71–80 of 156 posts
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 f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Devil's advocate - if you don't even live in the country should you have the right to own property there?
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 f…
I think you are missing the big picture.
Look at all of the oil/gas pumped out of the Earth by the UK (North Sea). Guess what, most of it gets burned.
Measured this way, UK contribution to carbon is even larger than the very nice source you provide.
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…
So its a little more complex and a little bit more nuanced.
The mechanism is part of the land reform policy and called the ‘Community Right To Buy’.
Ahead of time, a community body (which has a legal definition) can register an interest in buying qualifying land. All of these notes of interest are available from the registers of scotland and has to be renewed regularly/etc.
At the point that a landowner indicates to the land register that a piece of land is to be transferred (which could be due to public sale, or a private sale or direct transfer), the bodies with notes of interest are notified.
This then kicks off a whole process, including an independent market price evaluation, reviewing of land development/business plans and if that all goes through, final ministerial approval.
It can lead to land being sold at less than the offers over price (scotland has a weird way of doing land/property sales), or for more, depending on if the land transfer was a public sale or a private shift around.
Its not a perfect system and has a lot of flaws, but its worth being aware of the implementation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The land absolutely can be open to the public in this model, it just can’t be developed.
At least in my experience, th orgs near me buy the land, place restrictions on it, then sell it. Only rarely do they hold it and open it to the public.
Edit: On second thought, after doing a quick bit of research, the conservation easement can be removed. So the value will be impacted, but the land will still have some residual development value.
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. 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 wo…
Because loud ATV engines are opposite to the goal of protecting bird habitats?
In general I agree for multi recreational use, but maybe with something less disturbing?
(like using electric engines only for example)
On a small scale, this sort of thing can work (modulo the criticisms the post highlights). On massive scales... It's not just the cost of land, it's the cost of paying people to patrol that land to prevent poaching.
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.
Or until the current owners convince a court of law to extinguish the conservation easement.