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?

#41

Post by photochemsyn » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:06 PM UTC

You can protect land for habitat, and you can preserve existing stores of carbon, but any notions about nature being a carbon sink capable of offsetting fossil fuel use are best discarded. Take a look at UK energy consumption (it's mainly gas and oil these days, with most coal phased out):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#/...

The only carbon solution is figuring out how to not need fossil fuels for energy, because there's absolutely no way biological photosynthesis can make more than a tiny dent in that figure.

I'd also look at Canada's abject failure on the 'natural carbon sink' front. Their idea was that Canada's pine forests would somehow serve as an offset for Alberta tar sands fossil carbon emissions (among the highest in the world, as they use gas to melt the tar to process it into syncrude for refineries). Climate change however increased temperatures, leading to pine beetle outbreaks and fires, and those forests became net atmospheric carbon sources, not sinks:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/beetles-t...

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

#42

Post by timmg » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:06 PM UTC

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.

> It's probably for the better.

Until you want to build a train line (or some other form of public transportation).

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

#43

Post by michaelt » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:07 PM UTC

Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #27

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.

Eh, densely populated countries have some of the most enthusiastic protection of public parks, woodlands, and so on.

For example, when a disused airport in Berlin was converted into a public park then there was a plan to build apartments on parts of it, Berlin's voters passed a referendum blocking development of any kind. [1]

The major downside to buying up land in countries like Britain and Germany is you can get much more land for the same money in less developed countries (although of course there have been 'buy an acre of rainforest' companies in the past that have just pocketed the money, so buying land in distant countries isn't an ideal solution).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Tempelhof_Airport#Publi...

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

#44

Post by arethuza » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:09 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.

Scotland has what is pretty much the opposite - communities can register interest in land and get a "right to buy" if the land is ever going to be transferred:

https://www.gov.scot/policies/land-reform/community-right-to...

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

#45

Post by throwaway2a02 » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

In most places, including the UK, there's a legal principle called adverse possession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession), where anyone can take possession of a property for free, if it's unoccupied/unmaintained by the owner, and the possession is not challenge for certain a period of time, i.e. actual owner doesn't evict the prospective occupier (12 years in the case of the UK).

So people or the government don't really need to actually buy much of the land.

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

#46

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #21

toast0 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I hate this process. It effectively gives someone else rights over the current owners land. The person becomes a tenet farmer in effect and is responsible for the taxes and upkeep while under the control of the organization. And the land is not accessible to the public.

It's much better for the land to be organization-owned and open to public use.

Just my opinion.

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

#47

Post by cromulent » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

spurgu wrote: post #36

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

Also the Helsinki Foundation buys land and then distributes veto rights to ensure it is never re-sold.

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

#48

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #17

The big problem, at least in the US, is that we don't build things anymore. The homeless camp 2 blocks from me is one glaring proof. The lack of power generation, power transmission, and pretty much any infrastructure you can think of is another. I agree that there is some conflict of interest between humans and untouched nature, and I am firmly on the side of us, humanity! What side are you on?

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by CapitalistCartr » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:15 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.

Eminent Domain is nearly never used in the USA for private development, since Kelo v. City of New London. The City won in court, but lost massively in the court of public opinion. Many states passed laws restricting or prohibiting that type of eminent domain use following that case.

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

#50

Post by andrewmutz » Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

If they want to buy land for carbon capture, why restrict themselves to the UK?

There are many countries with plenty of land for sale that will not require eminent domain laws to buy land.

And of course, carbon is a global concern. Capturing carbon in specifically the UK is no better than capturing it elsewhere, from a climate change perspective.