I agree - rents are poorly understood. I read epic flamefests on nntp://sci.econ during the last 20 years and that is the only reason I "got it".
Sadly, I have to differ on multiple other points:
- Substitution pretty much makes resource constraints a nonproblem. We've gotten so good at this that there's a large trade in "antiques" largely based on the numismatic value of old materials.
Whether or not the carbon content of the atmosphere counts is a very slowly closing but still open question. Having dealt with CARB, the California Air Resources Board, the probability of an honest solution based on public goods seems bleak.
- The planet very well can be largely private. Let it be private and tax the rents. This leaves more open the question "what does government do?". Consider private and public as merely possible management - or finance - schemes, each with weak and strong points.
- Perpetual ownership is just a lease with an undefined term. The British renewal rate of 99 years as a standard is just using a different constant.
Of course people overvalue their contributions. It takes a long time to get calibrated properly. And when I was a kid, the grownups were a lot more likely to be blunt about this than I am led to believe they are now.
But Libertarians are still the "R&D" department for politics.