Posted on October 21, 2019



Planning UN-opolis

IPCC's property rights problem


Daniel Clark



When the Roman emperor Nero proposed to construct a city of palaces called Neropolis in honor of himself, the Senate objected, for the reason that the land he wanted was already occupied. Nero's plan required the destruction of one third of Rome, which was never approved, but which happened to occur anyway, in the most convenient conflagration of the pre-Janet Reno era. So the emperor was able to build his palaces after all.

Thankfully, the United Nations doesn't wield that kind of power, but its aims are not too dissimilar, as can be seen in the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, "Climate Change and Land." In it, the IPCC does not come right out and advocate the abolition of property rights, because it only fleetingly contemplates the private ownership of land in the first place.

Although the report incessantly cites "sustainable land management" as the key to reversing the detrimental environmental effects of "land use change," not until Chapter 7 does it bother to consider the problem of sustainably managing land that belongs to someone else. "[W]here land is in different ownership structures, different mechanisms will be required," it says. "Indeed, land tenure is recognized as a factor in barriers to Sustainable Land Management and an important Governance consideration."

Or, to paraphrase Hedley Lamarr, there's only one thing standing between them and all that land -- the rightful owners. To dispel any doubt of it, the authors include a table entitled, "Policies/Instruments that address multiple land-climate risks at different jurisdictional levels." Among those items in the "Policy/Instrument" column that it deems important to "Sustainable Land Management" are taxes, subsidies, regulations, and "Land ownership laws (reform of, if necessary, for secure land title, or access/control)."

These are policy instruments meant to be used at the national level. The UN has neither the intention nor the wherewithal to exercise them itself. The threat lies in the fact that America's oldest and largest political party shares the IPCC's eco-tyrannical vision.

Democrat presidential candidates have unanimously endorsed their party's "Green New Deal," one of the goals of which is "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible." Toward this end, the candidates are proposing new subsidies that would pay farmers to adopt what Bernie Sanders calls "sustainable agricultural practices" like no-till farming, and planting "cover crops" during the winter, as if the government knows better how to run a farm than those farmers who are not already employing these methods. Sanders, along with opponents Cory Booker and Andrew Yang, is even proposing to compel Americans to curtail our meat consumption through punitive taxation, in order to reduce the amount of land that is needed to produce livestock.

When the government starts "working collaboratively" with its citizens to do things it wants to do and they don't, how do you suppose that will work out? Our "voluntary compliance" with income tax laws ought to give you a hint. A collaborative effort between a citizen and his government about how to use his property works out pretty much the same as a collaborative effort between you and the IRS.

They won't jump directly to land confiscation, of course. It will be more gradual than that. They'll start by depriving people of the ability to develop and use their land, even while they still legally own it. They already do this in some cases under the guise of protecting endangered species. If you can have your property rights nullified for disrupting the habitat of some allegedly endangered rat, then how much easier is it to justify such an action on the basis that you're endangering the entire world by contributing to "climate change?"

The possibilities are nearly endless. Might you want to remove some trees from your property, thereby contributing to increased atmospheric CO2 levels? Thinking about starting a ranch or a dairy farm, and increasing the world's population of methane-belching cows? Tisk, tisk. You'll need to be forced to work collaboratively with your government to manage your land more sustainably. Who knows? Perhaps in the end you'll decide it's better to work collaboratively on a wind farm instead.

Like Nero, the eco-tyrants are determined to build their utopia, knowing that it will require the destruction of what already exists, and with a resolute callousness toward the plight of their victims. Like him, they'll probably even dream up some excuse to blame it all on the Christians.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar