Green lairds: Pricing out power

Words by Jennie Wang with art by Theo Verden

Discourse surrounding land ownership in Scotland has been reignited in recent times with the rise of ‘green lairds’: wealthy, climate conscious individuals who purchase large plots of land in the Scottish Highlands with the goal of mitigating the effects of climate change. Surely this is a commendable effort, right? Unfortunately, it’s not so straightforward…  

To put into perspective the current state of land ownership, less than 500 people own more than half of Scotland’s private land. In fact, the largest private owner in the United Kingdom is Danish businessman Anders Holch Povlsen who alone owns 221 000 acres of Scotland. Joining the ranks of corporations who use the Highlands as a home base for carbon off-setting, the emergence of green lairds isn’t visible only in hastened closures of historical hunting estates or the massive reforestation efforts but also in skyrocketing land prices. According to recent reports, the price of farmlands in the Highlands and Islands in 2021 has jumped 30 percent and potential for carbon-capture and rewilding have become significant valuation methods.  

The heart of the issue stems not from Scots being unwelcoming toward foreign landowners but rather with the “poorly regulated system that allows for the sale of such vast areas” and subsequent to. Others are sceptical of whether rewilding projects are even a good solution. Citing British government forestry agency statistics indicate that in 1350 only 4% of Scotland was covered in trees and this number rose to 4.5% in 1905, critics have accused green lairds of attempting to “﷟HYPERLINK “https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/scotland-environment-green-lairds/?fbclid=IwAR2GM5mSgDA47jJpwpHVjK8huUcDG6zhgdR5AX3ZExnG_ah01chw2YRkflY”recreate.” Another area of contention is with the treatment of peatlands, which in their prime state are massive carbon sinks but can emit carbon dioxide when damaged or dried out.

Muirburn is  used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increases the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities.  Another area of contention is with the treatment peatlands, which in their prime state are massive carbon sinks but can emit carbon dioxide when damaged or dried out. Muirburn is the controversial technique used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increases the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities. Muirburn is the controversial technique used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increasing the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities.  Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities.  Another area of contention is with the treatment peatlands, which in their prime state are massive carbon sinks but can emit carbon dioxide when damaged or dried out. Muirburn is the controversial technique used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increases the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities. Muirburn is the controversial technique used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increasing the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities.   Another area of contention is with the treatment of peatlands, which in their prime state are massive carbon sinks but can emit carbon dioxide when damaged or dried out. Muirburn is  used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increases the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities.  Another area of contention is with the treatment peatlands, which in their prime state are massive carbon sinks but can emit carbon dioxide when damaged or dried out. Muirburn is the controversial technique used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increases the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities. Muirburn is the controversial technique used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increasing the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities.  Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities.  Another area of contention is with the treatment peatlands, which in their prime state are massive carbon sinks but can emit carbon dioxide when damaged or dried out. Muirburn is the controversial technique used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increases the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities. Muirburn is the controversial technique used to manage peatlands: some suggest that that it benefits a variety of species and prevents wildfires while opponents see it as a threat to biodiversity and increasing the risk of wildfires. Criticisms against green lairds shouldn’t be weaponised against efforts to combat climate change but are valid reasons to re-examine their priorities and the impacts of their actions on local communities.   

Looking into the intentions of green lairds reveals motives that stray away from the narrative of the benevolent billionaire looking to invest in a greener future. Although you could point out that this is a cynical perspective, it would be naïve to ignore the government grants for carbon-sink restoration and tax breaks for conservations. Further, voluntary carbon markets (VCM) are a way to circumvent actual emissions cuts by simply offsetting carbon emissions. Shell has offset programs in Scottish forests which goes towards its ‘carbon neutral’ gas loyalty-program. Finally, the lofty plans of individual green lairds should be contrasted with how they’ve come into their fortunes. Such factors need to be considered for the notion of a just transition to net-zero to have any real meaning.   

The increased price of land poses a challenge to community ownership of land purchased from absentee lairds and landlords. Since 2001, the national Scottish Land Fund has provided communities with the ability to buy land which serves as a source of income, employment, and housing amongst many other needs. Yet the solution to dealing with the downsides of green lairds isn’t as simple as just encouraging communities to band together and become landowners themselves. Letting ordinary people take on the burden of failing estates isn’t a fair or sustainable way to fix failed systems. There seems to be something counterintuitive about taking massive rewilding and conversation projects using funds that originate from heavily polluting industries. If investments don’t include the needs and futures of local communities, then it seems like one of the great lasting impacts of green lairds will be the way they’ve priced people out of not just land but power. Left to their own devices, the wealthy and faceless corporations aren’t saving anyone.