Ludi wrote:We're already hugely taxed on the land, will you force us off the land into the city where we are unable to support ourselves? How will that help anything? How will you devise heavy taxes on land ownership while at the same time giving tax breaks to "undeveloped" land? What would constitute "undeveloped land?" And would small landholders be penalized because they aren't rich enough to own thousands of acres. This plan sucks.
The point is to reduce the human footprint. I agree with you that taxes should be progressive: they should be designed so that they do not penalize small landowners unjustly. Also, perhaps some uses (e.g. sustainable agriculture) could be designated as having a minor footprint compared to others (e.g. strip mining). Because of this, they would be taxed less. It does seem to me, however, that because even sustainable use contributes to the human footprint, it should not be encouraged as much as full preservation.
My understanding is that if a farm is operated without fertilizers or pesticides for three years, it can be considered an organic farm. We could devise a similar strategy for marking a plot of land as "unused" or "undeveloped." If a plot of land was preserved, performing its natural function (or sustainably used), for some period of years, it could be classified this way.
The other day I imagined a scheme that would encourage large plots of contiguous, undeveloped (or sustainably used) land. It's probably too simple (or too complicated) for actual legislation but I was imagining that the tax deduction would be based on the size of each contiguous plot as a fraction of the owner's total holdings. The deduction would cover no more than the initial tax on the owner's land holdings. The tax deduction could be the square of the undeveloped fraction covered in each contiguous plot.
If a landholder had one plot of land, 10% of which was undeveloped, that person would get a tax deduction of 10% * 10% * 1, or 1%.
If a landholder had two equal plots of land, each of which was 50% undeveloped, that landholder would get a deduction of (50% * 50% * .5) + (50% * 50% * .5), or 25%.
A landholder who had a single plot of land that was 90% undeveloped would get a deduction of 90% * 90% * 1, or 81%.
It's a rough draft and I'm sure someone who understands policy better than I would ridicule its naïveté but I hope I get the intent across nonetheless. That is, the idea is to reduce overshoot by decreasing the total terrestrial area used for human wants and needs.
Lets see how we fare now 
