[HN Gopher] Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply ... ___________________________________________________________________ Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up? Author : mooreds Score : 138 points Date : 2022-07-21 13:32 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (whoownsengland.org) (TXT) w3m dump (whoownsengland.org) | lbriner wrote: | 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, private | estates etc. and realistically how much of each would need | turning back to nature to make it worthwhile. I don't think that | buying from farmers is impossible, there must be plenty who would | happily sell for market rate + 25% or something, something that | could easily be done by a combination of crowd-funding and | government grants. | radford-neal wrote: | "...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_ than market rate, with some sort of | camouflage to conceal that that 's what's happening. | obowersa wrote: | TL;DR: Sometimes! | | 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. | thatguy0900 wrote: | So if I want to give land to a friend, I can be forced to | sell it if one of these groups have shown interest? That | sounds very strange | obowersa wrote: | At a high level, yes. | | However there are a lot of checks and balances to it. Not | all land falls under the criteria and there's a lot of | requirements around forming a group and the proposed use | of the land ( such as being geographically local /etc ). | | When I last looked into it, I think there'd only been 2 | occurrences of the right to buy happening over a 4 year | period. | | Which does raise the question on 'Does the act achieve | the goals it was setout to achieve' or is it mainly | political posturing. | | That's not something I can really comment on (nor would I | want to). | rlpb wrote: | If it's not possible to sell to a private buyer, how is it | possible to determine a "market rate"? There would be no | market. | Simon_O_Rourke wrote: | 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. | michaelt wrote: | 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... | Simon_O_Rourke wrote: | 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. | Invictus0 wrote: | The Peconic Land Trust is one of the biggest conservation land | trusts in the US, they're doing something similar. | | https://peconiclandtrust.org/about-us | citboin wrote: | Can we create a nonprofit to do this for the Amazon rainforest? | adammarples wrote: | 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. | hedora wrote: | The current leader of Brazil is known as the Trump of South | America. He's actively encouraging illegal logging in the | rainforest, and the rate at which the Amazon is being clear | cut is accelerating rapidly. | | If ever there was a good case for the use of pre-emptive | military force, it's this clown; his actions are directly | destabilizing the world economy and will lead to trillions of | dollars of damage / countless lives lost. | BurningFrog wrote: | 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? | carapace wrote: | We do build things. I'm in SF where we have recently replaced | the Bay Bridge, dug a big ol' tunnel, put up skyscrapers and | luxury condos, etc. | | What we don't do is build housing. (A lot of people blame | NIMBYism for that but the situation is complex.) | | > The lack of power generation, power transmission, and pretty | much any infrastructure you can think of is another. | | A friend of mine drives a Tesla, he says charging stations are | cropping up all over. 5G is rolling out. There is a lot of | aging infrastructure that needs to be repaired, rebuilt, or | retired, but we're not quite Mad Max yet. | | > I agree that there is some conflict of interest between | humans and untouched nature, and I am firmly on the side of us, | humanity! | | I don't agree with that framing. | | First of all, tactically, you're siding with the underdog! :) | | Nature could literally wipe us out in the blink of an eye. A | single hurricane can devastate a whole city in a few hours, | Godzilla-style. | | However, that's not the real reason why I don't think there's a | real conflict of interest. | | The reason is that untouched nature is the only baseline (in | the entire known universe) for _sanity_. We _need_ nature. | | As we enter a computer-mediated "metaverse" or cyberspace, and | especially as we allow our infants and children to grow up in | it, _untouched nature_ will become exponentially more important | as (literal!) grounding for humanity. | | That's why something like E. O. Wilson's Half Earth proposal is | so important ( https://www.half-earthproject.org/ ) | | We only have one biosphere in the entire universe, of course we | should try to preserve it intact and in working order! After | all we have the rest of the solar system to do human stuff, eh? | BurningFrog wrote: | You're probably giving a more thoughtful answer than my rant | deserved :) | | What I was trying to express was said better by Marc | Andreessen "It's Time to Build" manifesto. Read that instead: | https://a16z.com/2020/04/18/its-time-to-build/ | | The Bay Bridge only got built because the old one proved | seismically unsafe, and that took 24 years, with a 2500% cost | overrun, according to Wikipedia. No other bridges will be | build in the SF bay, despite huge needs. | [deleted] | dougmwne wrote: | 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 protection community takes this approach | with just a few outliers like TNC. | hedora wrote: | 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. | dougmwne wrote: | I am pretty sure that's not possible, as the government won't | sell the rights to just anyone, you need to qualify to | participate. Making the government look foolish is not | appreciated and the goal is to incentivize energy production, | not enable trolls and political opponents. Besides, the | rights are expensive and it is comparatively cheap to find | some endangered corals or tie the whole thing up in court. | The extractive industries have way more money than the | greens, so best to skip the bidding war. | ttyprintk wrote: | In Colorado, those rights are detached from land ownership. A | state commission chooses lease parameters and, with some | local consequence, those leases fund rural schools. A better | system might: | | - Fund schools in a different way - Permit mineral rights to | be owned just like private land - Require an insurance policy | for exploration in the event it destroys a well or other | water source | hgomersall wrote: | Land 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. | engineer_22 wrote: | Been a long time since ya'll had a populist revolution. | nibbleshifter wrote: | 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. | lwswl wrote: | this is wrong | toomuchtodo wrote: | Absolutely! | | https://www.landtrustalliance.org/what-you-can-do/conserve-y... | shadowgovt wrote: | There's one aspect of this that the article doesn't note, which | is enforcement. | | 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. | zekrioca wrote: | Exactly, I was going to mention this. Sometimes in large areas, | like the Amazon, it is extremely difficult to monitor and | secure these lands. Regardless if you have satellites and | everything watching it. It is even more complex to safely reach | the areas to stop someone from doing unlawful things. | theptip wrote: | Another option for the UK would be to abolish or substantially | reduce the monarchy, and include a one-off wealth tax on the | aristocracy. | | A huge swathe of the land in the UK is owned by the crown and | individual royals, with ownership lineage being extremely dubious | if you don't accept the concept that the monarchy has a God- | granted right to dominion over the people. | | Taking the crown estate back into the trust of the people would | be a good start. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_... | photochemsyn wrote: | 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... | dogcomplex wrote: | While I agree that natural forests are unlikely to make a | significant dent in CO2 through biological photosynthesis, that | is not necessarily true for all plants. Kelp and Bamboo farming | can do quite a lot more than the average tree with their | extremely high growth rates. Just need to figure out what to do | with the resulting product. Source: I'm in a working group | looking at circular economies with net CO2 loss per cycle, | using kelp for fuel and plastic production, scalable to | Gigatonne levels. | mellavora wrote: | > Take a look at UK energy consumption | | 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. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | It's true that not burning fossil fuels is the simplest and | best place to start, but land use changes can add up, so | shouldn't be totally neglected. | | https://www.wri.org/insights/7-things-know-about-ipccs-speci... | | Methane released from destroying Peatland for example. | [deleted] | midislack wrote: | This is a great scheme to make sure we drive the peasant class | into their pods in their walkable cities. The only thing that | remains is to buy up and destroy all ranch lands and meat | production infrastructure, so these pathetic, scum sucking | peasants are forced to eat the bugs. Until they commit suicide, | assisted or no. | rmbyrro wrote: | > a million acres of peat is owned by just 124 individuals and | organisations | | Probably even more concentrated, since multiple organizations are | likely to be controlled by the same individual(s). | derwiki wrote: | James Hetfield of Metallica was doing something like this in | Marin: | | https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/metallica-james-he... | nightshift1 wrote: | According to the article, he gave the land to preserve it for | agricultural use after failing to build houses on it. | | I guess it's better than nothing but I dont think we should | label this as "Preserved Land". | 0000011111 wrote: | In the US we struggle to protect the land that is already owned | by state and federal agencies. | | For example, each year we spend billions on fire suppression on | public land. And most year more acres burn and the cost | increases. | | https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics | | 5,510,675 Acres Year-to-date Acres Burned | | FY 2021 suppression cost $4,389,000,000 | | Conservation his hard especially in a landscape where we fail to | manage fire effectively. | Mtinie wrote: | While I agree with your assessment given the available data you | shared, I have to wonder if we really have to spend that much? | | From what I understand it's hard to separate how much of that | spend is effective vs. how much of it is "bad money" tied up in | modern forestry cargo cult practices carried over from the last | 100 year. | | With the increasing frequency of megafires in the Western | United States (and other locations around the world) the | discussion has shifted to reconsidering if the existing | paradigm of prioritizing fire prevention over active fire | management (planned burns, building code improvements, etc.) is | in our best interests. | | For example: | | https://www.ctif.org/news/modern-forestry-practices-may-be-p... | | http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?forum-post=preven... | GavinMcG wrote: | This presupposes that fire suppression is an important goal. | Obviously carbon storage is only possible if it isn't all | routinely released as smoke, but it's not obvious to me that | fire reduces carbon capture so much that other alternatives are | better--and preservation may be a net good if other | conservation/recreation/quality-of-life goals are accomplished | alongside carbon capture. | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | 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. | RajT88 wrote: | 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. | idiotsecant wrote: | Devil's advocate - if you don't even live in the country | should you have the right to own property there? | bananarchist wrote: | If you don't live on the property should you have the right | to own it? | RajT88 wrote: | It happens to people who live on the property too, and | have to leave for a while. | | I read about a person who had to go to the US for cancer | treatment and in the interim his otherwise full-time | primary residence was stolen. | donatj wrote: | So you get your money back, and then you use it to buy other | land. Same same? | dotancohen wrote: | Land is not fungible. | pibechorro wrote: | That is a problem of immanent domain and lobby. Remove that and | private reserves work perfectly fine. | arethuza wrote: | 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... | TrueGeek wrote: | Note that this article is about the UK. It discusses your point | in part 3 and goes on to discuss an alternative solution at the | end. There are complex laws as almost all of the land is | privately owned by either private citizens or the crown. | CapitalistCartr wrote: | 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. | jker wrote: | And even in that case, Kelo's land ended up not being used | after all. | cduzz wrote: | The reverse also works. | | People see a block of land that's "unused" so they simply move | there and start "developing" it. Sometimes they'll legally own | the land ("adverse possession") but usually it doesn't matter. | It's theirs because they're there and they're willing to defend | themselves and "their" land even if they don't have a deed. | | So sure, go ahead and buy a bunch of land, in the USA or | elsewhere; you'll need to be prepared to enforce your ownership | stake or lose it. | UncleEntity wrote: | Which is why it is important for the states to pass laws | forbidding this activity after the Supreme Court deemed it | legal (or not prohibited by the constitution) a few years ago. | | And there's a bunch of land for sale outside of the UK which | can be bought and let to go back to prairie or whatever. You | can get 10,000+ acre ranches for a few million in places like | Nebraska and just let some buffalo lounge around. | rootusrootus wrote: | 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. | xeromal wrote: | 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. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Exactly. The more justified infrastructure use cases of the | 20th century gave way to "economic development" crap where | the city takes land it thinks the current owner isn't using | effectively enough and then sells it to their cronies who | promise to build a strip mall or a mixed use development or | whatever (and some number of useful idiots support it | because they like the idea of more taxable commerce). The | government has zero business stomping on people to do the | latter. Just buy the F-ing land outright the normal way if | that's what you want to do. | timmg wrote: | > It's probably for the better. | | Until you want to build a train line (or some other form of | public transportation). | rootusrootus wrote: | I don't disagree, but there are ramifications. A big one | being sprawl. If existing urban/suburban areas are to | remain stagnant, then development will just push outward | into areas where land is cheap and landowners more than | happy to pocket a nice chunk for their former farmland. | Wrap an urban growth boundary around the city, and then you | can stop some of that and instead watch your housing prices | skyrocket. | | Wait a second, I think I just described Portland. | Bloating wrote: | Land Conservation Easements May Prove Misguided | | https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/2001_02/easements.htm | amelius wrote: | Sounds well-intended, but I oppose the idea of 1% of people | owning 99% of the land ... | | And what do we say if Nestle buys all natural water sources to | "protect" them? | stochtastic wrote: | A cautionary tale from personal experience: My parents retired to | a rural area and wanted to ensure that their area would remain a | healthy old growth forest. They have been actively involved in a | land trust that has successfully created large, continuous | corridors throughout the area. One of their contributions was a | continuous strip of about 20 acres. Their community has stitched | these together to create wonderful cycling/walking paths through | the woods, linking up different areas. | | At the start of the pandemic, a developer bought up a large (~200 | acre) tract neighboring them and the corridor. They immediately | clearcut the whole thing, and are building hundreds of tract | houses, cheek by jowl, and have consequently forced the local | government to build additional roads. Guess the big selling point | they use in their website and listings? 'Neighbors a wilderness | trust with extensive woodland paths.' | | Knowing all of this, I'm not sure whether I'd still go through | with the land trust purchases or not. They couldn't have afforded | the 200 acre parcel, and who knows if the developer would have | bought the other 50 acres. All I can say is that it is | dispiriting to see people doing the right thing and having a net | increase in clearcutting at their doorstep. | dogman144 wrote: | Well rural living and by extension preservation has to be | joined with land ownership maps. First thing to check with a | rural purchase must be what it borders. The more | BLM/federal/state/county land, the more likely stuff like the | above doesn't happen. Same issue for building trusts. | h0l0cube wrote: | Make the land private and only allow access to conservation | workers, volunteers and financially contributing members. The | less joggers disrupting the ecosystem the better. | ttyprintk wrote: | I know this may not help now, but to approve such a | development, many counties would require that it is not down | range from a historical or even prospective shooting range. You | might offer every new resident subsidized membership because | they live downrange. | PretzelPirate wrote: | We can also look into reducing the amount of monocropping we do. | If the grain isn't profitable, the land it's grown on will drop | in value, making it easier to purchase and use for re-wilding | efforts. | kickout wrote: | Correct, problem is the most productive land isn't always the | most profitable. That's how you end up with Maize grown in | Western Kansas under dryland conditions. | anonAndOn wrote: | The super wealthy in the US sometimes pull off major conservation | easements. | | Roxanne Quimby, of Burt's Bees fame, slowly purchased land in | Maine over many years then donated an entire National | Monument.[0] She wasn't the first to do this, though. JD | Rockefeller pulled the same trick almost a century prior by | donating a National Park in Wyoming.[1] | | [0]https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/blog/transforming- | kata... [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017 | /12/04... | secretsatan wrote: | I'm sorry, but this seems like a very libertarian view of | conservatism. Like how they tried to solve these problems with | the idea of personal action. We simply don't have the capital to | combat the groups that really couldn't give a fuck | throwaway2a02 wrote: | 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. | arethuza wrote: | 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! | rtkwe wrote: | 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. | marcosdumay wrote: | Are you going to put out the fires that appear on it from time to | time and police it against illegal invaders? | NiceWayToDoIT wrote: | > "just 1% of the population own half the land in England" | | This is idea in same level as quantitative easing, | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing) "Lets give | rich people money so they recover economy" what happens "Rich | people use that money PS895 billion buy stocks, so they inflate | market even more and not even penny trickles down to ordinary | people, so they become even poorer. | | Paying rich people that own land to sequester carbon is equally, | (not sure which word to use) ... evil, diabolic as QE scam for | the rich. Probability is high that they will use that money not | to plant trees but to buy more land, even more increasing gap | between wealthy and poor. | | So, my question is when does wealthy people greed and naivety of | poor ends? | bmitc wrote: | It should be pointed out that conservation and reserves are not | enough. We have got to be _restoring_ land with native plants, in | particular land in urban environments. | | https://homegrownnationalpark.org/ | hprotagonist wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumal%C3%ADn_Park | | sometimes! | andrewmutz wrote: | 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. | nimbius wrote: | Its an unpopular opinion but no. Much as we cannot stop drowning | in water with more water, we cannot extinguish climate change | caused by technocratic neoliberal consumer capitalism with more | of the same. The effort must exist outside a market. it cannot be | commercialized, it exists as an inefficiency, and it remains a | corrective action to right some of the most egregious hubris of | mankinds existence on this planet. ideally it should be done in | silence without marketing, discipline without aggrandizement, and | with remorse. | ch4s3 wrote: | You say that as though no one outside of a market economy every | burned coal or clear cut a forrest. | GavinMcG wrote: | 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. | ch4s3 wrote: | 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 really powerful | levers for fixing some of these problems. | GavinMcG wrote: | It didn't say it was caused by. It said it couldn't be | solved within. | frobishercresc wrote: | Technocratic neoliberal consumer capitalism isn't the only | form of market economy, it's just the form that uses up the | most land without regard to social and environmental impact | because it is inherently focused on capital gains. | ch4s3 wrote: | > uses up the most land | | How are you quantifying that? | frobishercresc wrote: | It's self evident, endless and unchecked profit motives | (neoliberalism) are divorced from considerations of | resource sustainability or genuine social need, it will | always use up more land than market economies with a more | social minded approach. | | If that isn't enough, loss of tree cover since 2001: | | Neoliberal capitalist USA: 16% [1] | | [1] | https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/BRA | | Socialism with Chinese Characteristics China: 6.7% [2] | | [2] | https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/CHN/ | hedora wrote: | 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. | qchris wrote: | 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 States (a lot more land | than in England, and with fewer entrenched ownership | considerations), but I'd really be interested to see if similar | projects would work in other parts of the country that are more | densely populated, or in areas like the California central basin | to where public water resources are being abused to farm a | desert. | | [1] https://www.americanprairie.org/ | CodeWriter23 wrote: | > where public water resources are being abused to farm a | desert | | You are incredibly short-sighted and your implied policy | direction seems to favor human extinction. | | "Over a third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of the | country's fruits and nuts are grown in California." | | https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/ | amalcon wrote: | 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. | ROTMetro wrote: | 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 they promised AND killed all those local | community jobs. Double whammy. Personally I think the Feds | should have to sell all the national forests now since they | did not keep to the promises they made, or at least | renegotiate with the local community. But unlike when these | deals were made, the USA is now a Federal system without any | state rights power, so we just try to keep the roof from | leaking on our school and vote to increase our own taxes to | educate kids. Meanwhile people talk trash about rundown rural | communities and all the unemployed millworkers/miners that | turned to drugs when they lost their job opportunities and | ignore that the entire country broke it's promise to those | people. Imagine the weight of the country choosing to break a | promise and ruin you while making fun of your rundown | ignorant small town po-dunk life, an ant crushed with no- | power to do a thing about it. Lumber is through the roof, yet | the mills are all closing. Because the country hates you, | your way of life, and TOOK all of the land and locked it up | even though it promised not to do that when it took the land. | cactacea wrote: | 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. | otikik wrote: | 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) | dragonwriter wrote: | > 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. | voxic11 wrote: | How is using property to profit private business "for | public use"? | | > "[the decision eliminates] any distinction between | private and public use of property--and thereby effectively | delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings | Clause of the Fifth Amendment." | | > "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court | to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban- | renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of | new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also | suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a | 'public use.'" | dragonwriter wrote: | > How is using property to profit private business "for | public use"? | | Because, as the Supreme Court has consistently held since | interpreting the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to | apply the 5th Amendment's protections against the states | in the first place (without which, the issue would be | moot since absent such application there would be no | federal constraint at all) use in which the state action | is pursuing a legitimate public _purpose_ has been held | to be a "public use". | | Which presumably you already know, because surely you | read the majority opinion in _Kelo_ in the course of | locating and quoting (without attribution) O'Connor's | dissent. | [deleted] | Semiapies wrote: | Some states have set up more restrictive eminent domain laws | since that ruling. | silon42 wrote: | they don't have to use eminent domain, adding/increasing | property tax is enough. | sgtnoodle wrote: | I can't imagine that would actually work if the political | system isn't completely corrupt. | dbingham wrote: | 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] one has been very successful | and is the source of many of the best hikes in my area as well! | | If you want to find similar projects, search for "conservation | community land trust" and you'll find them! Alternately, here's | a handy tool provided by the Land Trust Alliance a quick search | turned up: https://www.landtrustalliance.org/find-land-trust | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_trust | | [3] https://sycamorelandtrust.org/ | gerad wrote: | Here in the Bay Area in Marin County, we have the Marin | Agricultural Land Trust [1]. | | [1] https://malt.org/ | spurgu wrote: | 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 | cromulent wrote: | Also the Helsinki Foundation buys land and then distributes | veto rights to ensure it is never re-sold. | throwaway894345 wrote: | 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 anyone can just give their private land to | the public for use as a wildlife preserve? | | EDIT: I also found this map of protected lands, but I'm having | a hard time discerning between the different colors and I'm | _not_ colorblind. http://www.protectedlands.net/map/ | toast0 wrote: | > 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. | toomuchtodo wrote: | 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. | rootusrootus wrote: | > in perpetuity | | Or until the current owners convince a court of law to | extinguish the conservation easement. | toomuchtodo wrote: | You should research what's required to do so and the odds | of it occurring. Only in rare/limited circumstances can | the easement be terminated, and the IRS has some | oversight into this because of the tax consequences of | these easements (as you can claim a charitable tax | deduction for donating and extinguishing the development | capability of the parcel). | rootusrootus wrote: | I've done the first part [0]. But I don't know an easy | way to assess the second part. Clearly congress intended | for it to be difficult, but the idea that a conservation | easement is in fact permanent should always have an | asterisk next to it. | | [0]: https://www.landcan.org/article/extinguishing- | transferring-a... | giantg2 wrote: | 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. | atourgates wrote: | 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 "carve out" future building sites), and | depending on the goals of the landowner and land trust, | could allow things like agriculture, forestry, recreation | etc.. | | I'm sure there's a conservation easement somewhere that | restricts public access, but I've never seen one. Most | commonly, the land stays inaccessible to the public just | like it was before the easement, but nothing in the legal | language of the easement prohibiting future public | access. | | (One conservation easement manager half-joked that every | easement we do has public access potential, it just might | take a few generations for that potential to be | realized). | | Next, that easement goes through the legal process of | being put into place. Now, that land is subject to the | restrictions of that easement forever. And it's the job | (legal responsibility) of the Land Trust that holds the | easement to regularly monitor the easements they hold, | and make sure they're followed. | | However, the original landowner still owns the land, just | like before. If they sell the land, or someone inherits, | it's still (de facto) private land, just private land | with restrictions as to what can be done on it. | | Now, there are private landowners who want to open their | land to public access, and that's amazing. (We did our | first few public access-specific easements this year at | our comparatively-small land trust, and we're super | excited). There are also times where a landowner puts an | easement on their property, and then sells it to someone | like a local, regional or state institution to be managed | specifically for public access. There was recently a | great story about how private individuals stepped in to | conserve land, and then later transferred it to | Washington State Parks[1]. | | There are also times when a property might transfer | ownership, as well as the easement, to a Land Trust. We | actually have one of these that we basically operate as a | public park. But, that's like less than 2% of the total | easements we hold. | | So, to your points, I guess I would say: | | The process of conservation easements by large | _increases_ the amount of land available for public | access and recreation, not decreases it. And if anyone is | becoming a tenant farmer, it's the landowner choosing to | become a tenant themselves. | | There are times when an outside entity might purchase the | easement from the landowner, but again, the landowner's | not forced into that transaction. | | 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best- | states/washington/articles/... | wolpoli wrote: | Thanks for the detailed information. I am curious here: | After an easement is added to the property, who has the | ability to cancel the easement? Or is an easement non- | removable forever? | atourgates wrote: | I don't work on the legal side, but easements are | generally designed to be permanent forever, with some | caveats. | | For example, I believe most conservation easements have | some language that allows them to be essentially "moved" | in certain circumstances. Say the city needed to build a | road through an easement - than that easement could be | exchanged for a similar parcel that was conserved in a | similar manner nearby or similar. | | But outside of that and similar narrow exceptions, | conservation easements are generally designed to be | forever. | giantg2 wrote: | 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. | atourgates wrote: | > "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." | | Because they're community-minded, and doing that aligns | with their values? | | Our small local land trust is currently in the final | stages of two easements brought to us by private | landowners who wanted to open their land to the public. | One of them was I would say "community" oriented, in that | their land had been informally open to the public, and | they wanted to formalize that access, and use it to | educate the public on the value of the ecosystems in | place there. | | The other is I would say is also community minded, but | coming more from a place of principle in that they | believe more people opening their land to public use is | the right thing to do, and what we should be doing as a | society. | | It also helps that in our state, liability for public | access is essentially zero, and we have very strong legal | protections for landowners who open their land. | | > Is there some choice in there? Not much if you want | land. | | Don't buy land that's encumbered by an easement? But it's | gonna cost you more. | | IDK about your friend's specific situation, but one of | the big benefits of agricultural easements is that they | significantly reduce the value of the land, allowing | (perhaps) people like your friend to afford to buy farm | land who wouldn't otherwise be able to. | | In the area we operate, agricultural land has shot up | from about $5K/acre, to $20K+/acre in less than a decade. | At those prices, no family farmers can afford to buy farm | land, and the only people who can farm are multi- | generational farming families who bought land decades ago | and haven't sold out yet, or large corporate farms. | | But that price increase is being driven by developers who | want to build houses. Take away that ability, and | suddenly new farmers just starting out can afford to buy | some land to farm on. | | True, they don't have the freedom to turn around and sell | that land to housing developers, but I think that hardly | turns them into serfs. | toomuchtodo wrote: | The land absolutely can be open to the public in this | model, it just can't be developed. | giantg2 wrote: | 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. | rootusrootus wrote: | 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 easement can be removed. So | the value will be impacted, but the land will still have | some residual development value. | giantg2 wrote: | 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. | mcguire wrote: | Several years ago there was a kerfuffle in Texas: The | Nature Conservancy had traded a piece of land, that had | been donated to it, to the state parks and wildlife | department with the understanding that the land was going | to be under their conservation regime. Several years later, | TPWD was reportedly considering selling the land to a group | to form a hunting reserve. I don't recall how it ended (but | I suspect the sale did not go through), but there were | threats floating around that the Nature Conservancy would | no longer make those kinds of trades with Texas. | yonaguska wrote: | Interesting, because a hunting reserve is probably one of | the easiest ways to actually monetize conservation and | allow it to pay for itself. | jen20 wrote: | > I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife | agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could | provide. | | This largely depends on whether an NGO is more trustworthy | than the party in control of the federal government when it | comes to conservation. Half the time, the answer seems to be | "yes". | throwaway894345 wrote: | To be clear, my intended implication wasn't "NGOs are | untrustworthy", but rather that "the federal government is | a lot more likely to be around in 50 years than an NGO". I | was also assuming that donating the lands to a federal | program implied that the federal government couldn't just | turn around and sell the land a few years later, although | that might be naive on my part. | idiotsecant wrote: | >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 | ekidd wrote: | > _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 works in | the long term if the land becomes part of a national park or | other protected reserve. | | In the US, conservation is often handled by "land trusts," | private non-profits that protect land, and make it available | for public uses. One common strategy is for two land trusts | to work together: One will own the land, and the second will | own a "conservation easement" that prevents the land from | being developed. This reassures land donors that their wishes | will be protected. | | Local land trusts are often very popular. Almost everybody | likes to have some scenic walking paths. Local businesses | also like being able to hand out trail maps to their | customers. But some land trusts also protect working land: I | know of a protected fishing warf that is used by many small | commercial fisherman. In other towns, land trusts may protect | a certain amount of farmland. | | The most entertaining case I know of is a land trust that | maintains a trail system for ATV vehicles. They acquired the | land to protect some key bird habitat. But the parcel also | included a separate wooded area that was popular with ATV | users. So they said, "Hey, ATVs are a public recreational | use, and we have plenty of other land that _doesn 't_ allow | them. So why not let people keep doing that here?" | | I think that's one important trick to running a successful | land trust: Make sure that you serve a wide variety of | community needs. Set aside land for conservation, for | walking, and to preserve traditional working land. And try to | support a wide variety of recreational uses. | hutzlibu wrote: | "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) | ekidd wrote: | 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 for | ways to serve the entire community. Probably very few | land trusts will ever find themselves owning ATV trails. | But it's good for them to think about what public needs | they _can_ serve, even if the answers are sometimes | surprising. | jandrewrogers wrote: | > I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife | agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could | provide. | | The Federal government is not a reliable steward of public | wilderness lands. Their incentives and motivations are quite | different from a purpose-built NGO. In practice an NGO can | offer a much more consistent and aligned implementation of | objectives. | aporetics wrote: | Example: Bears Ears National Monument | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument? | w... | loonster wrote: | It's just as hard to undo something as it is to do | something. A proclamation by a president is a very low | bar. | | A better method would be by law. That would require a | future president, house, and Senate to agree. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-21 23:01 UTC)