Ron Paul's environmental shortcomings

I am a ron paul supporter that cares very much about environmental issues....unfortunately there are a ton of other issues that are front and center mainly the war. i dont see any other viable candidate pulling for the environment....i dont think hillary gives a damn either.....lets just hope we dont go to war with IRAN because good environment or bad environment...when that happens we are fucked!

I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, but the thing to remember here is that he will be working alongside a Democratic congress. Ron Paul can and WILL bring the troops home from Iraq (unlike the top democrats (until 2013)), and he will also be able to shun corporate influence over his politics and set good examples for other public servants. He will be the first clean and honest president in a LONG time. But, again, the thing to remember is that a lot of his proposals to change things will not go through with a Democratic congress. Your precious endangered species will most likely still be protected. Roe vs. Wade probably won't be overturned. He won't be able to do a lot of things, but the fact that he is president will open up a whole new outlook on what exactly our government is supposed to be doing. Furthermore, the constitution is not an ornamental document, it is supposed to be the rule of law. If you're going to change something, then at least do it properly by amending it, not just ignoring it.

thanks for your concern, but your logic is flawed to the extent of being entirely absurd.

look it up.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=depleted+uranium&search=Search

War is one of the most destructive things we can do to the environment. If not thee most destructive, second only to poverty.

I'm an old school tree hugger, and I'm a libertarian. I have solar-wind powering my home since early 2006. I not only like the independence that comes with a self powered home, I like the idea of knowing that I'm reducing the need for foriegn oil, reducing the need for a Dept of Energy, saving a lot of money on utility taxes, all the while lessening burdens on the environment.

Energy independence is available on the market right now, available to all. You would'nt buy a house without indoor plumbing. In our lifetime we'll see the day when no one will buy a home that is'nt energy independent.

If I produce more electric than what I use the electric company buys it from me. So I've not only reduced my household's burden on the environment, but I've also supplied the community power grid with my leftover alternative energy. Now imagine the morning we wake up and every home and business in America is independently powered by abundant renewable resources. Government can't mandate something like that because the government can't mandate market demands. Consumers dictate demand. Are you in demand of more war, polution, taxes and bigger government? Or are you in demand of more peace, freedom, health and prosperity in quality of life? Both are currently available to consumers on the market. You get what you pay for.

Green energy technology is the future and private investors will invest more money into that market, doing it more good, than any government program ever could. Keep governments meddlesome greedy fingers out of the pie and 10 years from now solar kits on homes will be as common as those little grey satelite tv dishes and as affordable. That is if we havn't nuked all life on earth to dust before then.

People's environmental awareness is being defined by the MSM and Al Gore. One of the knocks against RP for sure will be the fact that he wants to drill for oil in Alaska for example. That is an issue that will have shock value to the common idiot. A vision of bears and eagles covered in oil is sure to appear in their less than open minds. In reality this is a solution that could ultimately help us out immensly short term by defering the need for foreign oil and long term by buying us time to find alternative fuel options. That is a realists perspective.

In all honesty no one is going to be a perfect candidate. Everyone has hot buttons on many different issues. RP is a very common sense, realistic person. That mindset and approach transcends many dividing lines from issue to issue. That mindset is what is allowing Liberals, conservatives, libertarians etc. to happily coexist on this site together.

There is a sect of the population who would like to see us all living in mud huts without running water, they may disagree with Ron on the environment tremendously and will never want to vote for him. Not everyone will be a convert. you win some and you lose some, hopefully we win MORE and lose LESS...

It's a fair critique.

I consider myself a conservationist, which is the conservative version of an environmentalist really. I'll give you my take on it.

1) Richer is cleaner. This has always been true. If you compare pollution created per energy consumed, new technologies are always more efficient. (Compare US energy generation to that of China), and countries with more income per capita have a better production to pollution ratio.

2)Government meddling in the markets sustains pollution. Outlawing hemp, which is an incredible ethanol source because it "looks" like marijuana(but has none of the psychotropic effects)

Government forbids logging in a lot of forests(publically owned). I know this isn't often considered a "green" issue, but it's whats responsible for people homes burning down in Cali right now. Privately owned forests are harvested and replanted, and permanently renewable, and they are managed so that they don't catch on fire and kill people also.(bonus)

3)Privately owned property is always managed better than public property, but no one can own any water source currently, so dumping toxins into a lake river or the ocean isn't a breech of private property, it's regulated by the EPA, half a country or more away, and they just don't get the job done.

4) Pollution is an invasion of property, but since the fed took over, via the EPA, they grant licenses to industry to pollute at will, and can only be prosecuted by the FED.(They don't want the states horning in on their grift)

It's a huge issue, and one of the ones not easily explained through a simple dialogue.

Here's a link to Rothbard on the subject.

http://www.mises.org/story/2120#11

A quick warning, it's not a light read.

**double posted

Takings would move environmentally unprotected species under the protection of Private Property. Libertarian-Environmentalism has a long history. Did you see last weeks 60 minutes? It breaks my heart about the elephants and the poaching. Then in the next segment was a man who had the biggest fastest richest boat--yawn. The real problem is that whole geographic areas and the animals within are not being owned privately by man's laws of private property---the problem is they remain outside of it and hence get exploited. Theoretically owned by the "people" or "government" is has PROVEN its failure by the FACT that we continue to see extinction and explotation under ITS care and management.

I would much rather have a multi-millionare such as Robert Redford go buy a couple million acres of African lands....or better yet, the Sierra Club and others could buy and "own" outright these lands and animals.

What you must admit, mankind eats tons of animal flesh --- called chicken and beef--- yet these animals are not going instinct are they. The reason is because they are INSIDE mankinds private property system. Wildlife, sadly, is not.

One of the best places I visited, the Gamboa Rainforest Resort in Panama, was great because the government there, knowing it alone could not protect hundreds of thousands of acres & tropical forest wildlife, decided to sell to this resort exclusive monopoly rights to locate there with the proviso that they care for all the Park. Now scientist and documentary filmakers and eco-turists like you and me can enjoy the rainforests of Panama. Best of all, its in the best interests of this resort to do so. Similarly, envirnmentalists concerned about Africa's gorillas have learned that they must include people in nearby villages to have property right, a going concern in the future of the Gorilla. Diane Fossy would be pleased to see her Gorillas being cared for and the interests of the near by peoples linked to the interests of the Gorillas.

I submit to you, ask the dust, who ever you are, to have an OPEN MIND, do not think we libertarians have ill intentions, bad intentions, or simply do not care. Indeed, we spend hours and hours and write in obscure little journals, why? Because we passionately do Care about the world we live in. Treg

The main strength of Ron Paul is that he leaves most issues to the states. I think in the same thing would happen with environmental issues. For example, at the moment California is actually suing the federal government so that it can impose stricter air quality standards. California is also huge on endangered species. Typically, large states like Cali and NY swing one way and other states follow. So even if everything was abolished (which it won't be without congress), the states would continue to enforce their own standards.

Also, don't forget that although Ron Paul shares his views openly (on abortion, gun rights, tax, etc), he also notes that many of these issues are issues for congress. He is anti a lot of things, but without the political will to elect like minded people to congress, nothing is going away any time soon. BUT he will have a direct effect on our foreign policy (which is my main reason for supporting him), and electing him will send a wake up call to all other politicians that it is no longer business as usual in DC. If we win, I think you will see a longterm movement back to a smaller less centralized government. This, of course, is how it should be. More power to the states, so that voters can keep a closer eye on their politicians.

I posted because I'm genuinely intrigued by Ron Paul and wanted to learn more about him and his supporters. Obviously the issue I raised (habitat loss) is extremely important to me and would be the main obstacle I would face in supporting him. It seems to me like Ron Paul is attracting a growing number of people (though still very small) who are a similar age and background of myself (young counter-culture/establishment types who care about environmental issues inlcuding haibtat destruction). I was wondering how they reconcile this particular polciy shortcoming. The responses were interesting and shed light on what I was trying to figure out.

You really should read this interview, in its entirety, before responding to this thread:

http://grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Since I did read it and still have something to say ... I will continue. :)

I know some would like this discussion to die, but having discussions are good. They help people to think and learn.

The real question here is … who should deal with these issues. Ron Paul would generally say that it is not the place of the FEDERAL government. The Federal Government is almost always really bad a dealing with issues in an appropriate and cost effective way. When the Federal Government tries to solve the problems they do it with big, expensive, inefficient, and often times damaging (to other things and people) ways. Big broad sweeping one-size fits all policies are not the way to solve these issues. Many of the posts below give evidence of that.

Private organizations and people and LOCAL governments are better suited at dealing appropriately with these issues. When people become interested in a cause and become educated about it AND THEN do something about it – that is when good things happen. Movements of people that want to solve a problem or an issue is the way to get these types of things solved. There are numerous examples of individuals helping out a cause or even starting a cause. Those things can turn into non-profit organizations and/or other movements that change the social thinking of people and therefore change the way things are done.

The whole “let government solve the problem” is a problem in itself. WE the people should be the government and those we elect should be beholden to us. But the farther away the government is the less we the people can influence and control it – remember it is there to “serve” us, not us “serve” it. Local government is easier to control and hold accountable than state government. State government is easier to control and hold accountable than federal government. And Federal Government (as bad as it is and as little as it listens to the people) is still a LOT better than an un-elected World Government. Many would like this issue to be controlled by some un-elected, un-accountable world organization.

I believe we should protect our environment. I take good care of my body. I take good care of my family. I take good care of my house, cars, and other belongings. I take good care of the church I go to. I take good care of my surroundings. I will even pick up trash that I did not put there. I leave a place better than I found it. I have lived in housing communities where there were NO restrictions on your living area and lived in areas that had VERY strict covenants on what you could do or could not do. Both have their merits. Both were locally controlled and locally affected.

The fact that we are having this healthy exchange of ideas on this Blog is one of the greatest things about the USA. We can express our opinions and we do not all have to agree. However, I do think that one of the things that people like about Dr. Paul is that fact that he is not wasteful of “the people’s money”, he does not think that Federal Government should be the big police in the sky enforcing thousands of rules on us. He follows the founders who believed that the Federal Government is important (that is what the Constitution is all about) BUT its powers should be limited.

I want a limited government where the people get involved in the issues again. Charities still do more to really help people out than the Federal Government does. If we got the government out of more things, people would get more involved and do their part rather than relying on some distant bureaucrat do things – so we could point a finger at them. Let’s start pointing fingers at US and let’s US get involved in making the USA better. That is another thing that is great about the RP movement – it is real people that have been apathetic for a long time FINALLY finding something worth getting excited about (in politics) and realizing that WE THE PEOPLE can make a difference. And that is where it should be. That is why I will vote for Ron Paul.

*******

One last point. Who takes better care of things in general - those that own their house or those that rent or those that get it for free? Large Federal Governments in general are often the worst abuser's.

Read this interview, in its entirety, before responding to this thread:

http://grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

I'll check back every hour on the hour to re-post the above link. I am going to beat you all over the head with this until every last one of you has read the entire interview and this thread can finally die.

Education will set you free. Knowledge is power. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Yadda, yadda. Etc.

---Signature---

"We should have a strong president -- strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a president shouldn’t have." --Ron Paul

This is actually an important and oft repeated incorrect assessment.

With some research I am confident you will agree that Ron Paul is the STRONGEST candidate on the environment in recent memory.

The key is to understand that companies have no right to inflict harm on anyone in just the same way that people have no right to inflict harm on anyone.

If and when this dictum were actually enforced, you would see all corporate pollution decrease dramatically.

The problem is that the system as it is currently configured favors corporations due to lobbying and senseless legislation. A Ron Paul administration would go a long way towards ending this corruption.

Subscribe to The Paulunteer - Grassroots Newsletter
Only one e-mail is sent per day.

Visit The Paulunteer Website