I want to focus on this. But first, let me tell you a story. I live on a rural island, and this is about two of my neighbors, Gary, and Larry.Some land is valued as wilderness to be a hunting field, or maybe just to look at it. What do you use to say it's not value.
Or more clearly, part of the planet, that in a wilderness state, contribute to lot to keep this planet hospitable for us (which is value for everyone)
Gary moved here in the 80's and he's a self employed heavy equipment operator. A bit of a conspiracy theorist, and lots of fun. He bought the old farmhouse that belonged to the pioneer family my street was named for from the last of that line. He had more land than he needed, so he subdivided, and put a view easement on the 10 acres he sold to Larry.
Larry is a hippie. Not the practical, back to the land hippie, but the donkey riding, pot smoking, permaculturing, mega-trampoline building, poorly executed alternative housing type of hippie, also, lots of fun
They get along, but not real well. Larry doesn't like cutting down trees, and Gary expects to see the Puget Sound from his living room. Every few years, Gary let's Larry know that the new alders are getting in the way, and Larry doesn't do much about it. About every 5 years, Gary gets in a bulldozer, and knocks down Larry's saplings, after giving him notice.
So where is this going? Property rights. When Larry bought the property, there was a view easement across it. Presumably, he got a better price, because of this. Gary was willing to accept less money, and keep his view. Gary paid for the right to his view. What did you pay?
Gary has view property, so his tax appraisal is higher. He pays more property tax each year. What did you pay?
Gary has to fire up his bulldozer every 5 years or so to maintain his view easement, what did you do?
Even though Gary has paid, continues to pay, and has to maintain his view, this only affects the one lot. If Walmart buys the land across the sound, and builds a store in the middle of Gary's view, he is effectively without recourse.
People who have timberland in Washington, who let the trees growing, get a property tax break. A big break. But, they have to have a harvest plan, that they give to the assessor, and stick to. Then they pay 5% of the tree crop value to the state. Members if the public who used to enjoy looking at that stand of trees invariably start to complain when those trees get harvested, but the harvest is required. The public was compensating for their view rights with tax breaks. But then, the state will always want it's money more than its citizens happiness. Both as a stand of trees and as a clear-cut, the land is fine habitat, just for different life forms.
So, you see, we already have systems in place to deal with wild lands, view rights, etc. It's not ideal, but it works. The value is already established. There is no need for soul searching over the value of a view, or whether a private property rights system can protect the environment. As near as I have been able to tell, it is the only way of protecting the environment that actually works. Give the environment a value, and compensate the owners for their service, even if it's only a tax break.