Blue Forest secures funding for first privately financed forest fire bond

[dealmaker]

Blue Forest secures funding for first privately financed forest fire bond

In a remote corner of the Sierra Nevada, a financial experiment is about to begin. Once this winter’s snow melts, workers will cut down small trees and burn undergrowth. But they won’t be paid by any public agency. Instead, the roughly $4 million will come from two foundations, an investment firm and an insurance company. (SFGate)

 

[nooby_mcnoob]

Fail. Better to give the investors a claim on the land productivity instead.

 

[zdreg]

that is way capitalism should work. flood insurance which is subsidized by the gov't ends up with people building in flood areas. then when hurricanes happen the tax payer pays up.

 

[nooby_mcnoob]

Did you read the article? It's a bond that will be repaid by "public entities or other entities interested in the work being done". Means it's more government debt.

I don't think this will work.

 

[Sig]

Did you read the article? It's a bond that will be repaid by "public entities or other entities interested in the work being done". Means it's more government debt.

I don't think this will work.

You probably don't know much about forestry, I do only by the accident of growing up with parents who were foresters. Every state with forests has a pretty robust program for wildfire mitigation that involves clearing and controlled burns on state land. Same thing at the federal level on Forest Service and BLM managed land. Significant amount of public funding already goes toward it and has for a century, but perpetually underfunded and a classic case where we lose billions in wildfires that could have been prevented by a few millions in mitigation. Also a classic case of the need to socialize costs in exactly the same manner as public fire and police service, something that no serious person would say should be handled at the individual level.
This is essentially calling for a privatization of this effort, or at least allowing the private sector to compete to provide this service. If you're coming at this from a conservative perspective, I don't see why you wouldn't see this as a great idea, given the general conservative principle that the private sector can do something more efficiently than government?
I guess if one thought we should give all state and federal forest land to the private sector to build condos and clear-cut you might be against this, but you'd also be in a distinct minority of Americans or for that matter humans worldwide. Most of us are pretty happy to pay some tax dollars to have forests!

 

[zdreg]

Most of us are pretty happy to pay some tax dollars to have forests

every tax has a constituency. after paying my taxes in total, I am not happy about any of my taxes paid.

 

[nooby_mcnoob]

You probably don't know much about forestry, I do only by the accident of growing up with parents who were foresters. Every state with forests has a pretty robust program for wildfire mitigation that involves clearing and controlled burns on state land. Same thing at the federal level on Forest Service and BLM managed land. Significant amount of public funding already goes toward it and has for a century, but perpetually underfunded and a classic case where we lose billions in wildfires that could have been prevented by a few millions in mitigation. Also a classic case of the need to socialize costs in exactly the same manner as public fire and police service, something that no serious person would say should be handled at the individual level.
This is essentially calling for a privatization of this effort, or at least allowing the private sector to compete to provide this service. If you're coming at this from a conservative perspective, I don't see why you wouldn't see this as a great idea, given the general conservative principle that the private sector can do something more efficiently than government?
I guess if one thought we should give all state and federal forest land to the private sector to build condos and clear-cut you might be against this, but you'd also be in a distinct minority of Americans or for that matter humans worldwide. Most of us are pretty happy to pay some tax dollars to have forests!

I understand the value of forestry and public lands. What I'm saying is that this is simply a bond, paid for eventually through mostly future taxes. There is nothing 'private market' about this, really.

 

[Sig]

I understand the value of forestry and public lands. What I'm saying is that this is simply a bond, paid for eventually through mostly future taxes. There is nothing 'private market' about this, really.

Future taxes will also pay for this exact same thing under the status quo, just done by the various state and federal agencies who already do this and have been for decades. Why is it a bad thing to allow competition in tree trimming (although to be fair it's mostly done under competitive bids by the state and federal agencies already) as opposed to the status quo? Why is it a bad thing to allow foundations and others interested pay into that as well, as opposed to the status quo where there's no way to make a targeted donation toward fuel reduction performed by state or federal agencies?

 

[nooby_mcnoob]

Future taxes will also pay for this exact same thing under the status quo, just done by the various state and federal agencies who already do this and have been for decades. Why is it a bad thing to allow competition in tree trimming (although to be fair it's mostly done under competitive bids by the state and federal agencies already) as opposed to the status quo? Why is it a bad thing to allow foundations and others interested pay into that as well, as opposed to the status quo where there's no way to make a targeted donation toward fuel reduction performed by state or federal agencies?

No, it's not a bad thing. It's an incremental improvement, which is helpful, I suppose.