15 votes

Ron Paul's enviromental record.

An article that could help draw in tree hugging liberals and drill baby drill neocons alike.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bump! Thanks for the link

Great summary of his record and considering its not written by a Ron Paul fan, I'll take it as "fair enough"


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Good for Dr. Paul

Several fiscal conservatives in the House have recently been quietly removing their names as sponsors of the NAT GAS Act.
T. Boone Pickens, who is the largest shareholder of Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE), a provider of natural gas to heavy vehicles, has previously been optimistic the bill would pass the House and be taken up by the Senate later this summer. That may still be the case, but Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) and Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Penn.) withdrew their support for the bill on Thursday, according to Politco. Other Republican House members stopped supporting the bill earlier this month.
Some Republicans appear concerned that the NAT GAS acts as a subsidy and provides support for Obama Administration climate initiatives. Pickens has been strident in his views that the U.S. is too beholden to oil imports from countries that are not considered friendly – namely OPEC members.


"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
- Howard Beale

It seems that the good doctor has changed his tune a bit.

There was a time, when Paul was pretty darn clear. “We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy,” Paul said. We will revisit that statement about alternative energy in a moment, but for now, let’s stick with this business about oil subsidies, because Paul has changed his tune a bit.
Speaking to an audience in New Hampshire in June, Paul explained what he says is the difference between a tax credit and a subsidy:

“With tax credits and deductions, industries, business, and individuals simply get to keep more of the money they have earned. Ideally, the tax code should not be used for social engineering, but, until we have true tax reform, I will always support tax credits and deductions that keep more dollars in the private sector where they are spent, saved, or invested,” said Paul. This new definition has allowed Paul to justify his strong and consistent opposition to ethanol subsidies, while supporting the NAT Gas Act, which would give tax breaks to companies that transform cars and trucks to drive on natural gas. Interestingly enough, Paul didn’t mention the “oil subsidies” he was so against in 2008. In fact, Paul’s congressional website has removed the page that stated Paul was against continuing the government subsidies to Big Oil.

Once Paul is elected president & really has to play hardball with the good old boys club, I wonder how much more his tune will change.

I don't buy that just because the writer says so.

The writer appears to have the view that people don't have a right to the money they make and that it's a subsidy if government decides not to take it away from you.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Seems to me

that Ron Paul is willing to reach across the aisle to work with Obama and the Democrats for a higher purpose than just politics.

Is the NAT GAS Act an EPA Trojan horse?
The EPAs New Move
Phil Kerpen
June 9, 2011 4:00 A.M.
The debate over the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, or NAT GAS Act, has focused mostly on the question of whether the federal government should use hefty subsidies $64,000 per truck to interfere with the free-market allocation of resources. On that point, a surprisingly large number of Republicans are siding with their central-planning-advocate colleagues on the other side of the aisle.


Edit: Don't let the wording of this article get to you. It was put out by the Americans For Prosperity Organization - a damn Koch Brothers enterprise.

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
- Howard Beale

As Ron Paul has stated this

As Ron Paul has stated, this is a philosophic revolution, so it is our duty to educate ourselves.

Ron Paul has always been

Ron Paul has always been against subsidies and for tax credits (at least since I started following him in 2006). So nothing has changed there.

As for what he puts on his website, it makes sense that you would want to emphasize and deemphasize certain parts of your platform at certain times.

His 35 years of principled voting and other political actions are what make me VERY confident that his "tune" will not change significantly once in office.

Hi I.Magine

This world is a temporary place. Change is enevitable.

I would think that to WIN the nomination, and election, RP is going to have to make some compromises/changes, and I expect that some changes I may not like at all. I have never agreed with RP 100%, but I have agreed with him by far more than any candidate in any major party.

I'm sure his presidency would dissappoint many Patriots, as Obama dissappointed many Liberals, and Bush dissappointed many conservatives.... I will even bet that he will dissappoint me, but for now, his message is MY message, and that's all I've got and I'm glad it's him saying it.

reedr3v's picture

A very useful aricle, exceptionally

well researched and fair for a non-libertarian site. This article could help set the record straight for some of y(our) friends duped by authoritarian green agendas.

One odd thing. In the highly positive comments section, my "likes" didn't seem to register. Perhaps one must subscribe.

great find

I'll add this to my website www.checkoutronpaul.com, didn't have much on environmental issues thus far.