Air should be privatized

I couldn't resist the temptation to debate this ridiculous topic. Here we go.1. Impossible. You can't share.What if people have planted trees like this? Eh? Then who to charge? How? The air is exchanged between the white trees and the black trees, so technically if white tree company should not be charged when walking into black company, and black tree company should not be charged for white tree company's air. So that's settled, right? But then some guy could "cheat" and plant a bunch of green trees that spread oxygen really really well, and suddenly the air is filled with oxygen-rich air so you know it's the green-tree company's tree, and thus the white tree and black tree company are cheated out of their money and everyone has to pay to the green-tree company because despite the trees in both black and white, as long as one company can make it obvious it's his trees, then all money goes to him. How unfair.2. You can't tell whose trees is whose (except for the green tree example)Of course, normally trees produce about the same amount of oxygen, so the green tree company example is one of those rare occasions. However, when trees are jumbled up everywhere, it's hard to tell who the heck planted which tree. I mean technically you could put a sign on a tree... But another guy could just tape another sign over it, leading to a stupid competition of who is willing to continually put signs on tree, which uses up trees in the process itself since the most cost-effective signs are made of paper, which means you're killing trees in order to tell which tree is yours. It could also turn out to be a fight over whose tree it really was, which is really annnoying.3. It encourages further cutting down of treesAlthough privatizing air may encourage planting trees, it also encourages cutting down trees. Why argue about whether the forest is yours or your competitors? Just cut it all down. People would keep on going about cutting down each others' trees annoyingly, if not have the Sign-Battle in my second point. Talk about frustration.4. It would make poor people even poorerHomeless people already wander around randomly with little food to eat and very little money begged everyday. If somebody planted a tree near him, he would either have to run to another place, or he would have to pay the amount of money needed for the air he breathes. But again, with this new privatization, pretty much no air would be taken, and the homeless man would either choke and not breathe to save money and end up fainting/dying, or he would break the law and run away from his city. But what if he wants to visit his family?? The family will have to come to him. But he'd probably be stuck in a place with no trees to make sure he won't have to pay anything. Which is pretty annoying for the family. No sightseeing, nada, just their homeless man sitting around in a treeless environment. That's not good.5. Air belongs to mother nature, not usI don't suggest privatizing air. It does not belong to anyone who merely plants trees. In its true core, the air we breathe belongs to mother nature, the whole earth, which owned the air ever since it was created. Thus, if we really want to pay money for air, we should pay to mother nature--by helping the poor animals, slow down pollution and global warming, and perhaps....planting a few trees. Back to you, pro, for the final round.