That is the NYSE plan to allow for public trading of companies that basically trade nature, similar to the plan to trade carbon offsets. Only way it works is if you destroy or degrade somewhere else, and buy some type of offset in the company to manage or restore other areas. Maybe a good money laundering scheme, too? Otherwise, it would be a great short!
How would that be valued? On some level, we have that with private timber land owning companies that own and manage lands (although not always in sync with an ecosystem; see southern pine plantations) and sell hunting rights.
I didn't see BLM in there, though. That would require far more than just an SEC filing. Not that the SEC isn't corrupt or have a revolving door between regulators and big institutions.
When RCWs were listed in the late 1980s, it didn't preserve or save them, it resulted in many scared landowners not wanting to have Federal overreach onto their private lands just clear cut all the longleaf pine on their lands to rid themselves of the endangered bird so they wouldn't have had to deal with the Endangered Species Act. Could a company like this have helped? Maybe?
If it worked for existing private lands, then I say go for it, but I do see struggles related to profitability. It shouldn't be used to justify selling any large tracts of public lands to private companies. Perhaps it could be used to help restore and re-establish existing public lands to functioning ecosystems, but again profitably? Well, that only seems to work with regulation that forces another landowner to buy some type of offset.
The purpose of the company is to
actively manage, maintain, restore (as
applicable), and grow the value of
natural assets and their production of
ecosystem services.
How would that be valued? On some level, we have that with private timber land owning companies that own and manage lands (although not always in sync with an ecosystem; see southern pine plantations) and sell hunting rights.
I didn't see BLM in there, though. That would require far more than just an SEC filing. Not that the SEC isn't corrupt or have a revolving door between regulators and big institutions.
On the one hand, it sounds like a good idea, on the other it seems like things always have unintended consequences that make things worse. How do you save one area by not destroying another?The
financing gap for biodiversity is
estimated between US$598 and US$824
billion per year 7 and for climate change
is estimated at over US$5 trillion per
year, 8 and likely an order of magnitude
larger for the transition to a more
sustainable, resilient, and equitable
economy. 9
When RCWs were listed in the late 1980s, it didn't preserve or save them, it resulted in many scared landowners not wanting to have Federal overreach onto their private lands just clear cut all the longleaf pine on their lands to rid themselves of the endangered bird so they wouldn't have had to deal with the Endangered Species Act. Could a company like this have helped? Maybe?
If it worked for existing private lands, then I say go for it, but I do see struggles related to profitability. It shouldn't be used to justify selling any large tracts of public lands to private companies. Perhaps it could be used to help restore and re-establish existing public lands to functioning ecosystems, but again profitably? Well, that only seems to work with regulation that forces another landowner to buy some type of offset.
Statistics: Posted by Jim_H — Feb 09 2024 9:25 am
