Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

State ownership of private owners forest carbon credits, injustice of the state

Options
  • 11-06-2015 4:34pm
    #1
    mrduffy
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭


    Do you not think the state should treat private owners of their carbon credits like they do with Irish water ? Irish water is been run for the people from people paying for resource. Should people not pay a charge to private forest owners for sustainable oxygen ?
    And sustainable oxygen is more important than water !
    For example water usage per person can be estimated. Carbon usage can also be measured. BER of house, car usage, engine, electricity, gas.

    I have no private interest in this but I am all for equality ! and fairness !

    The question is should property rights not go to property owner ?
    For example if drill for oil the oil company sells the oil.
    If I grow trees the carbon credits are owned by the state.
    If I grow rapeseed oil, I own the crop not the state.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    No.

    [/thread]


  • Options
    #3
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    First off Irish Water is not charging you for naturally produced water. You can stick a bucket in your garden for free. IW is charging for the delivery of treated water to your house.

    Secondly we can't measure oxygen usage and can't track whose land the oxygen came from.


  • Options
    #4
    mrduffy
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭mrduffy


    If you live in apartment many developments with houses you have no choice in getting natural water or wastage.
    The EU will be fining Ireland for excess carbon, they currently offset private owners forest oxygen against these carbons produced in country from sale of oil, fossil fuels. It is been calculated from agriculture per animal.
    The irish state is calculating carbon credits from private forest owners.


  • Options
    #5
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    mrduffy wrote: »
    The irish state is calculating carbon credits from private forest owners.
    The Irish state also supports private forest owners with pretty generous grant aid. Think of the carbon credits as partial payback.


  • Options
    #6
    mrduffy
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭mrduffy


    Phoebas wrote: »
    The Irish state also supports private forest owners with pretty generous grant aid. Think of the carbon credits as partial payback.

    Interesting you bring up grant aid. The grant aid is given so they loose their right to use land for anything other than forestry for eternity unless grant aid is returned so grant aid is truly an incentive but once converted it stays forest according to law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What about the grants that are already available?

    I have a family member earning 5k per year from land that used to yield 0k per year (rushes and reeds on the riverbank)

    He has a similar parcel of grazing land on an outfarm, making less money from rental income (plus he's paying tax on the rental income, not on the forestry). The forest was also exempt from inheritance tax when he inherited it.

    I think the current grant aid and tax breaks are already fair. Some would say generous, especially for land that is already effectively barren...


  • Options
    #8
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    mrduffy wrote: »
    Interesting you bring up grant aid. The grant aid is given so they loose their right to use land for anything other than forestry for eternity unless grant aid is returned so grant aid is truly an incentive but once converted it stays forest according to law.
    Citation needed.


  • Options
    #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Citation needed.
    In fairness he's right on that point. It must remain forestry forever. And even if you 'buy back' the right to re-use the land, how exactly do you convert a forest into a cornfield?


  • Options
    #10
    mrduffy
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭mrduffy


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    What about the grants that are already available
    Grants are for producing meat and dairy, food. Not sustainable for modern progressive country, these industries are increasing carbon. We have same sex marriage and in future maybe 10 - 15 million people why not sustainable

    I have a family member earning 5k per year from land that used to yield 0k per year (rushes and reeds on the riverbank)
    Wildlife conservation all very good but what about sustainable

    He has a similar parcel of grazing land on an outfarm, making less money from rental income (plus he's paying tax on the rental income, not on the forestry). The forest was also exempt from inheritance tax when he inherited it.
    [/COLOR] Forest good need oxygen, offset from food, entertainment and energy.
    I think the current grant aid and tax breaks are already fair. Some would say generous, especially for land that is already effectively barren...
    Barren land also not producing oxygen not sustainable


  • Options
    #11
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mrduffy wrote: »
    Grants are for producing meat and dairy, food. Not sustainable for modern progressive country, these industries are increasing carbon. We have same sex marriage and in future maybe 10 - 15 million people why not sustainable
    Not trying to be smart but I have no idea what you are saying.

    Forestry is already well-supported through a mixture of grant aid and private demand for the produce. That's all I'm saying.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    mrduffy
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭mrduffy


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Not trying to be smart but I have no idea what you are saying.

    Forestry is already well-supported through a mixture of grant aid and private demand for the produce. That's all I'm saying.

    Please re read my first post. My issue is why the state has to claim carbon credit because a person chooses to grow trees, should the individual not be rewarded for their choice. Example you decide to study to be teacher, you are rewarded. The state does not take away your income for your choice.
    Understand ??? This is a modern progressive country !


  • Options
    #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mrduffy wrote: »
    My issue is why the state has to claim carbon credit because a person chooses to grow trees, should the individual not be rewarded for their choice.
    They are being rewarded for their choice. I already cited my brother being paid to have a parcel of non-arable land set-aside under forestry (tax-free), from which he will realize a private profit anyway. Every farmer I know who is in forestry, is doing it because the particular land under forestry is poor land and not suitable for modern farming, or because he cannot farm the land for other reasons (illness, retirement, alternative commitments) but doesn't want to sell.

    The current regime is the equivalent of handing cash to a stranger, to place into an interest-bearing savings account, for keeps. Of course, there is a benefit to the state too, which gets a bigger carbon allowance.

    Not satisfied with that, you also want the state to wipe-out the benefit it derives from supporting these forests?

    Do you want the state to maintain the payments and tax benefits, and derive no benefit itself?

    Is that it?


Advertisement