RE: Breathe Deep

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Breathe Deep

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Breathe Deep

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 8:22:49 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

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

(in reply to tamaka)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 9:35:53 AM

tamaka

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 12:02:58 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

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

(in reply to tamaka)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 12:05:54 PM

Wayward5oul

Posts: 3314
Joined: 11/9/2014
Status: offline

Count me in.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 12:34:41 PM

tamaka

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

Seriously. Do you think that it could be possible?

(in reply to Wayward5oul)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 1:39:16 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to tamaka)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 1:45:51 PM

tamaka

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 2:13:07 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 2:16:43 PM

tamaka

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

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

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 2:56:06 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to tamaka)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 3:05:16 PM

tamaka

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 7:04:29 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

I'll get my people on it.

(in reply to tamaka)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 7:42:58 PM

tamaka

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'll get my people on it.

Sounds good to me.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Breathe Deep - 7/26/2017 8:11:42 PM

Nnanji

Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

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/

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 34