Global Warming Blog & Ron Paul

[angelatc]

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/05/24/meet-the-candidates-ron-paul/

I'm really happy that they don't hate him here.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

BEAUTIFUL!

At the debates, if they ask an environment question, he could say that he is against subsidizing oil companies! That would hit big points with those environmentalists!

[angelatc]

Yes, it appears that no big oil subsidies and legalizing hemp are policies they are interested in.

[slantedview]

Someone mentioned: "He's not convinced global warming is real". I wonder how true this is. Comments?

[Sakimoto]

I don't think he denies it is a real phenomenon. He has not been convinced of the degree, if any, to which humans are responsible.

[qednick]

I'm getting a 404 Error from that link??

:confused:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Works for me.

[slantedview]

I don't think he denies it is a real phenomenon. He has not been convinced of the degree, if any, to which humans are responsible.
That doesn't sound like a good position to me. I don't want to start a debate, but popular scientific evidence points to humans being the cause.

If it's understood that we pollute and it's understood that global warming exists, it should be understood that one follows from the other.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

He especialy believes that government causes the most pollution. ;)

[AlexAmore]

Perhaps Ron Paul is aware of that globalist agenda underlying global warming?

Anyways Ron Paul is a politician, not a scientist so I think it's unfair to judge Ron on this subject. Global Warming is very controversial as to whether it's caused by humans. I personally don't think it's caused by humans.

[Sakimoto]

Really? I had thought that the only consensus was that it was occurring and that humans have likely played a role. When asked to nail down the degree, there is no consensus.... I haven't been keeping up with it so maybe I'm out of date... :)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.shtml

Here's the Libertarian Party on environment, being Dr. Paul is a Libertarian, it may reflect upon his own views on environment/global warming greatly.

[AlexAmore]

Really? I had thought that the only consensus was that it was occurring and that humans have likely played a role. When asked to nail down the degree, there is no consensus.... I haven't been keeping up with it so maybe I'm out of date... :)

I'm not a scientist, but I don't trust Al Gore or IPCC as far as I can throw em. Al Gore is also a hypocrit. He uses more energy a month than the average human uses in a year.

The Great Global Warming Swindle gives the other side if you're curious.

I do support a clean environment, don't get me wrong.

[Brandybuck]

I seem to recall that he doesn't believe that global warming, as the left describes it, is real. That is, he doesn't believe that anthropogenic climate change is occuring.

But global warming is really a side issue. It's a scare tactic by the left to promote big government policies. We all want to live in a clean environment, and a free society gives us more opportunities to make it clean. Clean nuclear energy wouldn't be forbidden. Strong property rights would discourage industrial pollution. It has been demonstrated that people who can afford it WILL buy "green" products from sustainable sources. And of course, the subsidizing of oil companies would stop, encouraging the development of cleaner forms of energy.

The world shows us that wealthy societies are cleaner societies and have lower birthrates. Free markets and free trade will make us all wealthier. It will result in a cleaner planet without a skyrocketing population.

[LibertyOrDie]

Someone mentioned: "He's not convinced global warming is real". I wonder how true this is. Comments?

That was during his first interview with Bill Maher, He said that he DOES believe in global warming, but it is not decide what is causing it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

[JosephTheLibertarian]

He's right though. Atleast he's honest, he see's two sides fight over it, so, right now, he's undecided BUT He WILL shut down subsidies for oil companies and already blamed government for being careless with pollution, so he is most definately a friend of the environment.

[Exponent]

The problem with a lot of Ron Paul's stances is that they sound bad on the surface (given the average citizen's perspective currently) but make sense at least to a degree once you consider them, and in many cases make a very high degree of sense. It makes it hard to sell, even if it is correct. But I try anyway.

Nonetheless, I do tend to look at global warming the same way he looks at the monetary system. He expects some pretty bad stuff to go down soon if we don't do something drastic about it. I think the same is the case with global warming. But even still, I think that his policies will be more effective than any other candidates of the two major parties, regardless of what they say they want to do about it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What specifically is hard to sell? I have found his stances to be right in line with my own.

[LibertyOrDie]

Take a look at this:

The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&hl=en

If you don't believe everything in this film, you can at least come away with, that there are experts giving at least a viable argument to prove that the American public doesn't know everything there is to know about Global Warming. Just as RP said.

[Exponent]

What specifically is hard to sell? I have found his stances to be right in line with my own.

Depends on the person, but I know a lot of people have a problem with things such as wanting to get rid of the war on drugs ("you want people to smoke pot?"), legalize prostitution ("what type of values are you trying to promote?"), reduce funding for education ("what, you don't want to educate our kids?"), get rid of the dept. of homeland security ("who will protect us?"), doesn't think the federal government should get involved in global warming as far as regulations and such go, and so forth. Additionally, on things like abortion or gay marriages, some people I know wouldn't like the fact that he wants states to decide; they'd rather have a federal law, but in favor of their opinion, rather than their opponents' opinion. And some people can't imagine that our ecomony might crap out on us any time because of our monetary policies, and think that any significant change is crazy and more likely to cause instability than continuing down our current path.

[slantedview]

Really? I had thought that the only consensus was that it was occurring and that humans have likely played a role.
Right, to the effect that we've played a some role, I meant to say that we helped cause it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Depends on the person, but I know a lot of people have a problem with things such as wanting to get rid of the war on drugs ("you want people to smoke pot?"), legalize prostitution ("what type of values are you trying to promote?"), reduce funding for education ("what, you don't want to educate our kids?"), get rid of the dept. of homeland security ("who will protect us?"), doesn't think the federal government should get involved in global warming as far as regulations and such go, and so forth. Additionally, on things like abortion or gay marriages, some people I know wouldn't like the fact that he wants states to decide; they'd rather have a federal law, but in favor of their opinion, rather than their opponents' opinion. And some people can't imagine that our ecomony might crap out on us any time because of our monetary policies, and think that any significant change is crazy and more likely to cause instability than continuing down our current path.

Drugs: We're not pro-drugs, we're pro-choice. ;) Why do we throw people in prison for exercising personal freedom?

Prostitution: While it isn't a good thing IMO why do we arrest people for prostitution when millions of people are frequenting to bars, clubs etc. in order to "get laid" for free? Who is the government to restrict people from doing what they want to do? We're not promoting prostitution, we're promoting the choice and personal responsibility.

We believe that, ultimately, people should choose their own dentiny, we cannot decide what is "good" and "bad" for people.

Education: Millions of Americans are semi-illiterate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA Public education has been a great failure

Security: Our intelligence agency would protect us, I believe in peaceful information gathering. Once we stop occupying other nations, these "terrorists" will no longer have a reason to fight us.

The founding father's WANTED a balance between federal & state power, so we can surely convince them of this.

[Exponent]

Drugs: We're not pro-drugs, we're pro-choice. ;) Why do we throw people in prison for exercising personal freedom?

Prostitution: While it isn't a good thing IMO why do we arrest people for prostitution when millions of people are frequenting to bars, clubs etc. in order to "get laid" for free? Who is the government to restrict people from doing what they want to do? We're not promoting prostitution, we're promoting the choice and personal responsibility.

We believe that, ultimately, people should choose their own dentiny, we cannot decide what is "good" and "bad" for people.

Education: Millions of Americans are semi-illiterate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA Public education has been a great failure

Security: Our intelligence agency would protect us, I believe in peaceful information gathering. Once we stop occupying other nations, these "terrorists" will no longer have a reason to fight us.

The founding father's WANTED a balance between federal & state power, so we can surely convince them of this.
I agree, no doubt. But I know a lot of people who wouldn't be convinced by these single-line explanations. And I just had a phone-debate with my mom about some of these, and you'd be surprised at how hard it can be to argue the whole federal/state power balance on certain issues. Some people want what is practically a theocracy, though they won't openly admit it (even to themselves).

Anyway, I'm probably leading this thread off topic. Sorry 'bout that guys.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yeah, people that want theocracies may be in the fringe themselves, or are we talking about neo-cons here? ;) I never understood the rationale of throwing people in prison when they did nothing to anyone.

States rights: use examples of nations that went under due to being completely centralized, then point out that the founding father's were trying to create a fool-proof society.

[Sakimoto]

It IS a hard sell to most Americans because they've been taught to rely on the government...taught that the government is good and helps people...taught that without government, society would collapse and there would be chaos in the streets. I suppose liberty is a scary concept to most people nowadays. They just can't fathom how people can live their own lives without government involvement. :( Sad.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Let's stick to which issues are important to them.. "bringing the troops home" ..."oh? well, you know, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate wanting to end the war ASAP!"

[TaoWarrior]

Ron's positions are a hard sale. As he said himself the feds either subsidize it or forbid it.

I looked at one of those voting record sites and it was all over the map on RP since he never votes for a subsidy the count him as being "against" something.

The key is to drill into peoples heads that Ron Paul NEVER votes for a subsidy and look at his votes as financial votes not position votes. I managed to get one neocon republican seriously thinking about RP once I got "Ron Paul NEVER votes for a subsidy" through his thick skull.

Also it helps to be unfailingly polite no matter what, when discusing his positions never rise to the emotional bait Ron is not an emotional candidate he is a truthful and factual candidate and while that is not as easy a sale once you get someone to buy it they will keep it and love it and cherish it forever.

Oh and global warming is happening just the extent that we are causing it and what if anything can be done about it that are in question. Just remember vegetarians who drive an SUV polute less than meat eaters with a prius. Didn't I read RP is a vegan? That should make the enviros happy.

[SeanEdwards]

That doesn't sound like a good position to me. I don't want to start a debate, but popular scientific evidence points to humans being the cause.

If it's understood that we pollute and it's understood that global warming exists, it should be understood that one follows from the other.

Correlation does not prove causation.

[Sakimoto]

Let's stick to which issues are important to them.. "bringing the troops home" ..."oh? well, you know, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate wanting to end the war ASAP!"

True, that is the one issue that unites most people, regardless of party.

[SeanEdwards]

I recall that RP pointed out on Bill Maher's show that our foreign policy of going to war in order to make sure plenty of oil keeps flowing is ultimately a big contributor to carbon emissions.

He also pointed out that it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to do backflips trying to cut emissions, if China and other countries keep on emitting. All we'd end up doing is hamstringing our economy with no real improvement to global emission rates.

It's a complex problem, but everyone wants an easy soundbite solution.

Personally, I think we should build a bomb the size of the earth, with an America shaped cutout, and set it off. :D

[Gee]

I would say RP is the only candidate who approaches the global warming issue from the proper perspective. Namely that the market should decide what technologies take us forward, and that subsidizing oil consumtion is incredibly stupid. As broke as the USA is becoming, we need to look at solutions that will cost less money, not more. And really the only decent solution to carbon emissions is something which uses the market, and doesn't meddle in it. E.g., a gas tax.

As a libertarian I'd imagine he thinks the state should have the authority to curb polution, but the constitution doesn't allow for that. Thats a tough one, since state governments aren't the ideal place to worry about global problems. Actually, since the federal government can enforce treaties, the constitution does allow for something like a global treaty against carbon emissions to be enforced. It seems like more and more climatologists believe our carbon emissions are causing global warming now days, I wonder why RP hasn't signed on at all.

Though, some things make the future of currently-proposed alternative fuels somewhat bleak:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/

[JosephTheLibertarian]

He probably believes that everyone has a responsibility to not emit harmful chemicals, and, of course, those that do cause harm, will be held responsible for the harm that they do cause.

[Gee]

He probably believes that everyone has a responsibility to not emit harmful chemicals, and, of course, those that do cause harm, will be held responsible for the harm that they do cause.
Through property rights, yeah. But the practical enforcement of property rights on global-scale polution is tricky.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.shtml

read this yet? I'm not 100% certain if it describes Dr Paul's views, but it is the LP views on it, and he is a Libertarian.

[Gee]

Yeah, I have. I'm not sure on polution, but I know about 50% of the carbon emitted in the US comes from power plants. I'd imagine most of those are state-owned? RP did say he'd like to see restrictions on nuclear power removed, so thats a big plus for carbon emissions (not to mention common sense...).