PDA

View Full Version : Environment: Where does the Dr. stand on the environment?




Jeff_from_READINGPA
01-08-2012, 11:23 PM
Issues like big oil, solar power, wind turbines, natural gas fracking,etc..

ShaneEnochs
01-08-2012, 11:49 PM
Are you asking about the environment or energy?

Conza88
01-08-2012, 11:51 PM
With Rothbard...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jysNNTGgyr0&feature=channel_video_title

Ron Paul recently said that 'libertarians' often get mistaken on the environmental issue, this is what he meant:


The Friedmanites concede the existence of air pollution but propose to meet it, not by a defense of property rights, but rather by a supposedly utilitarian "cost-benefit" calculation by government, which will then make and enforce a "social decision" on how much pollution to allow. This decision would then be enforced either by licensing a given amount of pollution (the granting of "pollution rights"), by a graded scale of taxes against it, or by the taxpayers paying firms not to pollute. Not only would these proposals grant an enormous amount of bureaucratic power to government in the name of safeguarding the "free market"; they would continue to override property rights in the name of a collective decision enforced by the State. This is far from any genuine "free market," and reveals that, as in many other economic areas, it is impossible to really defend freedom and the free market without insisting on defending the rights of private property.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty12.asp

Ron Paul's position is essentially this (http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf).

Inny Binny
01-12-2012, 01:25 AM
I think Paul should explicitly state that one of the problems with the EPA is that it allows too much pollution.

GunnyFreedom
01-12-2012, 01:36 AM
I think Paul should explicitly state that one of the problems with the EPA is that it allows too much pollution.

That's actually true. And FedGov guaranteed BP only 10% liability in the Gulf Oil Spill. President Paul would demand 100% liability. Which may have put BP out of business but oh well. Maybe they shoulda been more careful. Or maybe they shoulda drilled where Louisiana allowed them to safely instead of where FedGov forced them to unsafely.

If companies were 100% liable instead of 10% liable they would be more careful since a large-magnitude disaster will put them right out of business.

No question a Paul Presidency would be better for the environment than even the Obama Presidency.

Problem is that most green people are not going to be able to grasp the hows and whys, because we've been lied to for so long it's hard to break the programming.

TomtheTinker
01-12-2012, 01:40 AM
Private property rights.

GunnyFreedom
01-12-2012, 01:45 AM
Private property rights.

You do know that to "green people" what you just said translates (wrongly) into "more pollution" and an Exxon Valdese and a BP Gulf spill every week right?

Inny Binny
01-12-2012, 02:32 AM
If oil companies faced full liabilities for their spills the insurance costs would be so high that I'm unsure if deep-sea drilling would even be feasible. The government clearly props up dirty energy (and nuclear) a hell of a lot more than the renewables. Libertarians really need to emphasise the kinder aspects of the philosophy rather than screaming 'drill, baby, drill!' all the time.

RickyJ
01-12-2012, 02:40 AM
Where does the Dr. stand on the enviroment?

Right now he stands on the environment in South Carolina. :D

farreri
01-12-2012, 07:38 AM
Big business pollutes more because big government allows them to.

DEGuy
01-12-2012, 08:16 AM
It would be awesome to find a quote of Paul saying he thinks BP should have been 100% liable for the spill instead of 10%

vechorik
01-12-2012, 09:05 AM
Issues like big oil, solar power, wind turbines, natural gas fracking,etc..


Ron Paul says pollution laws should be TOUGHER!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsZ6-2BdpIQ

rpwi
01-12-2012, 12:24 PM
This is a good question and I would be curious to know how Paul stands on a number of subissues.

Where does nuclear waste get stored? Do nuclear power plants get regulated for safety? Or only at a state level?

What would happen to national parks and other protected federal lands? Go to the states? Auctioned off?

What's his stance on offshore oil drilling? Continue leasing certain sections while restricting others? Would not want to see these areas given away at below market rates as they are very valuable...something that has been a problem with previous administrations... Would also like to see areas protected as offshore drilling is messy.

In most free-market philosophies there is a term called 'externality' which actually argues for exceptions to government non-intervention...and I hope Paul is ok with regulating environmental externalities as I believe this is one of the few proper operations of state and even federal government.

acptulsa
01-12-2012, 12:34 PM
If oil companies faced full liabilities for their spills the insurance costs would be so high that I'm unsure if deep-sea drilling would even be feasible. The government clearly props up dirty energy (and nuclear) a hell of a lot more than the renewables. Libertarians really need to emphasise the kinder aspects of the philosophy rather than screaming 'drill, baby, drill!' all the time.

Exactly. Massive infrastructure infusions on nuclear, including the presumption that waste disposal is a federal problem, because the whole idea is to produce enriched material for nuclear weapons. And massive wars over the petrodollar which just opens up whole nations for getting raped by the oil companies even as it gives oil companies the excuse (more war in the middle east, of course prices will go up) to rape us.

Meanwhile, the free market could support wind, solar, ethanol, and all manner of things if we weren't in Afghanistan trying to build a natural gas pipeline to Georgia for cheaper natural gas energy and letting BP get away with no reparations to Gulf fishermen. These costs would actually get built into oil production, and suddenly these other things would look cheaper by comparison.

And, jeff, I might add that while Dr. Paul is not all about the status quo, as in many cases polluters should be sued but aren't because they can't be so long as they're within EPA guidelines, he does admit that the federal government has a role in pollution because the stuff tends to cross state lines. This may not sound like much, but for a man who has spent thirty years and more fighting to get Washington to give power back to the states, it's like pulling teeth to get the man to admit Washington has a role to play in much of anything.

And rpwi, I think you already have a handle on it--if not, you'll like what you learn if you research his positions more. Believe me, my friend, if we get Ron Paul elected and he divests Washington of the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, the state of Arizona is not going to let their number one tourist attraction get turned into a strip mine...

GunnyFreedom
01-12-2012, 01:27 PM
It would be awesome to find a quote of Paul saying he thinks BP should have been 100% liable for the spill instead of 10%

It certainly exists somewhere. That's where I got it from. :D

The Free Hornet
01-12-2012, 01:36 PM
You do know that to "green people" what you just said translates (wrongly) into "more pollution" and an Exxon Valdese and a BP Gulf spill every week right?

You can tell these "green people" that Exxon, BP, the MIC (depleted uranium), and Monsanto know better. They will will support the establishment candidates Obama/Romney. Green people can follow the money, right?

GunnyFreedom
01-12-2012, 01:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBR_SZO6Odk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBR_SZO6Odk

He touches on liability caps and using taxpayer money for the cleanup in this episode of the "Texas Straight Talk" but don't know how effective it will be with green people because he also works to educate people on the free market first.

GunnyFreedom
01-12-2012, 02:08 PM
You can tell these "green people" that Exxon, BP, the MIC (depleted uranium), and Monsanto know better. They will will support the establishment candidates Obama/Romney. Green people can follow the money, right?

It's all about language, the main problem we have when reaching outside of our bubble of Paulers is that we say one thing, they hear something completely different.

Pretty much the only thing that green people want to hear (or care about) is that companies who pollute will face more severe punishment under a Paul Administration. full stop.

It's true, of course. But when you start getting into private property rights they will hear 'more power to polluters' because the big businesses 'own all the property.' That's an inaccurate conclusion, but that's what they hear. When you start into Exxon, BP, the MIC, Monsanto &c, that will just reinforce that they are the big companies, and therefore they own all the property. Again inaccurate, but it's what they hear.

For all their lives, they have been saturated with the incorrect notion that private property and free market means polluters are free to pollute more.

You and I know that's bunk. We are capable of critical thought, while most green people will hear a few key words and think we are "crazy for believing that more pollution equals less pollution."

When you reach out to groups outside of our core base, we have to remember that while we share many of the same objectives and goals, we speak an entirely different language, and there has been over 100 years now of programming to make sure that our language sounds like pollution to them.

We already have the people who think like we do. The education component is pretty much complete...except for the balance of education that can be accomplished once Paul is in the White House.

Right now, we just need the votes. So I say when we talk to green people we focus specifically on the parts of the Paul Platform that green people care about...that facing full liability instead of capped liability subsidized by taxpayers, companies wil be more careful and pollute less, because polluting will cost a LOT more. And leave it there.

I don't mean we leave off education forever...we can go back to hard core education once Paul is in the White House. I just mean that the time for education was before 2012 and after November, but right now the goal is winning votes by building coalitions.

The good thing is we don't have to pander, we just have to tell the truth. Companies will be a lot more liable for damages from pollution in a Paul Presidency. The difference is that for the time being (until November) we should just stop with that and let it be, because anything we can add to that is liable to touch on prior programming and send them back to Ralph Nader.

Inny Binny
01-12-2012, 07:48 PM
It doesn't help that while Paul is arguing for less pollution, essentially all Republicans (including his son I imagine) are dismantling the EPA in a way that would allow companies to pollute more.

The Free Hornet
01-12-2012, 08:01 PM
It doesn't help that while Paul is arguing for less pollution, essentially all Republicans (including his son I imagine) are dismantling the EPA in a way that would allow companies to pollute more.

Correction: Paul is arguing for private property rights. First those rights have to be restored and then it is easier to push for less pollution. Preferable in a local court that has to smell/drink/breath the same shit harming the property owner. Dismantling the EPA is part of the process of making it local. Also, CO2 is not a pollutant in case anybody is confused about that.

GunnyFreedom
01-12-2012, 08:06 PM
It doesn't help that while Paul is arguing for less pollution, essentially all Republicans (including his son I imagine) are dismantling the EPA in a way that would allow companies to pollute more.

Actually, it's the EPA that sets liability rules and allows Big Corporate to get away with MORE pollution even as they force little fish to comply with irrelevant regulations that do nothing to reduce pollution but help maintain big corporate monopolies.

And Big Corporate produces way way way more pollution than little fish.

Fact is, the EPA is part of the problem that allows the pollution problem to get so very bad. Eliminating the EPA is in fact the first and most important step towards cleaning up the environment, just like eliminating the DEA is the first most important step towards ending drug violence.

FreeTraveler
01-12-2012, 08:14 PM
Just to keep this in perspective...

There are some things President will have direct control over, but not everything.

We have a President, not a King. Most of these things are controlled by the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. President Paul will have a bully pulpit to beat congress over the head with, appeals to the people, veto power, and the ability to issue executive orders, but that's the limit of his power as President.

Many issues like this are more correctly addressed to your Senators and Representatives. Reelect the same dogs we have now, and the President will have an uphill battle as far as correcting many things.

Inny Binny
01-12-2012, 08:29 PM
I am extremely skeptical that Republican efforts to get rid of the EPA is going to lead to a better protection of property rights. In fact, I am almost certain that will not happen.

If it were the LP we're talking about, I'd have no problem with it.

aravoth
01-12-2012, 08:40 PM
I think Paul should explicitly state that one of the problems with the EPA is that it allows too much pollution.

absolutely, I've been arguing this point for years, corporations can pollute the living shit out of earth, air, and water, solely because the government makes it legal for them to do so. Property owners get stuck pollution on their property and have no recourse because corporations are lawfully able to ruin someone elses private property.

Working Poor
01-12-2012, 08:46 PM
Ron would allow hemp to grow which is good for the environment in many ways. Good alternative fuel source too.

Return2Sanity
01-18-2012, 09:53 AM
You should google “EPA FDA revolving door” to learn how government agencies have become totally controlled by the corporations that seek to profit from introducing questionable substances into our air, water and food. So much so, that in 2007, the EPA refused to approve a California law that would have reduced automotive pollution in their state.

Ron Paul believes that federal agencies controlled by the rich and powerful are failing to protect our food and our environment, Instead, he believes we need to uphold individuals' rights to seek legal compensation when they are harmed by the actions of other people or corporations, and not allow those rights to be undermined by these ultra-politicized federal agencies.