the second will own a "conservation easement" that prevents the land from being developed. This reassures land donors that their wishes will be protected.

Local land trusts are often very popular. Almost everybody likes to have some scenic walking paths. Local businesses also like being able to hand out trail maps to their customers. But some land trusts also protect working land: I know of a protected fishing warf that is used by many small commercial fisherman. In other towns, land trusts may protect a certain amount of farmland.

The most entertaining case I know of is a land trust that maintains a trail system for ATV vehicles. They acquired the land to protect some key bird habitat. But the parcel also included a separate wooded area that was popular with ATV users. So they said, "Hey, ATVs are a public recreational use, and we have plenty of other land that doesn't allow them. So why not let people keep doing that here?"

I think that's one important trick to running a successful land trust: Make sure that you serve a wide variety of community needs. Set aside land for conservation, for walking, and to preserve traditional working land. And try to support a wide variety of recreational uses.

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

#38

Post by jandrewrogers »

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.

The Federal government is not a reliable steward of public wilderness lands. Their incentives and motivations are quite different from a purpose-built NGO. In practice an NGO can offer a much more consistent and aligned implementation of objectives.

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

#40

Post by dougmwne »

Yes, but it’s a bad approach.

Source: I have worked in environmental policy. See The Nature Conservancy, a large nonprofit that does this.

But it is an inefficient use of funds. The US government has massive land holdings and the biggest budgets in the world. For a paltry amount, you can lobby them and convince them to use their resources for environmental protection, not yours. Basically the entire US environmental protection community takes this approach with just a few outliers like TNC.

Post reply on HN