Issue: Environment: Paul supports ANWR drilling?

[rodent]

..

[lbadragan]

I'm sure it's tied to his foreign policy. Anything to lessen the need for foreign oil. Even if it's 1%. Maybe that 1% will end up saving the lives of 100 soldiers.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Isn't it a free market issue? Not sure on his stance though.

[rodent]

..

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I believe that he wants to let individual US citizens conduct their own business with foreign nations/citizens. Non-government issue unless it's a matter of national security.

[NewEnd]

I need to find his recent video.

basically, his solution is to stop subsidizing oil companies, let oil rise to $200 a barrel, then the market will make other energy alternatives viable.

he has voted, IIRC, to allow drilling in ANWR

[Bryan]

Excellent questions rodent. Here's all I can add for now (not much):


HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 18, 2005

Statement on So-Called "Deficit Reduction Act"
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr111805.htm
One provision of the bill that undeniably would have benefited the American people, the language opening up the ANWR region of Alaska and expanding offshore drilling, was removed from the bill. As my colleagues know, increased gas prices are a top concern of the American people. Expanding the supply of domestically produced oil is an obvious way to address these concerns, yet Congress refuses to take this reasonable step.

[thuja]

oh oh. i think that beautiful area should be left alone. I am disappointed about this, and hope he will consider talking about wind and solar power. No biofuel either. People do not realize those are genetically modified crops which are a hazard, both to other crops and the environment, and to human and animal health. Also, the increase in area to grow these franken crops will take up space needed for our crops of real food. Really, a great deal of help could come from wind and solar power. GM WATCH is a good source of info. Also, didn't i hear that there really is enough oil in pesently used locations here?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Let the free market (excluding corporations) handle it!

[Bryan]

Let the free market (excluding corporations) handle it!
Yes, but the free market is of the people and if the people want certain areas to remain pristine wilderness then that should be the market force to honor- IMO.

I understand the libertarian ideology of land and natural resource distribution of letting the markets take care of it but this can have consequences that are to the determinate of mankind namely, that it ends up pitting man-vs-man in a battle against each other to control free gifts from the planet to provide what one needs for basic survival like arable land to grow food and access to drinking water. In a pure libertarian society such as this if you are born poor with no inheritance then you could be forced to pay any market price demanded just to be able to survive- you can basically be reduced to slavery which is detrimental to society and humanity. Worse, everyone could just refuse to sell to you- why not? Once enough wealth is concentrated in too few hands then there will be trouble brewing.

I'm not saying that this ideology is wrong, I just think that we as a society can do better when dealing with how we all live on planet Earth together. I'd say the ideology of the American Indians is superior to ours in some ways- some balance between that and libertarianism (with private property ownership) seems ideal to me.

Sorry to get a little off-topic but it seems important when considering who should have a say in the ANWR. Me being a green-libertarian of sorts, I'd like to see it kept as-is unless there is some greater humanitarian need to do otherwise.

[rodent]

..

[rodent]

..

[NewEnd]

If this is true [re: $200 oil], this would have disasterous consequences for the consumer in the short run. It would destabilize his presidency. The campaign really needs to get some real answers out there about this on his web site, otherwise he is going to get slammed on these issues. Consider that the Al Gore pro-environmentalist camp would want a piece of Ron Paul if he ever broke into the MSM's "first tier" of candidates.

For a good while there, there was a fairly reasonable inverse correlation between the S&P 500 index and crude oil futures. The popular reasoning, at least for a while, was that energy prices would affect consumer spending. Somehow, the financial press moved off of this because it was concluded that the market was more resilient in the face of higher energy prices than realized. Whether or not that's true, I don't know; I do know that at a certain level, the energy situation would almost certainly kill consumer spending and have ripple effects throughout the economy.

It's already at $70, it could conceivably hit $200 in 10 years, regardless, especially if it is subsidized.. then we will keep burning it up until dollar fatigue, then bam... no more money to subsidize, and it skyrockets to $300 or $400 a barrel, all the while the fed claims inflation is still only 2 or 3% a year, because they don't count energy and defense.

We just cannot continue to subsidize everything, its a world marketplace now, and the dollar is starting to be challenged by the Euro. Of course, I am sure you have heard the "conspiracies" regarding Saddam Hussein moving his oil sales over to the Euro?

I dont know much about how much damage drilling would have on ANWR, I think it would be minimal. I'd rather not destroy it for the sake of oil, but sometimes I really wonder how damaging it would be, barring a spill.

BTW, I posted links to his environmental policies in another link.

[NMCB3]

First off the president cannot control the price of oil, it is driven by the market. All he can do is get rid of regulations, taxes, subsidies, make it easier to drill etc.

As far as ANWR, I live in Alaska, and have worked in the oilfield. Most of what you hear about the area is misinformation. First off ANWR is over 1000 square miles in size, the proposed drilling area is only 200 acres The place is a virtual wasteland 80% of the year with temperatures that reach 80 below zero. No one lives there, because no one in their right mind would wan`t to. In the summer the mosquito`s are so thick you need a head net and protective gear just to keep from being sucked dry of blood. Its so desolate that your lucky if there is one Moose per 2 square miles. It is a great area for migratory birds in the summer.

Contrary to what you may have heard the oil companies are anal about keeping the north slope Fields clean. To the point of putting drip pans under the trucks when stopped to catch any oil that may drip from the engine or transmission. Many areas are only accessible to drilling in the winter, and they build ice roads to access these areas. Furthermore when drilling is finished in an area they tear everything down and revert it as close as possible to its original state. This will include the entire Alaska pipeline when its useful life has been reached(its in their contract with the state) Do accidents sometimes occur, yes. Nothing is 100% foolproof, but their record is impressive.


Bottom line is ANWR can be developed in a responsible manner with minimal impact to the environment. The Alaskan people, including the natives in the area are for it, The State of Alaska is for it, the Federal government is for it, and many Americans are for it. Whats stopping it is a huge disinformation campaign by radical environmental groups. They solicit money from people in the big cities, and then use that money to try to control, through use of lawsuits and the political process, what we can and cannot do in our own state. And their reach extends WAY beyond the ANWAR issue.

I`m all for alternative fuels, but that is going to take time, and oil byproducts are used for more things that people use on a daily basis, than most people realize. As we are making the switch we will still need oil. Its not going away in our lifetimes.

[rodent]

..

[Captain Shays]

I'm a green libertarian too Bryon. I too care about the environment yet I have come to realize that the stranglehold certain old monied interests have over certain commodities have been acquired through a corrupt government in the first place. Consider the enormous land grants that the railroad companies got to stretch rails across the country. One mile on either side of the rails with all mineral rights, all riparian rights, and all timber rights included for as far as their rail line stretched. Man, talk about corporate welfare.

As far as the peole now being dependent on oil well consider Eisenhower's quest to build a national road system across this country. Yeah it kind of worked to our benefit in the short term but now look what the results are. The government all but insured a dominance of automobiles and trucks for our transportation and created a paradigm that is now suburbia where you need to drive a car for simple things like going to work or buying milk.

The answer is electricity. No one can stop this country from producing all the electricity we'll ever need to transportation, trucking and power generation and we can do that in so many different manners that are safe and clean and perpetual.

[lucky]

Answar is a beautiful area indeed as is the Gulf of Mexico and any other area we now drill in or have in the past. It is not for the Federal Government to come in and say that we can't do things. It may sound like it does but if there is an asset and we do not use this asset then it is useless.

I remember when the Alaskan pipeline was being built and the protests against it. It turned out to have had minimal impact. Now I also saw the pics and video that the Greenies had hammered us with and could feel sympathy. Then I saw a documentary that showed a whole different side and it became clear there were two sides and not just the one that groups that had an interest wanted me to see.

Now I do remeber Ron Paul saying that the price of oil could go up and here is what he had said and the meaning I take from this.

If the price of oil goes real high and the subsequent price of Gasoline does also then what happens. People will be forced to use less and not be able to do many things that we are accustomed to.

Corporations are here to make a profit or they could not exist. If they have a product that no one can afford then the profits will not be there. The corporations watch very closely for any detriment to their bottom line. They have huge research sections for this.

The corporations will start spending more money for research to find new ways to get that product more cheaply and efficiently. They will also start funding new ways to get us something to replace their product. Once a company does this then his competitors will also be forced to do so or be left behind.

Thsi is what Ron Paul talks about when he says market forces taking effect.

Now when the Federal Government gives subsidies or research grants to Companies this is called corporate welfare. Corporate welfare actually lessens the ability for new research as it affords the company to waste the funds on frivilous research. When the company has to spend their own money on research then they will go after the most promising research and the ones that has the best chance of bringing in profits. How do they bring in the most profits? The profits come from all of us buying something that we all want and need.

Please do not be led by what one narrow group wants us to believe in Answar. Please do a internet search and see the other side. They also have a political agenda and it may not be the one that suits you.

[Captain Shays]

right on Lucky

[drinkbleach]

My problem is with candidates who want to open up the parsely populated area of ANWAR which doesn't necessarily have a lot of reserves, but refuse to allow drilling off the gulf coast. And why don't these people demand that refining capacity be increased first?

[literatim]

ANWR is in Alaska, thus it should be up to Alaska and only Alaska.

[Shmuel Spade]

ANWR is in Alaska, thus it should be up to Alaska and only Alaska.

Unfortunately the federal government (unconstitutionally) claims ownership of the vast majority of the land of Alaska (as well as Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and other western states), and so the issue becomes a federal issue. Under the Ron Paul presidency the federal government may be forced to go back to the Constitution, and so then and only then will that Alaskan issue be up to Alaska.

[Gee]

I'm a little confused as to why a few oil wells scattered throughout a landscape has such a huge environmental impact? Yeah they are pretty big things, but you don't need a whole lot of them, right? And how often do you hear about accidents these days? Seems like if Alaskans were worried about spills, they could just require the drilling companies to pay for the cleanup of whatever mess they make. Thats probably a huge incentive to do things cleanly...

[Bradley in DC]

A few observations:

One, how incredible it is to me--and gratifying--to find so many people attracted to Dr. Paul that wouldn't normally come together (this concept is more important, me thinks, than any single issue where we disagree).

Two, Dr. Paul used to be active in the "Green Scissors" campaign to cut environmentally harmful government spending and was always at the top or near the top on their scorecard of Congress. The coalition was led by Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense and other anti-tax groups (Citizens Against Government Waste). [I know, I was the staffer that went to all of the meetings.] I don't think it's still active--there's not much call to cut any spending lately.

Three, the statement referred to both ANWR (which should just be sold off) and offshore drilling. ANWR: the government shouldn't own such vast tracks of real estate--sell it all off, pay off the government debt, actually fund the Social Security Trust Fund for the poor elderly who really depend on it, and...where was I? Oh, offshore drilling: the gulf hurricanes have shown that offshore drilling technologies, regulations, and capabilities can now be done environmenally responsibly. Sell off those leases too. Sure, the states would get a lot of the money, but we're devolving a lot of the power and responsibilities back to them anyway in the Paul Administration (I like the ring to that).

Now, before my new good friend Bryan and the other greenies get all upset, please keep in mind that one, I voted for Nader last time (for a variety of reasons) and have worked closely with the Nadar people in various guises on various issues (anti-corporate welfare campaign, etc.). In practice, what I expect would happen if/when we put not just ANWR, offshore drilling but most other government property on the chopping block is that businesses (yes, even large corporations) and evironmental groups would come together in competing blocks (FoE/Exxon v. Greenpeace/BP). It would benefit all of the groups and they would be better able to win the bids.

[lucky]

My problem is with candidates who want to open up the parsely populated area of ANWAR which doesn't necessarily have a lot of reserves, but refuse to allow drilling off the gulf coast. And why don't these people demand that refining capacity be increased first?

I agree. It is not for the government to say you can drill here but not there. I live on the Gulf Coast was in the Oil industry for 15 years before I changed careers for the glamorous life of a truck driver. Drilling has always been very profitible in the Gulf coast and the states that surround it. (Mexico also). Alaska also has many resources and oil is supposedly abundant in the area in Answar. It may be but again it may be a dry well. It all a moot point.

The Federal government claims about 70% of Alaska. After all they did buy the whole area from Russia. It should be a state because after all we did buy the Louisiana purchase from France.

It will take a lot of money and effort to even try to drill in that part of the world. If a company goes to there with permission and drills and finds oil then all the better.If not then they will face the shareholders and get fired.

As I saw before and agree with. Alaska and her citizens should have the say so and not the Feds. The citizens and state and the natives all want to let them drill. (they will get 1/6th for royalties of any oil found) To me it is a state issue and the feds should mind their own business.

The enviromentalists I mentioned before have interjected them selves in my opinion unfairly. They go anywhere and fight anything that any energy company wants to do. Makes no difference what it is and they are there screaming. Why do they do this? Political power? Concern for the sanctity of nature? Who knows exactly but they should not have to falsify their documentaries and reports to get what they want. The documentaries that are usually shown about Answar show a beautiful and serene landscape that has plentiful wildlife. A few years ago I saw a documentary made by a Native Alaskan and he had a cameraman that helped make the Enviromentalist documentary.

Their documentary showed Answar that was bleak and forbidding with little wildlife and no vegetation. The caribou that supposedly reside there only go across a part of it twice a year to get from forage place to their mating place and back. They have to keep moving as there is no food and it is too harsh to survive there. They then showed some shots from the enviromentalists shots and then repeated them again but found that the shots were not even in Answar. It was faked because the place was so out of the way and figured no one would find out.

Why did they do this if their cause was so grand? Facts should speak for themselvesa and if someone lies to me then I assume they are liars. They have a reason for and I feel it is not in our best interests.

Let Alaska decide their own fate.

[lucky]

Unfortunately the federal government (unconstitutionally) claims ownership of the vast majority of the land of Alaska (as well as Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and other western states), and so the issue becomes a federal issue. Under the Ron Paul presidency the federal government may be forced to go back to the Constitution, and so then and only then will that Alaskan issue be up to Alaska.


Yes we bought the Louisiana purchase and why do they not claim it also? Alaska was bought with our taxes and belongs to the citizens. The citizens gained statehood and should be now all of Alaskans to do with as they pleased.

[lucky]

I will try to search the internet for the documentaries and place the links but it is getting late and I have to get to bed and drive again all day.

[lucky]

A few observations:

One, how incredible it is to me--and gratifying--to find so many people attracted to Dr. Paul that wouldn't normally come together (this concept is more important, me thinks, than any single issue where we disagree).

Two, Dr. Paul used to be active in the "Green Scissors" campaign to cut environmentally harmful government spending and was always at the top or near the top on their scorecard of Congress. The coalition was led by Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense and other anti-tax groups (Citizens Against Government Waste). [I know, I was the staffer that went to all of the meetings.] I don't think it's still active--there's not much call to cut any spending lately.

Three, the statement referred to both ANWR (which should just be sold off) and offshore drilling. ANWR: the government shouldn't own such vast tracks of real estate--sell it all off, pay off the government debt, actually fund the Social Security Trust Fund for the poor elderly who really depend on it, and...where was I? Oh, offshore drilling: the gulf hurricanes have shown that offshore drilling technologies, regulations, and capabilities can now be done environmenally responsibly. Sell off those leases too. Sure, the states would get a lot of the money, but we're devolving a lot of the power and responsibilities back to them anyway in the Paul Administration (I like the ring to that).

Now, before my new good friend Bryan and the other greenies get all upset, please keep in mind that one, I voted for Nader last time (for a variety of reasons) and have worked closely with the Nadar people in various guises on various issues (anti-corporate welfare campaign, etc.). In practice, what I expect would happen if/when we put not just ANWR, offshore drilling but most other government property on the chopping block is that businesses (yes, even large corporations) and evironmental groups would come together in competing blocks (FoE/Exxon v. Greenpeace/BP). It would benefit all of the groups and they would be better able to win the bids.

Ok then you seem to know more than I about this for sure. Good luck.

[Shmuel Spade]

I support drilling in ANWR, I support drilling in the Gulf, I support drilling any and everywhere. If oil and gas companies want to drill somewhere they should buy the property and then drill on it. The owner of the property would be free to sell or not sell for whatever reason they wish, and owners of property can do what they want with their property so long as it effects no one else's property.

Most prices in petrol are based on futures speculation, and the futures are a result of projected returns on investments. In the US even if the price of oil remains unchanged there will always be a change in prices because of refineries. As most people who follow this issue know by now, there hasn't been a new oil refinery built anywhere in this country in 30 years. Capacity has increased in the remaining refineries it's true, but that's out of necessity. Free the oil refineries from the strangle hold of the environmental regulations, and prices will come down.

Another environmental regulation affecting gas prices are the CAFE standards which impose a variety of gas blends on the industry at the whim of the regulators. Using fewer standards would simplify the production process, and allow for specialization in creation and then universalization of the resource (supply goes up to meet demand and brings money price down).

It should be mentioned that due to inflation prices seem higher than they really are. It doesn't make the sticker shock too much more palatable, but it is noteworthy. Gas prices are also affected by apparently necessary seasonal changes in blend.

As always the first thing necessary to do is to remove the barriers to entry that would mean higher supplies that can satisfy the high demands. In a functioning market the high prices of the product would induce suppliers to enter the market and sell more, but legal barriers to entry and production prevent this from happening and in so doing, harm us all. Eliminate tariffs on foreign imports, eliminate subsidies to give the people their money back and allow inefficiency to fail in the market, eliminate licensure requirements and allow labor to work freely, eliminate taxes that punish producers and consumers, eliminate environmental regulations that do nothing else but limit supply and artificially drive up prices as well as promote a false scientific premise.

[Shmuel Spade]

Yes we bought the Louisiana purchase and why do they not claim it also? Alaska was bought with our taxes and belongs to the citizens. The citizens gained statehood and should be now all of Alaskans to do with as they pleased.

Do you mean "they" as in the feds? Well the Louisiana Purchase was a different time. Most of the land area that was acquired in the Purchase eventually became privately owned land, which is different from many of the later acquisitions of the Western states. Some images:

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/fedlands/fedlands3.gif

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/images/bg1282map1.gif

I can't remember the justification the feds use to explain their possession of more land than is allowed under the Constitution, but it doesn't really matter though.

[thuja]

i'm with drinkbeach.

[lucky]

Spade thanks for the maps. It shows clearly what I am trying to say. The land should go to the states after statehood. The state can then do with as it deems in their best interest. By the state I do mean the citizens of that state.

If they want to set the land aside and heavily restrict usage of it then so be it. Also if they wanted to pave it over then so be it. I may hate them for doing it but it is theirs as citizens to do so.