[Paragon]

(I am an ACist, but have a soft spot for the environment.)

I agree with your bolded quote aiming for equality of rights, but how can regulation even approach this? The default AC position of unfettered property rights is the system that captures that ideal the most, since it is universal and objective. I'm assuming you disagree obviously, but I think that only leaves a few murky possibilities.

First of all, it means you do not believe individuals have the right to own land in the true sense of the phrase. I'm doubting you mean that land cannot be owned though. My guess is you'd want restrictions to exist in how people could treat their land. This is where the state is invoked. But now you have inequality... You have an exclusive class of people that monopolize land regulation, which is composed of individuals who follow their own personal incentives just like everyone else. And now here is where democracy is invoked as the check against abuse of power. Well, what about global public action, or global democracy? What if the world majority votes that no more trees can be cut down in America? No one would accept this ridiculous outcome. America would claim unrestricted ownership rights over its territory. So, how did America, this entity, acquire the right to have ownership when no individual is capable of this? What is so magical or benevolent about America, or any other country in the world? Can I become a single-person state (maybe start with an island) and then have the right to purchase land and do whatever I please with it? Now we're back to the AC position!

Anyway, I still smile when the state protects the environment, but that is only because it is my preference (it is what I would do if I owned so much land). And to be honest, I sadly have a dim outlook for the environment over the next few decades no matter what system is used.