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

51–60 of 156 posts

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

#51

Post by Simon_O_Rourke »

michaelt wrote: post #43
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 mu…

Yeah, I was there in Berlin when all that ruckus started, and had kept bubbling up again and again every few years. Templehof is held in too much regard by Berliners to be auctioned off by lot, but that doesn't stop real estate developers from trying. I hope they never succeed.

But it's not a wild area, and it's probably as well looked after as most folks front lawns. What I can't see is places like Templehof being just closed off from any kind of access to allow re-wilding. Sort of like Pripyat after Chernobyl blew. It'd be cool, but I just can't see people keeping out and letting nature take over.

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

#52

Post by amalcon »

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…

It would be tricky in more densely populated areas, thanks to the ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London. "The local government thinks they'll get more economic activity from someone else" is a valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason. It works in more rural places because, frankly, it's generally not worth the trouble of litigation there.

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

#54

Post by nibbleshifter »

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: you need to put in a bit more work than "just" buying it up.

In the UK, Ireland, and other countries with out of control deer/grazer populations and no large natural predators, this means enclosing the land with deer fencing (allows smaller animals to pass, but not large grazers) and probably doing some initial remedial work (scattering seeds of native species, planting a few native trees, etc) to kind of "get things going".

Usually after 5-6 years you can just let nature take over and go with traditional "ignore it" rewilding, once some kind of life is established. After maybe 10 years you can consider removing the fence.

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

#55

Post by dragonwriter »

amalcon wrote: post #52
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…

It would be tricky in more densely populated areas, thanks to the ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London . "The local government thinks they'll get more economic activity from someone else" is a valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason. It works in more rural places because, frankly, it's generally not worth the trouble of litigation there.

> valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason

The reason is:

(1) eminent domain isn't Constitutionally limited in purpose beyond that it must be a public purpose.

(2) State governments under the US Constitution have general police powers, so any purpose they aren't expressly Constitutionally forbidden to pursue is a valid public purpose, as distinct from the federal government being one of granted powers where there must be a specific Constitutional basis for it pursuing a purpose for it to be valid.

(3) Seeking revenue is not a thing prohibited to the states by the Federal Constitution.

(4) Under the federal Constitution, subordinate entities within states don't have distinct powers from states; if they are limited, that is a matter of state law, not the federal Constitution.

EDIT: Also, note also that some states do Constitutionally restrict the purposes of eminent domain, or have state laws limiting local use of it, some, IIRC, in Constitutional provisions that were proposed and passed directly in response to Kelo, so that what happened there would not be allowed.

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

#56

Post by adammarples »

citboin wrote: post #53

Can we create a nonprofit to do this for the Amazon rainforest?

I remember a documentary about a guy who did this, but came back next year to find they'd logged it anyway. Turns out you have to actualy enforce the law or it'll get broken! In the end he paid the guy who was logging his land to guard it anyway, the guy was dirt poor and just looking out for his family.

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

#57

Post by toomuchtodo »

giantg2 wrote: post #46
toomuchtodo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The land absolutely can be open to the public in this model, it just can’t be developed.

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

#58

Post by arethuza »

throwaway2a02 wrote: post #45

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 gov…

That link actually only talks about England and Wales. Scotland has positive prescription:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_(Scots_law)#Posit...

Mind you the end result is similar - different legal systems though!

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

#59

Post by idiotsecant »

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…

>TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana

Not only flows through it, but originates it! That's where rocky mountain snow turns into the mighty Missouri river.

Another interesting fact is that the world's shortest river also dumps into the missouri close to it's headwaters in central Montana. The river flows from Giant Springs in great falls, Montana for a little over 200 feet and then dumps a substantial flow of crystal clear, clean water into the sometimes muddy Missouri. The mixing is sometimes a striking thing to watch and there is a neat little park there that also has a trout hatchery and you can feed the enormous number of ducks and canada goose that spend large portions of the year in Great Falls. Underrated town with some neat stuff :)

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

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

#60

Post by hedora »

dougmwne wrote: post #40

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…

I've often wondered if it is possible for environmental groups to buy oil drilling rights at auction (to prevent oil companies from buying the wells).

At the very least, it would run up the cost of the mineral rights, making the resulting oil/coal more expensive. In the best case, it would prevent drilling/mining.

Post reply on HN