Buying a Coal Mine Gets Easier!
Long time readers will know that I have been advocating for buying a coal mine and shuttering it, especially a coal mine in India or China. The basic idea is that there are plenty of coal mines which are barely profitable so buying and shuttering these mines could be a relatively cheap way to reduce air pollution and climate change (much cheaper, for example, then letting the coal mine produce and then paying for carbon extraction). (I give an example of how this might work with an actual coal mine for sale here).
One objection, which I noted earlier, was BLM use it or lose it rules:
There are also some crazy “use it or lose it” laws that say that you can’t buy the right to extract a natural resource and not use it. When the high-bidder for an oil and gas lease near Arches National Park turned out to be an environmentalist the BLM cancelled the contract! That’s absurd. The high-bidder is the high-bidder and there should be no discrimination based on the reasons for the bid. See this Science piece.
Well some good news.
The Bureau of Land Management unveiled a draft rule late last month that would place conservation “on equal footing” with energy development and other traditional uses — a proposal that seeks to confront the agency’s long record of prioritizing extraction across the federal estate. A key provision of that rule would grant the BLM, which oversees one-tenth of all land in the United States, the authority to issue “conservation leases” to promote land protection and ecosystem restoration.
The article does a pretty good job of explaining conservation leases but it’s hilarious how the author reflexively labels PERC a right-wing think tank with deep ties to fossil fuels that supports “free market environmentalism” in scare quotes and never feels the need to resolve this with their support of conservation leases. Blank out, as Ayn Rand would say.
Few people have done more to advance the idea of conservation leases than Shawn Regan, vice president of research at the Property and Environment Research Center, or PERC, a right-wing, Montana-based think tank that promotes “free market environmentalism” and has deep ties to fossil fuels. Regan points to Williams’ and DeChristopher’s cases to highlight how legacy “use it or lose it” rules have biased public land management in favor of extraction.
“We have these ‘use it or lose it’ requirements that define ‘use’ in these really narrow ways that preclude conservation groups from participating in the leasing markets that affect the use of vast swaths of the American West,” he told HuffPost. “Conservation should be considered a valid use of public lands, and groups should be able to acquire those leases and decide to conserve them in some form or restore them.”
Regan argues the inability of conservationists to participate in federal land leasing, even when they are willing to pay more than a driller or rancher, has only helped fuel conflict in Western states.
…“Why don’t environmentalists just buy what they want to protect? Well, in many cases they can’t,” Regan said.
Hat tip: Robert Keller.