Depends a lot on what government you're dealing with. A few years ago some conservationists bid on and won some mineral rights but the government invalidated their bid when they realized they weren't going to be extracting it.
Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
111–120 of 156 posts
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 re…
It didn’t say it was caused by. It said it couldn’t be solved within.
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As someone who lives in a county with National Forests, this is a huge issue. Originally the deal was the Feds could have national forests, but make up for missing property tax/economic activity with logging grants, mineral right grants, and paying a portion of the money the feds made from that to the local community. Then for environmental reasons the feds just stopped allowing anything on the land and paying what t…
I've spent the majority of my life living in rural areas. I've also spent a ton of time on public land in just about every state west of the Mississippi. The lack of historical context and understanding of the economics of resource extraction here is staggering.
1 - Guess who the land belonged to before the federal government? It wasn't the states. I reject your assertion that localities are even entitled to a say here beyond the federal democratic process. Almost all of the land in question was open to claim at one point - nobody did so and ownership was retained by the government.
2 - It's absolutely laughable to say that they "just stopped allowing anything on the land". In certain areas maybe but as a blanket statement that's absolutely incorrect. As a personal anecdote, one of my favorite spots to pick berries in western WA was clear cut just this past summer. I'll never visit that spot again in this lifetime. But hey, someone got paid a couple of bucks so I guess that's a net positive for the country. Don't even get me started about cattle ranchers and the damage they've done.
3 - Those jobs were based on extracting a resource that didn't belong to them and that takes decades to recover, if ever. Why should the rest of us let (in your words) some po-dunk town clear cut everything in sight when the rest of us can make our living without destroying everything from sea to shining sea?
4 - Should we help them out now that the economics have changed? Sure, absolutely, totally support that. However economies built on resource extraction have never been sustainable long-term, what's the point in doubling down on what already failed? I also disagree with your supposition that federal restrictions is what hollowed out these towns, the fundamental economics of resource extraction is why they've failed to be sustainable over the long term.
5 - I actually agree with you on one thing at least: put all it up for sale at a fair price. All national forests, all BLM land - everything that isn't wilderness or a national park. While the cattle ranchers, miners, and loggers will get a bit I can guarantee that conservationists will buy more. Leases are a sweetheart deal to extractors and always have been. Why should they buy what they can lease for basically nothing? The extractors would fight your proposal harder than anyone else.
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#114Earlier 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.
I volunteer with a regional land trust, and I think you're maybe misunderstanding the conservation easement process, or at least it's typical application. The typical process is: Private Landowner Decides they want to conserve their land. They work with a Land Trust to define, and put in place the restrictions of that conservation easement. Those typically restrict development (though the landowner can in some cases…
I understand all that perfectly fine.
I didn't say that I would decrease public land, simply that these organizations should focus on making the conserved land public. Often times land is willed to the trust and then the trust sells it. This keeps it in private circulation when it could be made public access.
Why would a private individual go through the legal risks of opening their land to the public? I highly doubt these lands will become public access in the future as there's zero incentive for it, despite the joke you stated.
Land is finite. By placing the restriction on some parcels, that makes it much less likely to find unrestricted parcels due to the demand. Also, people don't live forever. Putting a restriction on future generations is not something of their choosing.
My experience with these land trusts has been negative. A friend bought one that permits agricultural use. They wanted to put down gravel in an area for that purpose. The trust said that couldn't do that because it's impermeable... perhaps we can go to the desert and leave you there for a few days with 5 gallons of water poured on a gravel pile. If it's really impermeable, then you'll be fine. The point is, you have to deal with idiots like this and risk getting into legal battle that will exhaust your resources to enforce your (limited) rights on the land.
If effect you end up with extremely powerful organizations that have rights over an increasing amount of land, while the "owners" have to bear all the costs and comply. Sounds a lot like being a serf or tenant farmer to me. Is there some choice in there? Not much if you want land. The vast majority of people can't afford real land in the areas where these trusts (and billionaires) are operating, pricing them out due to the constrained supply.
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This seems like it would inevitably lead to a limited number of entities owning almost all the conservation land. Stripping it of development value in perpetuity ought to lower the value considerably, making it easier for an interested party to accumulate it. Maybe in hopes that some day they'll figure out how to undo that restriction. Edit: On second thought, after doing a quick bit of research, the conservation eas…
Generally the easement can't be removed except by the trust that owns those rights, and that's not something they will want to give up. So yes, these organizations will eventually hold the rights to vast amounts of land, with limited oversight (compared to a municipality or other democratic org), while the "owner" paying the taxes and upkeep on the land can be individuals (not the org). And yes, the value of that land tends to go down slightly. But it constrains supply which causes all the other land to increase.
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#116In 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…
There are actually quite a few community land trusts [1,2] out there. They can be conversation focused, housing focused, or focused on other priorities. But they all have similar structures - non-profits that are focused on acquiring some level of ownership over large tracts of land so that they can manage that land to achieve a goal (conservation, keeping housing affordable, etc). My local conservation focused [3] o…
Here in the Bay Area in Marin County, we have the Marin Agricultural Land Trust [1].
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
they don't have to use eminent domain, adding/increasing property tax is enough.
I can't imagine that would actually work if the political system isn't completely corrupt.
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#118Land ownership as a concept sits uneasily with me. Much of the land is owned by people who are descendents of Henry VIII's cronies after it was taken from the monasteries. More is owned by descendents of those that got wealthy through the slave trade.
Given that land is essentially finite, my view is that the closest thing to ownership should be a form of stewardship with certain rights.
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#119this is wrong
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As someone who lives in a county with National Forests, this is a huge issue. Originally the deal was the Feds could have national forests, but make up for missing property tax/economic activity with logging grants, mineral right grants, and paying a portion of the money the feds made from that to the local community. Then for environmental reasons the feds just stopped allowing anything on the land and paying what t…
I am sorry this has happened to you.
I must point out that a lot of your post feels written by a Native American. Their story is also about broken promises and land (and other deplorable things)