PDA

View Full Version : Great article about Dr. Paul's environmental stances




thatnerdyguy
10-16-2007, 10:44 AM
Fantastic answers to every single one of the questions. But I'd expect no less from Dr. Paul!

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

Cindy
10-16-2007, 11:03 AM
Nice read. Thank you for posting that. Good to know he belongs to an environmental protection group in Texas.

hard@work
10-16-2007, 11:10 AM
deserves a sticky

jmdrake
10-16-2007, 11:11 AM
Great read! I do have a problem with this part of the article however. But Ron Paul, the quixotic libertarian U.S. rep from Texas, has a cult following online second only to Barack Obama's, and has won unexpected attention in the GOP presidential debates with his provocative ideas.


Considering that Ron Paul supporters outnumber Obama supporters 10 to 1 at Meetup.com how can they call his online following "second" to Obama's?

traviskicks
10-16-2007, 11:33 AM
Fantastic answers to every single one of the questions. But I'd expect no less from Dr. Paul!

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

truly an outstanding article, I posted it on FreeRepublic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1911983/posts

Nash
10-16-2007, 11:36 AM
truly an outstanding article, I posted it on FreeRepublic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1911983/posts

Man those FREEPS are downright scary people. They are so damn angry.

No wonder I got banned over there after 2 posts.

runderwo
10-16-2007, 12:03 PM
I'm not satisfied with his answers on how to prevent public waterways from being polluted, if the public waterway is not private property how do private property rights apply to it? He should have fleshed out his answer on how exactly his activities on the San Bernand river prevent it from becoming polluted by industrial dumping and household waste.

Characterizing global warming as simply "the weather" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue, regardless of whether or not you agree with the science (I find the science to be lacking in comparison to the advertised threat of global warming). Of course he wouldn't support treaties like Kyoto, but what about his opposition to marketizing the externality of CO2 emissions with carbon credits? He talks about internalizing the costs of pollution earlier in the article, but then seems to contradict himself on carbon credits. Doesn't make sense to me.

It is amazing that he is the only one to point out the obvious fact that wars are the biggest environmental liability. Talk about the elephant in the living room.

Politeia
10-16-2007, 12:05 PM
This is a great article, thanks for posting it; it goes in my list of links for my (mostly) liberal friends. Dr. Paul is both clearer and stronger on environmental issues than I knew.

I do have one small problem with one item, though:


Q: What's your take on nuclear?

A: I think nuclear is great; I think it's the safest form of energy we have.

Many libertarians seem to be amazingly naive on this issue; apparently Dr. Paul is among them.

If it's so safe, why does it need the Price-Anderson Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act) to survive? Without this totally bogus government (i.e. taxpayer-funded) "insurance" (basically, the gummint promises to fix everything after any nuclear "accident") the nuclear industry would be a non-starter. If you think that's any real security, I'd like you to meet a former large city on the Gulf Coast. And that disaster wasn't radioactive; the only deaths were from the initial event, and it was immediately possible to return and begin rebuilding.

Nuclear power is thought "safe" only because none of those gargantuan radioactive pressure cookers has blown up yet. Not here anyway. It's happened elsewhere -- in places where the government "guarantees" everyones safety and well-being -- and the results haven't been pretty.

Safe? Tell that to the people (and animals, and plants, and entire ecosystem) downwind from Chernobyl. We don't hear about them, because the media are owned by the same corporations that own the nuclear plants. And the government.

It's also thought safe because all of the environmental and health costs of mining, transportation, storage, and disposal have been externalized from the beginning. Dr. Paul needs to apply the cost internalization he suggests in regard to other industries to this industry as well; then it'll look very different.

I'm willing to let nuclear energy compete in the free market -- but only if it's a true free market, with no government interference. Where some ironclad mechanism is in place to force the owners to be fully responsible for any harm caused by their industry. Given the true scale of potential harm (for tens or hundreds of thousands of years into the future) I don't know how this could be done; but I'm willing to hear proposals from proponents. They could start with the thousands of Native American miners who already have or are dying from radiation sickness.

The truth is, the nuclear "power" industry is nothing but a hanky to cover the nuclear weapons program. After the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the devil-worshippers who brought us these weapons needed to show that the technology was somehow "beneficial", so they began pushing the idea that it could provide "power to cheap to meter" (that was really one of the slogans in the 1950s). But the real purpose of the nuclear energy plants (which are nothing more than incredibly complex and astronomically dangerous water boilers) has always been to provide materials for the weapons programs.

I'm afraid Dr. Paul has dropped the ball here.

steph3n
10-16-2007, 12:09 PM
nuclear IS safe, it is among the safest, most green power available, Chernobyl was a case of disrepair and lack of safety measures being taken.

shadowhooch
10-16-2007, 12:14 PM
Whether you agree or disagree with every response, it is a fantastic article. His stance and solutions seem more thought out than any of the other candidates who "care" about the environment. But maybe I'm biased.

I'll definitely put this article in my "toolbox" for defending misconceptions about Ron Paul. Thanks for the article!

tnvoter
10-16-2007, 12:19 PM
great post! sticky~

runderwo
10-16-2007, 12:22 PM
How does the government subsidizing nuclear power insurance somehow ensure that plants are safer rather than such insurance being a legal requirement and placed on the market? :confused:

TVMH
10-16-2007, 12:27 PM
Man those FREEPS are downright scary people. They are so damn angry.

No wonder I got banned over there after 2 posts.

Just two posts? That must be some kind of record.

I think it took me 5 posts...of course, that was 6 years ago, so I'm not sure. :rolleyes:

NinjaPirate
10-16-2007, 12:30 PM
nuclear IS safe, it is among the safest, most green power available, Chernobyl was a case of disrepair and lack of safety measures being taken.

Not to mention that their containment facility had walls that were no thicker than a public buildng one would frequent. It was a half-assed built facility.

jmdrake
10-16-2007, 12:47 PM
A lot of environmentalists are cozying up to nukes cause of the global warming fear mongering. Dr. Paul didn't mention the government subsidy of the nuclear industry. I think he should have since he mentioned all of the other subsidies, but I think it's a safe bet that he would be for cutting the nuke subsidy unless he thinks it's needed for national security. The biggest problem with nukes is what to do with the waste. Nobody really wants it. That's part of the "hidden" cost Dr. Paul kept mentioning about other forms of energy. It's good that he stressed all of the pollution war causes.

One side note. I think some of Dr. Paul's environmental policies may still be in flux. For instance the interview that started this thread referenced a previous interview where Dr. Paul seemed to endorse the man made global warming theory. However in this more recent interview he says it's up for debate. (My position).

http://www.teamliberty.net/id447.html

Compare:
Congressman Ron Paul: Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance.

with:

I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet, I think it's a worthy discussion.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Politeia
10-16-2007, 01:14 PM
nuclear IS safe, it is among the safest, most green power available.
If that were true, it wouldn't need Price-Anderson to enable it. Price-Anderson is "affirmative action" for the nuclear industry. Other energy industries don't require dream-world government protection to survive. "Dream world" because in fact in the event of a real nuclear plant disaster no amount of government subsidy or action could fix it. So it's simply a lie, believed only by those who want to believe it. Just like other beneficiaries of affirmative action, "nuclear power" is incapable of competing on a level playing field. If it were, affirmative action wouldn't be necessary. Q.E.D.


Chernobyl was a case of disrepair and lack of safety measures being taken.
Exactly. And many of the plants in this country are similarly run down and lax -- not quite so bad, because socialism is not quite so advanced here. So Chernobyl hasn't happened here yet. But it will; it's not if, but when. Even if all the nuclear plants were as well-designed, well-repaired and well-run as is humanly possible, accidents still would happen, not if but when. Because even the best human beings are not perfect; nothing in this world is perfect.

In a "perfect" world, no "accidents" of any kind would ever happen. And no insurance would be required for any human activity -- including all other forms of energy production -- because nobody would ever be hurt. By anything. But this is not a perfect world. So operators of industries whose activities might harm others must contract with insurers to cover their liabilities in case of accidents, since they are imperfect operations run by imperfect human beings.

But no sane insurance company would insure the nuclear industry, because the potential liability is really unquantifiable -- i.e. infinite, and no insurance company has infinite resources. So the State -- the self-constructed God of "modern" man -- steps in, and "promises" to cover this infinite liability.

And everyone agrees to pretend that this is not insane. But that doesn't make it sane, nor will it prevent the inevitable consequences of such insanity. You and I may agree, and even believe, that we can fly. But if we jump off a cliff together, our agreement and belief are not likely to prevent our ending up splattered on the rocks below.

It's similar to the Federal Reserve scam, which promises infinite resources by printing endless money. When that one implodes, the consequences will be difficult, but not impossible. When a few nuclear plants collapse, the picture will be much different.

runderwo
10-16-2007, 01:41 PM
The potential liability is only unquantifiable if the process is a failure.

A successful nuclear power plant process mitigates the potential liabilities with many levels of interlocks, safeguards, and the utmost in operator training.

It is possible to build a nuclear power plant that cannot possibly release radioactive material unless a third party blows it up. Look at pebble bed reactors for instance.

Disposing of the waste is a problem, but a small one. Soon, people in this country and others will accept payment for you to store decaying nuke waste on their property. As long as regulations require insurance for stored waste as well, the market will sort that out.

steph3n
10-16-2007, 01:45 PM
there is also means to make power from the wastes in micro reactors :)

Bradley in DC
10-16-2007, 01:53 PM
How does the government subsidizing nuclear power insurance somehow ensure that plants are safer rather than such insurance being a legal requirement and placed on the market? :confused:

It doesn't and he doesn't. But yes, nuclear power technology has made huge advances and is very safe.

Bradley in DC
10-16-2007, 02:00 PM
When I worked in the Congressional office, I was active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful government spending. It was a coalition of environmental and anti-tax groups headed, if memory serves, by Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste.

Dr. Paul always ranked very highly on their scorecards. Sadly, I don't think the coalition has been active in some time. :(

Politeia
10-16-2007, 02:20 PM
The potential liability is only unquantifiable if the process is a failure.

A successful nuclear power plant process mitigates the potential liabilities with many levels of interlocks, safeguards, and the utmost in operator training.

It is possible to build a nuclear power plant that cannot possibly release radioactive material unless a third party blows it up. Look at pebble bed reactors for instance.

Are you prepared to back these statements with not only your life but also your immortal soul? That is, to state before whatever you regard as your Creator, that if what you say is not true, you will pay the cost in human suffering yourself, as many lifetimes as it takes to do so? I'm serious. A man's word is his bond. What are you willing to wager?

People who talk like this remind me of Madeleine Albright's famous assurance that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to the Bush/Clinton war on that country were "worth the cost". Easy to say, when it's someone else doing the suffering. Perhaps if she were a Buddhist, and understood as I do that whatever suffering we cause to others, we must, sooner or later, experience ourselves, she might not have been so casual in her assessment of the situation. I wouldn't want to be in her next 500,000 lifetimes.

In essence, your claim is that human beings are capable of designing and building perfection. I'm sorry, I don't believe it. The Buddha was only one of many wise ones who made it clear: There is nothing perfect in this world, human-made or otherwise.


Disposing of the waste is a problem, but a small one. Soon, people in this country and others will accept payment for you to store decaying nuke waste on their property. As long as regulations require insurance for stored waste as well, the market will sort that out.

Indeed, "the people" of my very state have made just such a devil's bargain -- against the protests of many who could see more than two feet in front of them, and were not dazzled by the promises of lots of federal reserve "dollars". There will probably always be people ignorant or desperate enough to take money to poison their descendants.

So have you stepped up to the plate, and offered to store decaying nuke waste on your property? Put your life where your mouth is? But it won't be me selling you such a lie.

How can "regulations" and "insurance" cover something that will remain deadly for 100,000 years or more? And will certainly escape whatever "containment" it is placed in during that time, get into the groundwater downstream, etc. All of human civilization is considerably less than 10,000 years old. That supposedly intelligent people could be calmly discussing such things is (almost) beyond belief.

Something that Dr. Paul, at least, should know: Human beings are not God. We can do many things, but there are things we cannot do, and to pretend to ourselves that we can will get (has already gotten) us into deep trouble.

The truth is, the poisons, both radioactive and otherwise, that we have already unleashed on the biosphere will already cause untold suffering to myriads of beings, human and otherwise, for the foreseeable future on any scale that we can imagine (10,000, 100,000, millions of years). Have you seen the photographs of deformed babies caused by the depleted uranium weapons "our" government is cheerfully using in Iraq, as well as in the Balkans? We can no longer prevent that. All we can do is stop before we make it any worse.

I can't stop it, but at least I can avoid taking part insofar as possible, and protest, and put myself on record with the Creator of my choice: This is wrong, I want no part of it.

Vaughn
10-16-2007, 03:01 PM
The only solution I see to properly disposing of nuclear waste would be to use plutonium in the reactors. If we used plutonium like the French we would not have so much high-level nuclear waste. There are two type of waste, high-level and low level. High-level waste has an exceedingly long half-life while low level wastes half-life is around 80-100 years. If we did this it would reduce the volume of our radioactive waste thus making nuclear energy far safer then it is today. If we used plutonium then the volume of the ultimate high-level waste would be very small. I am just brainstorming here, of course this would all be decided by the free market.

runderwo
10-16-2007, 03:07 PM
Are you prepared to back these statements with not only your life but also your immortal soul?

To say that even given the risk of accidents, that I believe nuclear power is the safest and most environmentally friendly form of power generation given all externalities of all power generation sources? Yes, that is my belief.



People who talk like this

Yah, it's always "you people". How about making an actual argument?


In essence, your claim is that human beings are capable of designing and building perfection.

Nice job knocking down your own straw man. That is not in fact what I said at all. I said that it is possible to drive the risk asymptotically close to zero. Close enough to zero that it satisfies the people writing the insurance policies, and close enough to zero that driving on the interstate is more risky to any given individual.


I'm sorry, I don't believe it. The Buddha was only one of many wise ones who made it clear: There is nothing perfect in this world, human-made or otherwise.

Therefore it follows that scientific and engineering progress in nuclear engineering should be halted because of our fears of imperfection? Make no mistake, you are halting progress by suggesting that nobody should be able to build new nuclear power plants until they satisfy your standard of perfection. Businesses won't invest in nuclear energy, research won't get the funding, and new experimental plants won't be built.


Indeed, "the people" of my very state have made just such a devil's bargain -- against the protests of many who could see more than two feet in front of them, and were not dazzled by the promises of lots of federal reserve "dollars". There will probably always be people ignorant or desperate enough to take money to poison their descendants.

You're talking about government making deals with industry, not private property owners offering their own property as a storage site. Again, please address my actual post rather than making things up that I didn't say and then pretending to refute me.


So have you stepped up to the plate, and offered to store decaying nuke waste on your property? Put your life where your mouth is? But it won't be me selling you such a lie.

Why in the world would I want to offer the 500 square feet of my backyard as a storage site? It makes no sense because the cost of the insurance would outweigh the storage payments. I don't see why I have to personally do something in order to be able to argue that something is a good idea.


How can "regulations" and "insurance" cover something that will remain deadly for 100,000 years or more?

Insurance has been around for as long as humanity has. Anyone with money will sell you an insurance policy for anything they can cover. It's another way to make money off of money. Why would insurance cease to exist in the future? That's like saying investment would cease to exist.


And will certainly escape whatever "containment" it is placed in during that time, get into the groundwater downstream, etc.

That would be the point of liability insurance. Your job, as someone who is contracting to store waste, is to convince the insurer that your containment system is secure enough for them to write you a policy big enough to satisfy the regulated liability amount for that type and amount of waste. If you cannot convince the insurer, you have failed at your job and cannot store the waste. Someone else will then step up who is capable of doing the job. That's how the market works.



All of human civilization is considerably less than 10,000 years old. That supposedly intelligent people could be calmly discussing such things is (almost) beyond belief.

Something that Dr. Paul, at least, should know: Human beings are not God. We can do many things, but there are things we cannot do, and to pretend to ourselves that we can will get (has already gotten) us into deep trouble.

The truth is, the poisons, both radioactive and otherwise, that we have already unleashed on the biosphere will already cause untold suffering to myriads of beings, human and otherwise, for the foreseeable future on any scale that we can imagine (10,000, 100,000, millions of years). Have you seen the photographs of deformed babies caused by the depleted uranium weapons "our" government is cheerfully using in Iraq, as well as in the Balkans? We can no longer prevent that. All we can do is stop before we make it any worse.

I can't stop it, but at least I can avoid taking part insofar as possible, and protest, and put myself on record with the Creator of my choice: This is wrong, I want no part of it.

Great. Then I hope you're protesting by generating your own electricity and disposing of all the associated generation waste on your own property. Or not using electricity at all... Remember, you demanded I personally assume responsibility for reactor catastrophes and storage failures if I am to advocate nuclear power generation.

We took care of the problems past generations left us. That is because of the progress of science and engineering. Future generations will figure out what to do with the waste, or will stop generating it if it becomes clear there is no solution and the costs eventually outweigh the benefits. No need for "the end is nigh" prophecies. And there is certainly no need for a moratorium on new reactors forestalling engineering refinement of the process.