They get another chance to further the grand, interconnected, socialist agenda.
Now, for ten points, why the socialist agenda?
Is it possible that property rights, as a matter of natural law and as protected by the Fifth Amendment, are really that important? If the price for the control of land resources is but the deflection of the winds of political fashion, the available wealth to support, defend, and nurture the land is minimized. What ends up forgotten in the political acquisition of "commons" is the need to maximize the economic value of these goods to the land. With the declining public perception of marginal benefit is a declining marginal value of the land itself. You can plot the price on a graph, as you will see in Part II.Emphasis added. That was from page 19. Sigh.Ecological issues are seldom simple. They vary considerably with different situations and over time. They often involve enormous costs to a few individuals and have public benefits that are difficult to measure. The enormous economic value to those individuals who would gain political control of private resources provides motive to invest in making the political sale regardless of the technical or ecological compromises. It thus becomes unlikely that, in the heat of political and legal battle, the solutions offered will adhere to the principles of the scientific method.
Any democratic system is manipulated by the politically dominant. It comes as no surprise that the ownership systems the politically dominant propose are to be "collectivized" among the people, but administered by an agency dedicated to their interests. Under such a system, that frightened mob may well get the environmental crisis that they so greatly fear.