[warrenwilkinson]

Today most of the environment is federally owned as crown or public land. 89% of Canada and at least 20% of the US are in this state (some western states are between 25% and 75% public land).

As government property the land is not salable and its true worth is unknown. Currently, businesses approach government and lease access rights for grazing, timber, oil, etc.

This leads to environmentally unsound decisions because most businesses only understand the land as is relevant to their work. And politicians make the deals because it adds jobs, builds the economy, and improves their re-election chances.

If the land was sold, the market would bring a wider range of buyers: developers, businesses, speculators, and environmentalists. Land important to wildlife would be prized by conservationists and their respective charities. They could buy and protect that land, and only permit sustainable development. Farmers could no longer lease cheap graze land from the government, they would have to buy it (and treat it sustainably) or lease it from private owners. Oil producers would have an incentive to work cleanly: if they work clean, the land will resell at a higher price when they finish.

Land is an asset of various values. Setting price tags stops it from being undervalued.

[hsmyers]

In an ideal world what you say may well be true. In this world, strip-mining and clear-cutting argue otherwise. As one who lives in one of those western states mostly owned by the federal government and one with an over whelming republican government I note that even at that, no one is reckless enough to sell off (or even sue to gain possession) the assets that this represents. I'd point out that in the 'bad' old days, private enterprise created one of the largest hazardous waste clean up sites in the country. The notion that this would all be somehow different now, flies in the face of history... I may not trust the feds, but I most assuredly don't trust private enterprise.

[dpatru]

Immunity from liability (or limited liability) is a fundamental reason why governments and corporations are not to be trusted. When government officials, financers, and corporate (stock) owners are shielded from liability, they tend to take on more risk. An easy way to make them consider the risks is to take away their immunity.

[rayiner]

That's certainly one aspect of it.

But you have to remember that the market will not factor in the value of externalities. If a wetland is providing $100m in water purification services to a community, the market won't price it at $100m, because the benefit is non-excludable. The price of the wetland ends up being the price of the only protectable property right (the right to exclusive possession) which is a small fraction of the net economic value of the land.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

[warrenwilkinson]

True, but that value isn't for sale, it's manifest as easements owned by your neighbors. (the true price is buying the land and the easements that conflict with your agenda).

For example, if you fish the wetland, or set up a water front hotel, or drink the water then you have an easement right to clean water. It cuts both ways though; if a polluter moves to unoccupied land and pollutes 10 barrels a day, then he has an easement right to continue polluting at this rate.