No, that's not all you are saying and you don't know that "it won't work." What I can tell you is that the legal profession, as a whole, has every reason not to let it work. I have treaty law on my side. We'll deal with those artificial legal barriers when we come to them.
Don't suggest that I favor regulation. I don't and I've probably seen more reasons regulations don't work than most people.
Your words and prejudices betray you.
Finally, there are some "problems" that are beyond universal, satisfactory solution. Scarcity of "land with a view" is one (though far from the most important) of them.
That doesn't mean that the "problem" should be solved by government. That you have clearly failed to do the homework shows you are satisfied that the current system works well enough and 'it's too hard' to make such a huge change. 'Just unworkable, 'Can't do it,' etc.
My "proposal" as you call it, has, in fact, never been tried except in manufacturing, simply because the transaction overhead was too great and the data with which to price the risk was not available (of which selling views would be a second or third generation product that I don't find terribly interesting, but there are precedents in controlling photographic rights of famous objects, the famous Monterey Cypress being an example). Now, with sensors, networks, and software and a developing base of completed environmental restoration projects, many of those problems are within reach. The method is directed to deal only with those that are most tractable, and then moves into new markets, superseding regulation, as the system grows and develops the infrastructure necessary to manage those assets and risks in a manner in which we can prove that we can do a better job than the agencies can. We have the legal tools to do it too.