Arguments about what constitutes "real property" have been tested in the courts over hundreds of years. Therefore I think there is legal precedent that defines the difference between "real property" (such as "real estate"), and other property, such as "rights" which might include ownership of financial instruments. Just because a government says that a carbon credit is real property doesnt make it so. Real property must be tangible and able to stand the test of time. I doubt that an intangible financial instrument like a carbon credit can convincingly be argued to be real property. The High Court might well throw out the government's contrived legislation.
