The Environment
A friend of mine is not convinced that RP has the best environmental policy. Below is the text of his last email to me. I've used RonPaulLibrary.org to find my information, but he is very unpersuaded. Can anybody out there help win this guy over? Thanks, here's his last text:
How about this for an idea: Have MORE federal government environmental regulation. Not less. How about a president who cares about the environment? What a concept!
Now I know you are gonna say "let the states do that". But I don't trust the states. I don't trust private owners either. The problem is simply that most people don't care. So I think you need legislation, and a lot of it. At the federal, state, and local level. And you really need community activitism. And you need the courts too. You need it all.
I was just in Georgia, and let me tell you that state is basically a developer and natural-resources extraction free-for-all. Same in a lot of others. Arizona for instance.
It is different in Oregon. Here is what has worked:
* Our environmental activists. People who care. Absolutely critical.
* Oregon's laws, such as our land-use laws, have kept developers out until now. M37, M49...it is an ongoing battle
* Federal Laws!!! The Endangered Species Act is almost single-handedly responsible for curtailing logging on Federal lands in Oregon. Oh yeah, and it has probably saved a few species too.
"If we restored private property rights then pollution would become illegal and it would have to stop."
Sorry. I don't believe it for a minute. That would just open the floodgates. Goodbye salmon, goodbye trees. Lawsuits wouldn't bring 'em back.
Remember, I told you that the environment was a hot-button issue with me :-)
It is simple
The industries will not be able to purchase this man!!!!!!!!
We all have forgotten about Gore as VP. Mr Nobel himself had a program, called re-inventing the government. It had all the usual BS about red tape, blah blah blah.
It served GMs, Alliance USA a very large business lobby by chocking the entire process.
Al Gore is no environmentalist. How quickly America forgets. Research the Lobby above and gore
The environment is about human behavior. We have an EPA and various other agencies that are supposed to regulate these things already.
According to your friend they obviously are not working.
Does he think more of the same will be better?
We need to change the environment not the federal government. The FEDs will prevent activism not enhance it.
Ask him for one example of a Fed department enhancing activism on any issue.
The problem is people believe if the govt is on it then we do not have to do anything.
The fact is it all needs to come from us, and we need to have all our earnings to enable us to buy new technologies. Options are expensive at first. Get the govt out - we all have to take responsibility for changing our behaviors. The government is the last group we need to modify our behavior.
If your friend really cares about the environment he should get the government out, get rid of his TV and convince pothers to change their behavior as well.
We can’t live the same lifestyles and expect something to change around us because a politician says he can fix it.
Liberty = Responsibility
Liberty = Responsibility
You may think that but this is what may happen...
Wouldn't we all be harmed by the loss of a species? If that could be proven in a court of law...then the business would be shut down and the money either dispursed or used to purchase land to be set aside. Any company facing that kind of risk would have to become smarter or suffer the same fate.
Right now the government defends the companies. If they obide by rules...that they wrote (thanks to lobbyists)...then they are not held accountable. At the same time...why can't the state enforce laws...why does the federal government have to overlap the states...it's just a shell game for those who have the money (the establishment).
Mike
Who is Ron Paul? I am Ron Paul! We are Ron Paul!
"Fire Team for Freedom" on RonPaulRadio.com
Mondays and Wednesdays 10pm EST
or visit www.mikeandjake.com
Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com
ITS EITHER HILLARY OR RON
ITS EITHER HILLARY OR RON PAUL
TO END THE WAR OR TO NOT END THE WAR THAT IS THE QUESTION!!!
TO HAVE A NORTH AMERICAN UNION OR NOT TO HAVE ONE...THAT IS THE QUESTION!!!
TO BE DEBT SLAVES OR NOT TO BE DEBT SLAVES THAT IS THE QUESTION!!!
TO HAVE A BIG LIAR IN THE OVAL OFFICE OR NOT TO HAVE A BIG LIAR IN OFFICE.....THAT IS THE LAST QUESTION......
T.
the environment
p.revere
Karl Hess Jr. has an excellent tape out: 'How To Talk To
Environmentalists' It covers why liberty is better for the environment, and the communication skills to advance the message. It is
available at the Liberty Store.
'
p.revere
Your friend doesn't trust
Your friend doesn't trust the states and doesn't trust private owners but DOES trust a federal government? Now the salmon and the trees are in REAL trouble!
The Gamboa Rainforest resort -- Saving the Panamanian Rainforest
Saving the Panamanian Rainforest, one National Park at a time. http://www.gamboaresort.com/principal2.htm
Read up about this National Park, and how it was saved by granting a monopoly use right with preservation responsibilities.
For Ron Paul and others like him, its all about how we structure property rights. Think of property rights as a large bundle of sticks, with each stick a specific detailed right.... and then realize that when so doing, a good free market environmentalist policy would be one that TIES together the long term interests of the environment with the long term interests of the property in question... that goal, if achieved in policy and practice, would be an unbeatable bond and highly stable, thus ensuring the environments good future for us all.
The problem with federal or state "ownership" is that you and I must be constantly lobbying them to "do the right thing". Heaven forbid if an unfriendly Corporitist political class comes to power... democrat or republican, its all bad news for the environment. With much to be gained money wise, the incentives will always be there for government corruption and economic resource exploitation. Hence, its a constant battle your way.
Perhaps there is another way... here is just one example.
check it out... http://www.gamboaresort.com/principal2.htm
Thank you for an excellent example
of how private interests have made a logical case for environmental preservation.
I don't think this is atypical.
It's time for common sense and logic
Well, this is not a libertarian position... (nuclear fusion)
But I think that nuclear fusion power is the answer. No one seems to talk about this. A special issue of Time or Newsweek a few years ago didn't even mention it.
Basically, fusion takes hydrogens and fuses them into helium. There is some deuterium or tritium involved, but since atoms are not split, there is no difficult-to-dispose nuclear waste. (Tritium has a short half-life).
For this you need government subsidy, since few industries alone would be able to manage the required research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
In any case, the next research reactor is being built in France, and is a consortium. The U.S. could fund this alone, and use it to hurry along energy independence. Everyone says it's 30 years away, but I think it could be done faster, and in any case, why not start now?
Fusion has been "30 years away"
for the last 60 years.
you can tell them to do this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in...
Well, he's a guy, but
you gotta love the commitment of this woman!
Good funny post!
It's time for common sense and logic
Come again? She had an abortion.
What a nut. She killed her fetus for some wacked up idea of minimizing her "carbon footprint". I find nothing funny about this woman.
clarification
the abortion wasn't funny, sorry. I meant the attitude the woman has about saving the planet by not having kids was funny.
It's time for common sense and logic
I agree but theres more important things right now
Tell them he's gonna bring the troops home and stop the use of depleated uranium as a weapon what could be better for the enviroment.Besides you wanna get rid of global warming let these third world wacko's and savages kill each other off . Have you ever been in a room that was overcrowded with people. Answer: IT GETS HOT Solution:LESS PEOPLE
we agree on this topic
How about addressing the specific questions he asked (no more trees, no more fish...etc.)
thanks!
It's time for common sense and logic
Federal Environmental Meddling
There are multiple examples of how the federal government has influence on many of today's environmental issues. Agricultural policy plays a major role in the working lands of the United States and government policies have major implications on influencing the control structures over the land. These policies favor cheap grains and the agribusiness/livestock/fertilizer(oil) /grain exporters/ethanol industries. These are bitter issues even in places like Iowa where I am writing this from. These are entities that have major Washington influence, look at opensecrets.org. In return the feds pay billions in subsidies with our taxes to keep this system in place, in the name of "helping family farms", but in reality they are mega farms that continue to concentrate. The UDSA, which is very useful but WAY too big, is more than willing to document this happening. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November07/Features/Cropl...
Democrats are in line with asssuming new powers to help protect the environment, which is mostly lead by people who really do care about the future of earth. The problem is that power to protect is also the power to allow destruction. The federal government is under no more obligation to protect the environment as they are to not. They also have shown willingness to show little to no liability in many cases. People closest to the land in both proximity and who depend on it for their existance need to be first to be empowered to make these key decisions. The key is to have them presented with the best information and they will make the best decisions without special interest government influence. As was said the I will agree, as a student of the environment, the federal government has been a double edged sword. As for agriculture, forests, or every drop of freshwater on US soil. Resources are used most wisely and protection begins, like you said, with people who care, and hold a vested interest in seeing that place exist in its best condition.
Well said!
Farmers and ranchers and local communities know what is best for the environment they live in.
Government programs tend to help big multinational corporations, not the independent family farms.
Hahaha Oops.
http://grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
That's a link to an interview with Paul.
I made another post but it required moderation as I put the URL in six times, without any text.
RP needs very badly to address the environmental
issue. A difficult and important topic. Maybe it's just a matter of confronting the fact that protecting the environment requires work and money. What's wrong with that? Beats making guns, planes and tanks and destroying the infrastructure of foreign countries.
Google
Is investing tons of money into more efficient solar energy. Right now solar energy is not viable in terms of price, but that does not mean that it is not possible. The fact of the matter is that free people are most likely to develop the new technology needed to make clean energy more viable economically.
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
Speaking of developers
I keep going back to the point that the housing bubble was a pure squandering of environmental resources. The ultimate chearleader for this bubble was the federal reserve which brought the fed loans rate down to 1% and had Greenspan talking about socializing credit (subprime) and diversifying risk (mortgage backed securities).
Now moving to the war, Humvees get about 5 mpg and Abrams tanks get about 2 gallons to the mile. And the Pentagon has estimated that they spend $400 per gallon on any front line vehicle. For each person on a military base, they will produce 7 pounds of garbage. And I'm pretty sure nobody wants to live around alot of depleted uranium.
Hope this helps and good luck!
An addition to my comment--
Those of us who have lived in this county for years understand what is best for the land and the residents. We have a county government that is capable of hiring foresters to manage the forests much better than federal employees.
I know I would be at a loss to try to sort out problems in YOUR neighborhood, so what makes YOU think you know what is best for my area?
I disagree with your friend.
I live in an Oregon county with 70% of the land base under federal control. I can see on a daily basis the mismanagement of our forests and wildlife.
He's right in one way: The environmental activists and the ESA are responsible for curtailing logging on Federal lands, but what he doesn't seem to realize is that curtailing proper management of the forests by selective harvesting is responsible for forest fires burning up the trees, killing the very wildlife he says the ESA saves. Goodbye trees, Goodbye endangered small animals, endangered plants etc.!
Our county has a wilderness area which once was beautiful--------until a forest fire burned almost every tree on the mountain we all have loved to look at. Now it looks like a moonscape. Dead trees, no more habitat for birds and forest animals, and when we have a big rain, the soil and ash from the mountain turns our once pristine mountain streams into raging, muddy torrents!
It always bothers me that folks like him drive through this beautiful valley, enjoy the beauty of the ranches and privately owned forest lands, and then go back to their cities thinking they must enact laws to take it all away from private ownership to "save" it!
Never a thought in their minds that the reason it is beautiful is BECAUSE it is in private ownership, and we love and care for our lands BECAUSE we care about the forests and animals and water, etc.
Sorry, I have a tendency to get on a soapbox about this==because I CARE, and work hard to take care of my land.
Forest fires
Actually, in dry areas it was past excessive suppression of fire that caused the buildup of flammable material that causes big forest fires today. To hear the advocates of clear cutting talk you would wonder how we managed to have any western forests at all before the white man arrived to mow them down on a regular basis.
A policy of controlled burns and selective cutting is the best management, not the industrial clear cutting favored by the enviro-bashers.
So the story goes--
If you go to a logging site and object to how it looks afterward, bear in mind that it looks EXACTLY how the state foresters or federal managers insist it should look.
As to "buildup of flammable material", some areas of our local national forest were clearcut because of a bug problem, thennnnn the limbs and slash were left littering the ground, choking out grass and plants underneath, and the bugs were free to move on to the adjoining stands of trees!
One recent forest fire here started in slash piles on the national forest that should have been burned the season before, and it jumped from slash pile to pile.
A local person hired to man a caterpillar to build a fire line saw 3 fawns run into the fire in one day! He was sick to see that.
Did you ever wonder what happens to the small creatures on the forest floor during a controlled burn? Or the nesting birds during a forest fire? Yup, they are burned to a crisp.
Bear in mind when you see a clearcut, even on private land, it is EXACTLY what has been prescribed by Oregon State Forestry. On federal lands it is EXACTLY what has been prescribed by USFS. Don't blame the loggers or the property owners.
.
Re: So the story goes
Yes, some bugs and rodents get fried in a controlled burn. As they always have from the natural lightening induced fires that occurred before people started thinking they had to manage forests. And nice cuddly deer get clawed to death by mean old cougars. Deal with it. I am pro-environment, not sentimental.
I would agree that the U.S.F.S. is very much in bed with the major logging companies, and is always acquiescing to their desire for excessive clear cuts. But this gives me no reason to believe that things would be better if the land was owned by those very same logging companies.
USFS is not in bed with major logging companies,
but with radical environmentalists, that is why the forests are now off limits to logging. In my area the private timberlands are mainly owned by local people who care about the environment, not the big logging companies.
My major point is: the local county government is better able to manage the land than either the state or the USFS. Ron Paul is right in his stance on the environment.
Speaking of cougars, managed by the state ODFW, they not only kill the cuddly deer, but hang out around the schools and in the towns in my county. If left to the county, problem cougars would be history! We would still have cougars in the mountains where they belong. And, no, it is NOT because WE have moved into THEIR territory! This county has less population than it did in the 1800's, and the towns have been established since 1865 or so.
Local people, and their government, are most qualified to know what is best for their communities and the environment they live in.
Forget him...
He'd rather be a slave while looking at all the pretty trees and animals. He clearly doesn't care about freedom, he's not worth it...
A good video
http://www.ronpaulstances.com/
Has a good video with Ron Paul speaking about the Environment.
Warning this site seems to go down frequently, but its working right now, your millage may vary.
Why Ron Paul's policies would be best for the environment
Of all the presidential candidates, Ron Paul's policies would be best for the environment. Here's why:
Everybody wants a clean environment. But that only happens when people are doing well economically, since in bad economic times, people give their priorities to other things. (That's why poor third-world countries often have bad air and water quality, etc.)
Ron Paul's economic policies would maximize our economic growth, which in the long run is the best thing for the environment.
Everyone else proposes feel-good legislation, and that's what they'll give us. Policies that stifle the economy may look good in the short run, but they'll backfire -- if the economy underperforms, people will tend to view a clean environment as a "luxury" we can't afford.
And that in a nutshell is why free-market economics is good for the environment, and nanny-state economics is bad for the environment.