[Pretorian]

I own some land, and I calculated that I, and people I care about , burn significantly less oxygen than my land produces. I am not sure how much does it cost nowdays, but I am pretty sure it isnt free.
I also know some people who dont own even a cactus on their window, yet they drive, fly, burn and --you guessed it right---breathe.

[Ludi]

Too bad your state doesn't give you a tax break for producing oxygen. Here in TX we have Open Space Wildlife Management Valuation, which gives an enormous tax break for acreage which is preserved and managed for wildlife. Rumor is the county is planning to grant many more Wildlife Management exemptions because livestock grazing is ruining so much land. This is especially significant here where the rangeland is the watershed for the cities. So it is to the benefit of the cities to promote preservation of the watershed.

You might look into Conservation Land Trusts to see if you can get any kind of tax benefit for preserving your land. Of course then you won't be able to do whatever you want with your land.

[Pretorian]

I own some land, and I calculated that I, and people I care about , burn significantly less oxygen than my land produces. I am not sure how much does it cost nowdays, but I am pretty sure it isnt free.
I also know some people who dont own even a cactus on their window, yet they drive, fly, burn and --you guessed it right---breathe.

so ownership of the land grants you "rights" that others less fortunate than you do not have? Is that correct?

You probably missed last posts about cost of the forested and semi-forested land in Congo. Its $4 per acre. I fugure even the least fortunate can pull out a couple of quarters for (someone else's) oxygen they use.

Even if the land and the "rights" are stolen?

i personally wasnt fortunate enough for that, and frankly not sure what are you even referring to.

That's a mighty sophisticated philosophy you have there Pretorian. I'd be willing to bet you could even utilize it to justify slavery.

Slavery doesn't make much of economical sense due to high aquisition costs, countless maintenance expences, tenure-like employment regardless of labor demand,inability to work with a complicated equipment, and finally outragious amortization costs that fall on the owner. Thats why slavery was abolished. Renting people is much cheaper. But we've been over this many times, werent we?

That's the same argument the timber industry defended their clearcuts with. Even though the sediment washed into my streams, killed my salmon, ruined my economy. I have more than a passing interest in your form of fascism.

Perhaps, if you paid them properly for the oxygen and carbon sequestring the trees would be there standing, have you thought of that?

[Livewire713]

Pretorian you are really a victim. Everywhere you turn someone and something is screwing you or out to screw you.

[Sixstrings]

I own some land, and I calculated that I, and people I care about , burn significantly less oxygen than my land produces. I am not sure how much does it cost nowdays, but I am pretty sure it isnt free.
I also know some people who dont own even a cactus on their window, yet they drive, fly, burn and --you guessed it right---breathe.

Don't want to cause you any sleepless nights, but it's even possible black folks are breathing your air.

[Pretorian]

I own some land, and I calculated that I, and people I care about , burn significantly less oxygen than my land produces. I am not sure how much does it cost nowdays, but I am pretty sure it isnt free.
I also know some people who dont own even a cactus on their window, yet they drive, fly, burn and --you guessed it right---breathe.

Don't want to cause you any sleepless nights, but it's even possible black folks are breathing your air.

Note that I do not claim nitrogen. Gas takes all volume it can get so every last one of them is breathing (and for the most part, burning) my oxygen. Well, except for those who make their own.

Over a 50-year lifetime, a tree generates $31,250 worth of oxygen, provides $62,000 worth of air pollution control, recycles $37,500 worth of water, and controls $31,250 worth of soil erosion.(old numbers unajusted by inflation)

I assume if you or your horse did this amount or work, you'd expect to be paid at least something. Instead I am paying -- for the privilege of doing all that for free for you. Times thousands. And people are surprised that a dead tree is worth more to loggers than alive one.

[dolanbaker]

[Pretorian]

That's the same argument the timber industry defended their clearcuts with. Even though the sediment washed into my streams, killed my salmon, ruined my economy. I have more than a passing interest in your form of fascism.

Perhaps, if you paid them properly for the oxygen and carbon sequestring the trees would be there standing, have you thought of that?

I never had need for the redwood they fell (I milled my own on my own property) so I was unable to be a good capitalist and vote with my wallet. But they ruined my environment nevertheless.

You didnt need the redwood but you needed the enviromental services these trees provided. Aaand you wanted them for free. Hear, hear.

I had/have four instruments to rectify the situation. Donations to do-gooder environmental groups, direct action, political activism, and the ballot box. Guess which solution works the best?

If by direct action you mean paying properly for the services provided I would guess direct action?