RE: Breathe Deep (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 8:22:49 AM)

I've long proposed that instead of paying farmers to leave their fields fallow, we pay them to grow trees.



tamaka -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 9:35:53 AM)

Perhaps we should all pay people who own land and are willing to maintain large trees on it.



Musicmystery -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 12:02:58 PM)

As a land owner with large trees, I'm all for this.



Wayward5oul -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 12:05:54 PM)

Count me in.



tamaka -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 12:34:41 PM)

Seriously. Do you think that it could be possible?



Musicmystery -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 1:39:16 PM)

You mean would a Republican Congress bent on cutting cost (or at least so it says) undertake a new expenditure for a plan that doesn't currently exist?

Seems unlikely.



tamaka -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 1:45:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You mean would a Republican Congress bent on cutting cost (or at least so it says) undertake a new expenditure for a plan that doesn't currently exist?

Seems unlikely.


That's true.



MrRodgers -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 2:13:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Yes and big corporations don't have much interest in planting trees. There's no money in it.


There's plenty of money in lumber.

However, planting trees won't cut it, much of the O2 comes from the oceans. It might help a little but it is not a solution.

T^T

Half of the world's oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis. (ocean) The other half is produced via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants. (land)

HERE



tamaka -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 2:16:43 PM)

Then you figure there should be some incentive for land owners to plant trees instead of build houses.



Musicmystery -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 2:56:06 PM)

That would be expensive.

Less expensive (but still costly) would be to relieve forest owners of property taxes. Some would develop, some would keep the woods. But often owners are forced to develop by economic constraints.

Here, often people with large tracts will turn it into conservation easements. It's still theirs, but now forever conservation land, and eases the tax burden.

One of our properties is part of a huge country block with conservation land in the middle. We have a trust, and still owe taxes, but with dozens of us paying jointly.



tamaka -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 3:05:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That would be expensive.

Less expensive (but still costly) would be to relieve forest owners of property taxes. Some would develop, some would keep the woods. But often owners are forced to develop by economic constraints.

Here, often people with large tracts will turn it into conservation easements. It's still theirs, but now forever conservation land, and eases the tax burden.

One of our properties is part of a huge country block with conservation land in the middle. We have a trust, and still owe taxes, but with dozens of us paying jointly.



Yes that makes sense. They should do something along those lines.



Musicmystery -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 7:04:29 PM)

I'll get my people on it.



tamaka -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 7:42:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'll get my people on it.


Sounds good to me.



Nnanji -> RE: Breathe Deep (7/26/2017 8:11:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You mean would a Republican Congress bent on cutting cost (or at least so it says) undertake a new expenditure for a plan that doesn't currently exist?

Seems unlikely.

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/trees-america-100-years-ago/



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875