I oppose Natural Asset Companies. These may sound nice but they are NOT beneficial for the citizens of the USA. [NAC] companies would be given license to control lands, both public and private, and would be required not to conduct any “unsustainable activities, such as mining, that lead to the degradation of the ecosystems. China, for example, may be able to invest in a NAC and effectively be a stakeholder in our national parks. Russia could assume control of lands currently leased to produce oil and place them off limits for future natural resource development. NACs would prevent the productive use of the land, which would hurt the landowners financially, but also reduce the supply of minerals, food, and other goods that come from the land. These NACs would quantify and monetize these natural outputs (such as air or water). A comparison would be using the air we breathe as a cryptocurrency of sorts. These natural assets that collectively belong to all of us would now belong to corporations. Traditional accounting standards would not be used to regulate NACs. Likely, this is because NACs would not withstand scrutiny under generally accepted accounting principles. This effort would be a huge windfall for the federal government and the NACs. The government would create an entirely new revenue stream that is NOT a benefit to the people but to special interest groups.