Ron Paul & The Environment

As with everything else, more government control and regulation is not the answer, but rather free markets and property rights--and so it is with the environment. Great set of videos. Best explanation I've seen yet.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=y4p-BQInK-g
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NB1O2K411gM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4WhqTtil7Ls
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0A5eoY8Tk

One of our biggest environmental problems is land developement. Much of the open land you see being developed was sold by private owners to developers. So much of our open land has always been owned by individual stewards-people who voluntarily don't develop it for the sake of all. When taxes were low and land prices were low it was feasible. The burden of high taxes coupled with the bubbly-high land values makes the land too expensive to maintain and too valuable to keep. This has and continues to drastically decrease the amount of parkland in the U.S..
Ron Paul's plans would lower taxes and help pop the housing bubble, resurrecting the dying stewardships, thus preserving literally thousands of acres of undeveloped land.

According to that page, Ron Paul also supports tax credits for the development of alternative/sustainable energy. I think this should be emphasized more, because I think it would be really cool if we could live in a world where oil is obsolete.

Dr. Paul does not advocate a "free market" with respect to the environment in the sense that the environmentalists mean. I have an Ecology degree, and the ideas he talks about are not new, they have just been largely ignored.

His proposed changes will not let anyone do whatever they like as long as it makes them money. Rather, he wants to weaken specific government regulations on what people must do with their property in favor of strengthening the consequences legally of damaging someone *else's* property. This effectively incorporates the environmental costs of certain operations as economic ones and makes environmentally friendly products or processes cheaper.

This is Environmental Commons Economics and has its birth, more or less, in a book/essay by Garrett Hardin called The Tragedy of the Commons. In that essay, he used a thought experiment using a commonly held pasture (e.g. The Boston Commons) to illustrate that resources held in common would inevitably be exploited to destruction because economics rewarded exploitation and each individual was pressured to respond defensively by exploiting the shared resource more so they could get a 'piece of the pie'.

The air is a Commons in the same sense. People pollute the air freely because they do not need to pay for it. Polluting technologies are economically beneficial because they are cheaper than non-polluting ones to develop and operate (usually) and producers do not need to pay for damage to air. Forcing producers to pay for the damage to the air "internalizes the external cost" and uses the free market to promote better technology.

Within some sane bounds, property owners can do what they like to their own property. When their actions damage other's property, they need to either change their behavior or pay for it. I have air on my property. If you put pollutants in your air and it affects my air, you are liable. The courts can be used to seek redress. When companies begin to incorporate the potential costs of legal action, they will (largely) change their processes on their own. The remaining problems may be legitimate targets for specific regulation, but the free market vets the problems and solves what it can first. That is Environmental Commons Economics.

This is not necessarily simple, as it requires the development of case law and of advisory groups which can address the courts to help adjudicate issues (as amicus curia or "friends of the court") for instance, but these can *largely* be private (non-profit) foundations and trade groups instead of large, unwieldy government bureaucracies. Trying to fix everything with specific regulations creates a maze for citizens/businesses to try to figure out how to comply. Mandates lock inefficient/ineffective solutions into practice because the laws may be too specific to allow better solutions to be produced and because obsolete laws seldom disappear, especially when specific businesses produce compliant technology. I have seen both of these personally and directly.

No solution is perfect, but the principles of Ron Paul's policy *are* recognized, documented, well-developed, and sound. Arguable? Certainly, but not "out there."

evought

Faith does not absolve us from trying to understand our world and make moral distinctions with the eyes and brain given us. Religion is as much responsibility as direction: Duty not Distinction.

the environmental issue is a cause that is in disquise, to take property rights away from property owners, and to usher in global governance. it is much better to do things as Ron Paul states...through property right and lawsuits. other laws to take away our freedom and soveriegnty are not needed or will ever be accepted. safety and building codes are bad enough now that the government violates the 4th Amendment search and seizure laws. why would we want to give up more of our freedoms??? make no sense.

I gotta say, I was wondering about Ron Paul's position on the environment as well. But when someone asked him a question regarding the issue of the environment and pollution, I thought his response made so much sense.

Whether or not you believe we should enforce environmental policy, we can preserve the environment a great deal by enforcing individual rights that are put in place by the constitution. If someone pollutes your air, you have the right to sue and make an example of them, and the government is obligated to protect that right. I am a big proponent of environmental advocacy, but I thought Paul's stance on this issue is so reasonable and common sense for someone of any party or mindset. It doesn't call for new legislation and expanding government, but rather endorses respect the individual right to not have tainted air or water and the like.

I would love for Ron Paul to talk more about the environment, or at least amplify this message more. It's hard for this topic to come up on account of the fact that he's running in the Republican Party. But thanks for raising the issue.

Great talking points on the environment. We're up against that here in Hawaii- wish I'd read this yesterday before we campaigned.

Does National see the benefit of something like this? Are they listening yet?

I'm serious- just wondering if any progress has been made on communication .

Please keep this in front of people. The Al Gore worshippers are very tough, if not impossible. This could turn them around.

All the best in NH tuesday!