What do I say when asked, "Is Ron Paul Environmentally Friendly?"

[PINN4CL3]

My girlfriend's parents want to like Ron Paul, probably mostly because I talk about him all the time, but the environment is a big issue to her mom.

She asked me today if Ron Paul was environmentally friendly, and I totally blew the answer. Basically telling her straight up that Ron Paul wasn't exactly an environmentalist. The environment is a big deal to a lot of people who might otherwise take a look at Ron Paul's other stances, so does anyone know how to respond to this?

Please, no advice on how to tell people that global warming is not true.

[mavtek]

Ron Paul does not need to worry about the Environment as Ron Paul is so powerful he simply tells pollution to leave and it cowers and leaves the earth.

Ok on another note, I'd say Ron Paul's 1400 Square foot house along with his small garden along with being a staunch recycler means he's probably a pretty good example we should all follow regarding carbon foot print. That's what I'd tell them.

[RPinSEAZ]

He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards.



He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[11] Rather than bureaucrats in Washington giving subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, he believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end

via wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Environmental_prot ection

[krott5333]

he grows organic tomatoes and loves the land.

it says so right on the slim jim.. GEESH

[ctb619]

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

[schmeisser]

The environment is best protected through strong property rights.


On Kyoto:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=24

a couple others:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=151
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=154

[cien750hp]

well tell them he believes in the free market. if people demand hybrids and better fuel efficiency and solar panels and wind turbines, companies are going to start making them and competing to have the best and cheapest. tax dollars don't need to be spent on something the free market will do on its own

[constituent]

he is the only environmentally friendly candidate.

you are your own private property. no one has the
right to pollute, or poison, or assault your property...

consider that.

Consider what they mean by cap and trade... it's another
way of handing out a free currency,
"you can only have X number of emissions and if you beat
that you can trade the 'credits' for money, stock, whatever.."

why did you, a corporation, just get paid not to pollute?

do you think under a system like this we would actually
see a reduction of overall emissions, or would the polluters
all just get shuffled around and consolidated in spots where
they might not trouble our eyes?

i consider that very environmentally unfriendly, and it's
about as al gore as it gets.

[Melissa]

well the environment is important to me and the way Ron Paul has introduced his views to me in the videos I have watched is this---- First -Free People means property rights. So we would own our homes. Now think of it like this - Government programs like housing--- we all have heard the horror stories about the slums people have to live in because of poor government housing - so basically the poor are renting-- so then think about owing your own home -- most people keep there own property nice because it is an asset. Or think of it like owning and renting a car-- which do we take of more. So now we know that owing makes people take more responsibility for their propert. If someone a neigbor or company next door were polluting your property -you would want it to stop. So the environment can only really be taken care of where there is a free society with owner property rights. And by the way all the wars are so bad for the environment and the stuff we put in the air that that should alone be enough to vote for him--he wants other countries to be our friends then we all respect each other and our world more.

Just a few thoughts

Melissa-Indiana for Ron Paul

[Mark Rushmore]

It's a false dilemma:

Do you really believe any of the other candidates paying lip service to the environment are going to do anything substantive about it?

Edit. btw the same applies to Social Security, AMT, borders, etc. When you hold up Dr. Paul's views in comparison to the statements of another, you are giving 'the other' too much credit - Dr. Paul is the only candidate who speaks his mind and offers concrete policy as opposed to hollow promises. You can't compare the beliefs of an honest man to the rhetoric of a pretty face, and certainly shouldn't raise another candidate's words to measure sincerely against his - because they lie.

[LinearChaos]

I like to relate it to foreign policy. I think it is kind of short-sighted to talk about saving our own environment using the ideas i hear floated around like carbon taxes, corn subsidies, other strange forms of state coercion, etc., when we are defending an empire using oil, in order to get more oil. You can cut a lot of emissions if you shut down some of the 700+ US bases that we operate in 130 countries.

Tanks, missiles, jets, trucks, the tools of murder and mayhem, they don't run on batteries and biodiesel, but you also don't hear any of the Democrats talking about how our foreign policy and our entrenched, subsidized fossil fuel industry might be influencing Global Warming.

Making it ok for farmers to grow hemp for ethanol would help too. When it comes to mainstream ideas like Corn and Ethanol, I like to point out that the government doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to picking winners.

[kylejack]

Say yes, because Ron Paul's body is bio-degradeable.

[SeanEdwards]

Single largest consumer of fossil fuels on planet Earth:

The U.S. military

Everything connects back to our foreign policy.

[foofighter20x]

The environment is best protected through strong property rights.


On Kyoto:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=24

a couple others:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=151
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=154

Schmeisser is exactly right.

Also, mention how the market has started to respond to concerns over global warming by making new buildings and their offices more energy efficient (which also saves them money in the long run) and have even started making Green products (Honda Prius, anyone?).

[nullvalu]

well the environment is important to me and the way Ron Paul has introduced his views to me in the videos I have watched is this---- First -Free People means property rights. So we would own our homes. Now think of it like this - Government programs like housing--- we all have heard the horror stories about the slums people have to live in because of poor government housing - so basically the poor are renting-- so then think about owing your own home -- most people keep there own property nice because it is an asset. Or think of it like owning and renting a car-- which do we take of more. So now we know that owing makes people take more responsibility for their propert. If someone a neigbor or company next door were polluting your property -you would want it to stop. So the environment can only really be taken care of where there is a free society with owner property rights. And by the way all the wars are so bad for the environment and the stuff we put in the air that that should alone be enough to vote for him--he wants other countries to be our friends then we all respect each other and our world more.

Just a few thoughts

Melissa-Indiana for Ron Paul

Well said. I think since the environment is such a hot-button issue now, pressure groups will also have huge influence on corporations and such. Let the free market take care of it. We don't need the gov't to step in and tell us how to live our lives or run our businesses. They just f' things up. :)

btw, Nice to see another Hoosier..

[MozoVote]

With a reduction in taxes, people are free to give more disposable income to envirnomental groups, and the money will be distributed more efficiently than by the government.

Defense of private property rights means that nobody has can pollute the air or water that crosses your property.

Federalism allows states to set environmental policies that are more strict than Washington DC has done, if they choose to do so. Individuals have more influence over their local government.

[drednot]

Ask your girlfriend to compare the environment in free-market economies with that of centrally planned economies.

Never confuse government propaganda with actual results.

[fj45lvr]

If your friends mom and others think that being "evironment friendly" means that it requires an all powerful "statism" to "control" everyone and every single thing done they should look hard to see where in the Constitution that is specified as a power of the federal government (it is not)....they could ammend the consitution or otherwise allow the rightful control to be in the hands of the STATES and WE THE PEOPLE (where it is rightfully placed as the powers of the state are "MANY and infinite" while those of the Federal were to be "FEW and definite".

It is rather ironic that many of these "so-called" enivronmentalist types are the "not in my backyard" types that seek for example to hamper at every turn possible such commonplace things such as mining activities which provides everything we use in our modern society (excepting those things GROWN by agriculture).

What REALLY happens by their efforts to barr or stop legitimate mineral extraction is that it actually HARMS THE Global ENVIRONMENT to a much much greater degree!!!! Because where we would mine here in the U.S. at a higher standard of safeguards is then shifted off to the third world (because the demand for these things is always going to be here)....in these third world operations they utilize little if any technological controls to protect the environment (thus resulting in a GREATER harm done because of the likes of these GREEN ECO-IDIOTS essentially forcing their lawsuits and "NIMBY" mindest)....funny how they however still hypocritically will use all the modern implements in society regardless of the facts!!! When they ACTUALLY address us from grass huts and ride their horses I could at least respect them. Right now they deserve no respect when a healthy dose of "concern" actually becomes a punitive control power (exacting extortion pay-offs).

[PINN4CL3]

Say yes, because Ron Paul's body is bio-degradeable.

Lol, that's what my girlfriend first said when her mom asked me that. :D

Anyways though, the only thing I don't entirely get about the private property rights argument is that it's basically just stating the way things should work, instead addressing why things aren't working that way.

Even right now, people could assemble, and sue the powerplant that is polluting "their" air. However, it's just not happening. So does he plan on making this form of action more accessible to people? Is he just planning on his platform being an inspiration to people to stand up for themselves?

I'm not really hearing an answer, but more just a list of reasons on why a certain way of thinking should work, but isn't.

[steph3n]

He is a member of a local group that is anti pollution, working to keep their groundwater safe, I think maybe someone can find the full name :)

[jpa]

government and military are #1 polluter. So yes RP is eco-friendly when he dismantles the biggest polluters in the US :-)

[PINN4CL3]

He is a member of a local group that is anti pollution, working to keep their groundwater safe, I think maybe someone can find the full name :)

Yeah, that would be excellent. I've been Skyping with them as you all have been responding.

So far the biggest helps have been that he doesn't want to subsidize oil and gas (or anything else), that he himself lives modestly, recycles, and has a garden, and that government programs aren't historically all that good of a place to invest your money.

[LBT]

Tell them that the other candidates will create policies to suit their contributor's agendas and their own political interests, rather than finding real solutions to environmental problems.

For example, carbon trading schemes threaten to create a multi-billion dollar industry for consultants and lobbyists working endlessly to get better deals from government.

There are more market friendly solutions such as transfering some existing taxes like fuel tax to a broader carbon tax which would result in no net increase in the cost to the average tax payer, but would create disincentives for people and businesses to use energy sources that produce excessive CO2. This would stimulate investment in and use of low CO2 energy sources.

The current politicians are not interesting in these type of tax-neutral carbon tax schemes because they don't offer gold mines to their lobbyists.

If environmentalists want an open discussion of policy alternatives the Ron Paul is the only man for the job. The others will work for policies that suit their lobbyists' interests.

[Exon]

Ron Paul and the Environment (http://upstreamdownstairs.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-and-environment.html)

Ron Paul's Green Record is Outstanding
(http://upstreamdownstairs.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-pauls-green-record-is-outstanding.html)

[PINN4CL3]

Tell them that the other candidates will create policies to suit their contributor's agendas and their own political interests, rather than finding real solutions to environmental problems.

For example, carbon trading schemes threaten to create a multi-billion dollar industry for consultants and lobbyists working endlessly to get better deals from government.

There are more market friendly solutions such as transfering some existing taxes like fuel tax to a broader carbon tax which would result in no net increase in the cost to the average tax payer, but would create disincentives for people and businesses to use energy sources that produce excessive CO2. This would stimulate investment in and use of low CO2 energy sources.

The current politicians are not interesting in these type of tax-neutral carbon tax schemes because they don't offer gold mines to their lobbyists.

If environmentalists want an open discussion of policy alternatives the Ron Paul is the only man for the job. The others will work for policies that suit their lobbyists' interests.


Oh, good finisher man. I just read this word for word, and I think they got it.

[steph3n]

knowing how to use google rocks :)

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


Can you describe your connection to the natural world? Have you had any memorable outdoor or wilderness adventures?

answer My favorite thing is riding bicycles, and at home my hobby is raising tomatoes. I live on the San Bernard River in Texas and I belong to an environmental group that works very, very hard to protect the natural aspects of that river.

this MAY MAY MAY be the group he is a member of:
http://www.sanbernardriver.com/

[JosephTheLibertarian]

My girlfriend's parents want to like Ron Paul, probably mostly because I talk about him all the time, but the environment is a big issue to her mom.

She asked me today if Ron Paul was environmentally friendly, and I totally blew the answer. Basically telling her straight up that Ron Paul wasn't exactly an environmentalist. The environment is a big deal to a lot of people who might otherwise take a look at Ron Paul's other stances, so does anyone know how to respond to this?

Please, no advice on how to tell people that global warming is not true.

Just say "yes"

if they ask how:

say he's a strong believer in property rights and respecting your neighbors health. They won't know that he believes in the libertarian approach ;) and that's okay!

[steph3n]

Actually I am about 100% sure it is the group he is a member of in today news bulletin on their site:
After the ribbon cutting ceremony, Dianna Kile, representing Congressman Ron Paul, presented a U.S. Flag, which had been flown over our nation's Capitol, in honor of the Friends Of the River Community Center Open House.

[Menthol Patch]

Ron Paul would not pollute the environment by dropping depleted uranium on other nations.

[LinearChaos]

Ron Paul would not pollute the environment by dropping depleted uranium on other nations.
true dat. I love how the state wants to tax my farts and tax me every time i eat a cheesburger, but it doesn't want to stop the militarism.

I wonder if cluster bombs and land mines count as pollution?

[richard1984]

Ron Paul's 1400 Square foot house....

Interesting factoid. Thanks! :D

[deedles]

It's a false dilemma:

Do you really believe any of the other candidates paying lip service to the environment are going to do anything substantive about it?




Exactly. All these gubment people spouting off on 'global warming' (can't wait for the war on that) but none of them say a word about the agri-corporate monster monsanto planting seeds with the 'terminator gene' in them. How is that for scary? Or, Um. How about all the dumping of toxins that the military is allowed to do in our waters? They do nada about that... but some unproven theory of man-made global warming, well that is all the rage as there certainly can be a tax levied against us. I'm thinking Dr. Paul is waaay better than the rest on this issue as well. For the planet AND for us.

I do like to bring up these types of topics to environmentally-consious folks. Ask them why they don't hear about this stuff on the tv.

[specsaregood]

My understanding is that Bradley in DC and some other people? wrote up a detailed piece of Ron Paul's stances on the Environment and his solutions/positions and gave it to the campaign a LONG TIME AGO. But it is still not up on the campaign website.

Bradley, What do we need to do to get the campaign to roll this out to the LIVE campaign site?!

[Ninja Homer]

Anyways though, the only thing I don't entirely get about the private property rights argument is that it's basically just stating the way things should work, instead addressing why things aren't working that way.

Even right now, people could assemble, and sue the powerplant that is polluting "their" air. However, it's just not happening. So does he plan on making this form of action more accessible to people? Is he just planning on his platform being an inspiration to people to stand up for themselves?

I'm not really hearing an answer, but more just a list of reasons on why a certain way of thinking should work, but isn't.

Here's how I explained it to a friend of mine. This friend has a degree in forestry or something like that... he's qualified to be a forest ranger. He refers to the EPA as the "Environmental Payoff Agency". See, true environmentalists know how corrupt the EPA is, and understand that the government does a horrible job at protecting the environment. It's mainly just the people who call themselves environmentalists because they celebrate Earth Day who think the government protects the environment.

Here's an email I got from my friend:

BP just made a massive $3.8 billion expansion at their oil refinery in
Whiting, Indiana. After pouring billions of dollars into expanding
the aging plant, they claim they just wouldn't have the room to fit in
a water treatment facility to deal with the increased waste being
produced.

So BP is asking the EPA to instead let them dump 1,500 more pounds of
ammonia and 5,000 more pounds of toxic sludge into Lake Michigan.

The EPA has decided to let them do it.

Below is a link to send message rejecting the idea of dumping toxic
sludge into Lake Michigan. The message will go directly to BP's CEO
Tony Hayward and EPA Region 5 Administrator Mary Gade.

To sign the petition click on the link below or copy and paste it into
your browser:

https://www.environmentillinois.org/action/protect-lake-michigan/bp-epapetition?id4=ES

Please pass this along to others so we can protect our lake!

Here's my response:

Unfortunately, that's what happens when environmental protection is put in the hands of the government.

The way environmental protection is supposed to work is through property rights. If somebody messes up your property, whether it is the water that runs through it, the air over it, or the land itself, you are supposed to be able to sue them for it. The lawsuit for damages and cleanup would end up costing them a lot more than it would have cost that person or company to take care of their waste properly from the start, so it probably wouldn't happen in the first place.

Now in this case, the EPA is a government approved middle man between the oil refinery and all the millions of people who could be affected by the pollution of Lake Michigan. People will never be able to sue the oil refinery for any damages because it was government approved. Rather than protecting the environment, the EPA stands in the way of true environmental protection as well as property rights.

Ron Paul explains how environmental protection is related to property rights better than I can:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/240/respect-for-property-rights-necessary-for-freedom/

Hope this helps!

[Ninja Homer]

Another factoid, although I don't remember where I heard it... at one time Ron Paul wanted to be a forest ranger.

[amakris]

1) Against oil subsidies.
2) Against tariffs that prevent more eco-friendly sugar cane based ethanol.
3) For property rights which will prevent lots of pollution problems.

[stewie3128]

"...and at home my hobby is raising tomatoes."

Does anyone else here find it endearing how he calls it "raising" tomatoes instead of "growing tomatoes" - like they're kids or puppies?

It is impossible to dislike Ron Paul.

[walt]

this thread is totally awesome!!! :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

at home my hobby is raising marijuana

[LBT]

Guys,
After writing about this earlier in the thread I have been thinking quite a lot on this matter, because I think it is a key matter for many people, especially those on the Democrat side of politics.

After some thought I've come up with an answer that I think has the best chance of making them reconsider Ron Paul's stance on environmentalism as favorable.

First let me say that I am a sceptic concerning fears of global warming and the man made contiribution to it, but I think that there is no political course except compromise at this stage, just as politically social welfare programs can not be eliminated at this time through the political process.

So, the message to environmentalists is along these lines:

Do you trust the US government?
Do you trust the Governments of China, UK, Greece, Brazil etc. ?
Then why would you trust an organization that is made up of all these governments, such as the representatives that make up the Kyoto agreements?
Isn't it best for the US to be sovereign and for the US people to decide the best policy?
And if the US can find an efficient way to deal with CO2 emmissions, then we could work to promote this strategy to other nations?
Surely the answer to global warming is not to stop all use of CO2 producing energies tomorrow? Such a response would create economic catastrophe correct?
Then there must be strategies that can reduce CO2 emmissions with relatively less impact on our economy, and finding these would be the best solution?
Do you know that many lobby groups, including brokers and consultants in international carbon trading schemes stand to make billions from such policies?
Now do you trust international bureaucrats or politicians serving lobby groups to present us with the best alternatives, or would you trust Ron Paul to present us with the options honestly?

It's a tough call getting many people to abandon their faith in seemingly neutral international organizations, but I think they can catch onto the idea that these organizations are cesspools of representatives for lobbyists of various vested interests.

If we can get them thinking that Kyoto or similar proposals from organizations are structured in the favor of vested interests, then they are ready to accept the idea that we need to look at the best type of policies to reduce CO2 which have the least negative impact on their lives. And that the best way to do that in the US is to have an honest president who is an intellectual with respect and fresh ideas about environmentalism that will never be influenced by lobbyists.

[Nicketas]

,.,.

[truthbetold]

The Legalization of Industrial Hemp (not marijuana) is RP energy policy.
It is perhaps the biggest thing ANY president could do for the enviorment.

Hemp is 5 times more efficient than corn in making ethanol. It also burns very hot and is a clean replacement for coal. We could be self sufficient with ethanol from hemp. Furthermore, burning ethanol from hemp actually removes CO2 from the air.

It lowers the amount of pesiticed and herbicides needed (biggest polluter of our water) . It needs little or no fertilizer and chockes out weeds.

Hemp also is a very important food source for birds and wildlife. The erradication of Americas natural hemp has caused the extintion of thousands of birds. (Why do you mostly see blackbirds)

Go to abovetheignorance.org

MOVE OVER AL GORE ~ RON PAUL SOLVES GLOBAL WARMING.

[truthbetold]

Did You Know It Is Illegal For Me To Run My Car On Hydrogen In Texas?

True, I Know How To Convert It, But You Could Not Get A Permit Because It Does Not Make Enough Pollution For A Inspection Sticker. To Pass The Emmissions Test You Must Have Some Pollution. True....

The Govt Is The Biggest Obsticle In Going Green And The Epa Is The Biggest Polluter In The Us.