Ron paul needs to protect his environmental flank

[SeanEdwards]

Pretty soon somebody is going to ask Ron Paul if he wants to eliminate the EPA, and he's going to be in a delicate political position. Paul should pre-emptively strike that threat ;) by aggressively spelling out his position on environmental issues.

He's got a similar weak flank with healthcare, but it's not as weak as the environment angle. He doesn't talk about environmental policy much at all. Even in his extensive writings. I saw no topic for "environment" on the ron paul library webpage.

[Akus]

People always buy the horror stories. 2004 election anyone?

RP can just come up with a horror environmental story of how government mistreats environment. He can also point out that the top two most polluted places on earth are in statist Russia.;)

[BuddyRey]

I've read Dr. Paul's environmental policies, and I think they're great. He wants to treat polluters as aggressors and penalize them accordingly. The only thing to work on would be assuaging the skepticism regarding how this policy would be enforced without an EPA.

[SeanEdwards]

I'm thinking he should hammer on states rights. California passed some clean-air legislation that is being challenged in the federal courts. I think Paul could get good mileage by announcing his support of states controlling their own environmental policies.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Paul should pre-emptively strike that threat by aggressively spelling out his position on environmental issues.

That would be eliminating (or at the very least limiting) the EPA.


He can also point out that the top two most polluted places on earth are in statist Russia.

I have already heard him mention the USSR and China as examples several times in interviews.

Here's how the environment gets protected in Ron Paul world:

Citizen X's pollution affects citizen Y = Citizen Y takes Citizen X to court.
City A's pollution affects City B = City B takes City A to court.
State X's pollution affects State Y = State Y takes State X to court.
Nation Xs pollution affects Nation Y = Nation Y takes Nation X to court.

This will also take care of the whole man-made global warming debate. If some green hippie state (say Washington) wants to sue Pennsylvania because they think Pennsylvania's CO2 emissions are causing global warming and that affects everyone, they will have to prove it in court with hard facts instead of "more scientists are on my side therefore it must be true". And, of course, they will lose.

[Oddball]

Seeng as the worst industrial polluter in America is the federal gubmint, the best environmental policy would be private property.

[LibertyEagle]

People always buy the horror stories. 2004 election anyone?

RP can just come up with a horror environmental story of how government mistreats environment. He can also point out that the top two most polluted places on earth are in statist Russia.;)

He also should talk about some of the many nightmare stories of the EPA coming in and declaring someone's property a wetland for a bucket of water on the ground and not allowing them to do anything with their property at all.

What happened in Klamath Falls is another case in point.

[McDermit]

The EPA is terrible. We've seen it around here first hand. The town where I grew up has "fluff piles" everywhere, basically, they're piles of river dredge and radioactive materials. The citizens were outraged when the stuff was dumped and wanted it out, ASAP. There were committees formed, petitions signed, etc. When the EPA came in, they did their testing and decided that everything was fine. Twenty-some years later, the town has one of the highest cancer rates in the country. Just on the street I grew up on, more than a dozen people have developed brain tumors. Terrible. The EPA is reinvestigating now.. it'll be interesting to see what they find.

And when we had gas spills in the area, the EPA only made things worse. No one could touch anything until the EPA showed up. By the time they did, the gas had spread and about 20% of the city was affected. :mad:

[SeanEdwards]

These are all good points. I just want to see Paul take the offensive on this subject before any of the opponents try to spin his policies as being anti-environment. We all know Paul isn't "anti-environment", but he needs to explain why his free-market principles can create better environmental protection than the current central planning joke system.

[fj45lvr]

AS stated before the Fed. Gov is the largest polluter and thats no lie (family's been employed by a large metals company working for space/ordinance/nuclear materials for gov. contracts with some really nasty stuff)....

The state's right issue is spot on because in nearly every instance the State's have DUPLICATE permitting or agencies which makes alot of what happens REDUNDANT and wasteful.

EPA could step out from "regulatory" (permitting and enforcement) and solely exist as an agency which recommends "standards" based on laboratory and other scientific means which would cut their budgets drastically.

This issue is especially "supercharged" by many of the left that believe that environmental issues are the reason for WORLD GOVERNMENT....to take a step back from the current over-stepping FEDERALISM we have (we know better than you stupid, poor hick state) would be like pulling teeth....the prized jewel is of course invoking federal lawsuits after federal lawsuit as a way to throw the monkey wrench at the "capitalist dogs" since Comrade Kaczynski's methods were ahead of their time (for now). As it stands now these non-governmental environmental groups are nothing more than extortionists and unfortunately as recently reported this year our totally insane federal government is giving them GRANTS while at the same time these groups are suing the Government for not being tough enough!!.....(they REALLY are masters of extortion!! At least there would be hope that the EPA won't cut backroom deals anymore with their buddies, "compromising" our rights away.

[freelance]

That would be eliminating (or at the very least limiting) the EPA.

And that would be bad because....??? :D

I used to think that the EPA served a legitimate function, but now they dream up (no doubt) and enforce things like:

Clean Water Act--adding arsenic to a water supply near you
Healthy Skies Act--same kind of thing for the air you breathe

And, that's all brought to you by the very same corporations that are heading to Canada to sell out your sovereignty.

These agencies work and promote business at the expense of the citizen. They have GOT to go or be skeletonized and repurposed.

[constituent]

yea, there was a really good thread on this a while back...

fj45, great post!