nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Who owns the soil

Poor Farmer in the hills

How far do property rights go down into the ground? I know when you own lands you dont own the mining rights, do you own the soil? the subsoil?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

In principle you own the land right down to the center of the earth, and also the airspace above your land. But there are many exceptions to this created by statute including, as you point out, mineral rights.

rock22

Check out "Roughing it" by Samual Clements ( mark Twain).
He relates a story of two farmers in court after a landslide. One owned the land on the hill the other the land in the valley. The first claimed that his land had moved and he now owned the farm in the valley.

Poor Farmer in the hills

The reason I am asking is because there is currently a lot of debate about carbon stored in soils and especially peatlands. Land owners will be encouraged to store and accumulate carbon in the future. These stores will be used in the future to offset emissions from intensive agriculture and industry. My contention is that the farmers who own this store of carbon and add to it should be paid for this activity and it should not be used on a national basis to "balance the books" and allow unsustainable practices to continue. I would love to hear other peoples take on this.

3DataModem

Poor Farmer in the hills wrote: »

I would love to hear other peoples take on this.

The environmental trade offs we are currently doing between credits and debits will become irrelevant once we learn how to control the magic balls of everlasting energy that we can already make (i.e. nuclear power). Already relatively safe and relatively clean, once the real cost of the current fossil fuels are visible to all ... the world goes back to nuclear.

In the meantime, carbon fixing which is currently about $100 per ton at industral scale, will get cheaper, and the soil / plant solutions will be bypassed for more exotic fixing directly into fuel.

bobbyy gee

Poor Farmer in the hills wrote: »

The reason I am asking is because there is currently a lot of debate about carbon stored in soils and especially peatlands. Land owners will be encouraged to store and accumulate carbon in the future. These stores will be used in the future to offset emissions from intensive agriculture and industry. My contention is that the farmers who own this store of carbon and add to it should be paid for this activity and it should not be used on a national basis to "balance the books" and allow unsustainable practices to continue. I would love to hear other peoples take on this.

carbon in soil is already there they are talking about planting trees to take out carbon

Peregrinus

Poor Farmer in the hills wrote: »

The reason I am asking is because there is currently a lot of debate about carbon stored in soils and especially peatlands. Land owners will be encouraged to store and accumulate carbon in the future. These stores will be used in the future to offset emissions from intensive agriculture and industry. My contention is that the farmers who own this store of carbon and add to it should be paid for this activity and it should not be used on a national basis to "balance the books" and allow unsustainable practices to continue. I would love to hear other peoples take on this.

The carbon stores aren't "used in the future" to offset emissions. Its the very act of capturing the carbon in the soil (or in plants) that offsets emissions.

This is basically how carbon trading works. If A is going to engage in some activity that will discharge 1t of carbon into the atmosphere, he pays B to plant long-lasting trees which will take 1t of carbon out of the atmosphere, and the net effect is carbon neutrality (at least, until the trees die). But they have to be new trees; C, who already has trees representing 1t of carbon standing on his land can't "sell" the carbon capture value of those trees to A, because doing that does nothing to offset the 1t that A will be discharging.

So, if you own land, you can't do anything with the carbon already captured in or on that land. But if your land has the capacity to absorb and permanently retain more carbon, you can certainly monetise that.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

In principle you own the land right down to the center of the earth, and also the airspace above your land. But there are many exceptions to this created by statute including, as you point out, mineral rights.

Oh, the old ad coelum doctrine, must send Michael O Leary a bill for all the use of my property he enjoys

Joking aside the doctrine was limited (towards the sky anway) by the Bernstein vs Skyviews and General Ltd [1978] QB 479 case in England and Wales where it was held an owner of land has rights in the air space above his land only to such a height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it.

I wonder has any such distinction been made here, the Supreme Court in 1999 in the Butler vs Dublin Corporation [1999] IESC 1999 case seemed to reaffirm the old from heaven to hell rule subject only to other competing rights and not causing a nuisance.

On a side note there was a doctrine of ancient lights which dealt with rights to natural light, today you can apply to a court to gain such an easement after 12 years continuous enjoyment of light on your property.

Meathman12

3DataModem wrote: »

Already relatively safe and relatively clean, once the real cost of the current fossil fuels are visible to all ... the world goes back to nuclear.

Isnt Nuclear so expensive that states are massively subsidising them.
How does the cost of nuclear compare with
Solar
Wind
Hydro.

Mod
Interesting topic but perhaps to wide for this thread