Nonsense. That a socialized pricing system exists doesn't make it so. Just because Gretchen Daley came up with a flawed theory doesn't mean that the observations upon which it is based are totally wrong. Her observation was correct, but her corrective action was an abomination. That a bunch of crooks jumped on her bandwagon only makes it worse.
You still don't get it. A true mitigations market would be a boon to private property owners. If people want the results of the management services they provide, they should pay for them instead of running to mommy government demanding they be forced to provide it free in the name of public safety.
For the past hundreds of years in the United States, England and before that the Roman Empire, regulation of the use of privately owned property was governed by the maxim: “sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas — each one must so use his own as not to injure his neighbor. The limits of government’s authority to regulate the use of private property was the prevention of substantial injury to public health, safety (or morals.) This limitation was a reserved individual right and the authority to regulate beyond that was never delegated to local, state or federal government.
http://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/tableoc4.html
Through the signature of the United States on the Migratory Bird Treaty and other treaties, private ownership became somehow subject to regulation for the protection of endangered species habitat, etc. Suddenly, private property became burdened with public trust and the idea that the people at large owned all the natural resources and individual use was simply a conditional privilege.
For instance a requirement in the new suction dredge mining regs was that the miner prove he was not harming fish in order to mine. This turns the whole foundation of regulation on its head.
CA now embraces “Total Resources Management”: “A planning and decision making process that coordinates resource use so that the long term sustainable benefits are optimized and conflicts among users are minimized. IRM [Integrated Resource Management] brings together all resource groups rather than each working in isolation to balance the economic, environmental, and social requirements of society.”
Governments, agencies, appointed boards are now considered the “resource managers,” rather than the land owner.
The 2010 State Action Plan indicates that old laws and policies were created when natural resources were considered abundant and resilient. “Climate change, growth, and increased competition for these resources require a new era of strategic thinking, leadership, and unifying policies and actions designed to preserve and restore our natural resources for long-term sustainability and for the benefits of all citizens.
The components of an ecosystem (hydrology, biology, geology and social systems) interact to create “ecosystem services.” These include: clean air and water; reducing the severity of floods, droughts, winds and waves; detoxification and decomposition of wastes; soil and soil fertility; pollination; control of agricultural pests; dispersal of seed; nutrient cycling; biodiversity; protection from ultraviolet rays; stabilization of climate change; moderation of temperature extremes; diverse human cultures; beauty and spiritual sustenance. Ecosystems must be managed for diversity and resilience to allow them to respond to change and continue to provide ecosystem services to humans and other populations over the long term.
The new management approach will have greater public involvement, emphasize “inclusiveness” and integrate federal, state, tribal, regional and local goals. Integration of management efforts will incrementally become more commonly used as “traditional methods fail to achieve anticipated results” causing a collapse of the old management system. Further work will be done to define specific ecosystem services of benefit to the public and to determine the management strategies that need to be in place to sustainably produce those services.
Control over use constitutes one of the fundamental values of property. Every property owner has been losing control over their property ever since. To sell off mitigations as services, places control in another’s hands.
State agencies are also touting the True Cost Pricing approach promoted by Ecotrust.
“When prices for socially and environmentally destructive products do not reflect the externalities created during their production, they send false market signals. When pollution of air, water, and soil is essentially free, products that pollute heavily will be over-consumed relative to cleaner products. When poor labor practices are essentially free, products that employ them will be over-consumed relative to those produced fairly. Ignoring externalities leads to systemic problems — environmental contamination, unsafe neighborhoods, urban sprawl, degradation of forests, fisheries, and farmland, etc. — because each individual has pursued the cheapest prices rather than minimizing the actual cost to society.
“True Cost Pricing greatly favors the products and services of reliable prosperity. By imposing green taxes on the degradation of nature, incentives for resource efficiency, renewable energy, and better materials cycles are generated. Gradually reducing existing subsidizes for dams, water-extravagant agriculture, highways, mining, and grazing would create additional incentives.”
I believe the whole environmental scheme smacks of socialism and undermines our basic individual right to own private property.