this is wrong
What are you going to do? Abolish structural privileges we granted to land owners?
Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
151–156 of 156 posts
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#152Land would be sold much more frequently if inheritance tax weren't so easy to dodge. If you had to give up 40% of your land every generation, big estates would quickly shrink and be sold on the open market. So the solution is for the government to tighten up inheritance tax law. Specifically, I would make a new law that if any asset hasn't been part of an inheritance (and had tax paid) for 100 years, then 40% tax bec…
I have always wondered why inheritance taxes require liquidation of assets, that is unnecessary pain. Just grant the government an ownership stake to land, assets and businesses which the inheritor can buy back over time.
Because the government doesn't want one third of a solid silver cutlery set handed down your family for generations... But they do want it's cash value.
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So why not let people keep doing that here?" 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)
Happily, they actually closed all the existing ATV trails that went anywhere near the bird habitat. And the ATV woodlot itself was not a significant conservation target. (And the ATV use was long-standing.) A successful local land trust relies on both small donations and a certain measure of political support. Many towns exempt them (partially or fully) from property taxes, so I feel it's admirable for them to look f…
"But it's good for them to think about what public needs they can serve, even if the answers are sometimes surprising."
Oh, to this I can very much agree, also that compromises are important. There would be no use of closing everything down officially, to only then have people do it illegal with a worse impact. (but I am still dreaming of the day, when all the noisy engines are gone in nature..)
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And even in that case, Kelo's land ended up not being used after all.
But Kelo didn't get it back.
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easily solved with markets: Charge a carbon recapture tax equivalent to direct air capture of 150% of the product's greenhouse emissions. (This is affordable; it'd end up being about $1/gallon of gas tax.) Getting our corrupt government to actually do that is another story, even with > 60% of the population calling for drastic, urgent action.
If France is anything to go buy the population only call for drastic action when they don’t have to pay for it themselves. Start putting up gas prices and see what happens.
Well, gas just jumped $2 for no good reason. Leaders could take half to avoid the literal collapse of civilization, then blame Putin for the price hike.
Alternatively, they could end all fossil fuel subsidies, and use that money instead.
Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 he…
1. And? The Feds made a promise when they created the Federal Forests. Are you saying they should not be required to follow to agreements set when they created the national forests?
2. Yes, they have completely stopped taking bids for timber harvest in my area. My country is screwed financially by this. Cattle ranchers existed as part of your arguement 1, so either you support argument one and are OK with cattle ranchers, or your argument in 1 is invalidated by your position on cattle ranchers.
3. Because the Federal government made this promise as the foundation of establishing these lands.
4. This is a lie. We have had no issues in my county with sustainable, you just made that up. The loggers definitely REQUIRE is be sustainable at this point to ensure employement, it's not 1800s wild west.
5. God I only say that being reactionary. I'm a hippie (even if my post doesn't show it), I love the national forests.