Guest essay by Eric Worrall
What could be better than owning a large woodland estate, and making a steady income from harvesting timber? Harvesting an additional tithe of taxpayer’s money, of course.
According to the Huffington Post;
America’s Family Forests: Our Climate Change Solution
Last weekend, 195 nations reached a landmark agreement that will commit the world to limiting its greenhouse gas emissions. Throughout the two weeks of negotiations, we saw significant discussion about how investing in forests can be a low cost climate solution. Unfortunately, these discussions often focused on international forests, and assumed that U.S. forests’ ability to sequester carbon will remain the same without any special action.
That’s why today, the American Forest Foundation and The Trust for Public Land, co-chairs of the Forest Climate Working Group, a coalition of landowners, conservation organizations, forestry advocates, forest products companies and scientists delivered a letter to President Obama calling for increased recognition of the critical role American that forests must play in meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets agreed to in Paris.
If we can continue to create incentives that encourage planting trees, managing existing forests, and increasing the demand for wood products, we can ensure we continue to have the necessary carbon sink needed to combat climate change.
We must keep our forests healthy if we are going to meet our emission reduction goals, and America’s forest owners are ready to be part of the climate solution.
Those selfless forest plantation owners are prepared to do their bit – to increase production, to help solve the climate “crisis”, if taxpayers provide “incentives” to help them maintain their plantations, and help them market and sell their products.
Just what America needs – more welfare payments for the already wealthy.
Update – my apology to land owners who are decent, hard working people who have never demanded a government handout, if you felt this post targeted you. That was not the intention.
The reference to “landed gentry” was intended as a critique of those members of the named organisations, who seem to expect the state and taxpayers to provide them with special consideration, because they own a bit of forest. I compared this demand, to the arrogant entitlements of the landed gentry of medieval times, receiving state enforced tithes from the peasants.