PDA

View Full Version : The Environment




PoliticalChains (pending)
04-10-2015, 11:52 PM
The environment is an important issue to me. I like fresh and clean water. I like fresh and clean air. Even so, I donít care about the whole Global Warming/Climate Change buzz. I think itís irrelevant and has only succeeded in making it a partisan issue when it shouldnít be.

I donít want to hear Paul debate the validity of it. Itís irrelevant because we know that pollution is bad. Making it a global issue is pointless, and has succeeded in making something an issue of party affiliation more than it has addressed anything.

Why canít Paul talk about the mercury, pharmaceuticals, and antibiotics in the water? Why not talk about smog, ground level emissions, congested cities, and hazardous chemical waste? It doesnít have to cause Global Warming to be bad. I am much more concerned about local pollution that nobody is arguing about existing. If Global Warming is real, changing the pollution we know endangers our health on the small scale will lead to correcting the large-scale problem, whether it exists or not.

Whereís the representation? The environment shouldnít be a yes or no question.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-11-2015, 12:58 AM
Paul discusses it quite a bit:



During one of the dozens of hearings held regarding this property, an architectural review board member said, "In my former life as a seagull, I was flying up and down the California coastline and saw your house built shaped as a seashell." And because his house plan did not match the seashell-shaped house this board member envisioned in her previous life as a bird, she voted against approving any of his plans.

Source: Government Bullies, by Rand Paul, p. 77-78 , Sep 12, 2012






Our federal government regulates everything and anything. How much water goes into you commode. How much water comes out of your showerhead.
Source: Government Bullies, by Rand Paul, p. xxiii , Sep 12, 2012



So now I basically take longer showers to rinse all the soap. Sometimes a turd sticks on the low pressure toilet, so I flush it two or three times.






Other issues here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Environment.htm

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-11-2015, 01:45 AM
Why can’t Paul talk about...congested cities...


Rent control is a government mandate that leads to congested cities. I lived in New York. So many aspects of life were influenced by congestion. If rent control were eliminated, then there would be an end to artificially packing so many people in a tiny area.

There are also plenty of de facto rent control loopholes practiced by landlords. Landlords skimp on repairs and maintenance if their buildings are rent controlled. Landlords also make money showing apartments of fellow landlords. For example, Landlord A owns an apartment. The only way for a tenant to rent that apartment is to go through Landlord B, who acts as a broker for Landlord A. Landlord B receives a $1000 broker fee for simply showing you the apartment that you rent from Landlord A.

Rent control is a great value if you don't mind threadbare carpet and walls that haven't been painted since Reagan's time.

Anti Federalist
04-11-2015, 08:41 PM
The "low hanging fruit" of pollution control has long since been picked.

There is no more lead in paint and the Cuyahoga river is not catching fire.

Now we are trying to reduce pollution and emissions to points that are economically and in many cases technically unfeasible.

CaptUSA
04-11-2015, 08:48 PM
I like clean air and water too. Guess who is the biggest polluter in the world? Come on... guess...


Here's a hint: There is only one candidate who is really talking about reducing the size and scope of this polluter.








http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-number-one-worst-polluter-on-earth-is-the-u-s-federal-government/

oyarde
04-11-2015, 08:56 PM
I have clean air and water.I can think of many other things....

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-11-2015, 10:17 PM
The "low hanging fruit" of pollution control has long since been picked.

There is no more lead in paint and the Cuyahoga river is not catching fire.

Now we are trying to reduce pollution and emissions to points that are economically and in many cases technically unfeasible.


I like clean air and water too. Guess who is the biggest polluter in the world? Come on... guess...


Here's a hint: There is only one candidate who is really talking about reducing the size and scope of this polluter.








http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-number-one-worst-polluter-on-earth-is-the-u-s-federal-government/


I have clean air and water.I can think of many other things....



All excellent points, I think.

PoliticalChains
04-13-2015, 06:08 PM
The environment is an important issue to me. I like fresh and clean water. I like fresh and clean air. Even so, I donít care about the whole Global Warming/Climate Change buzz. I think itís irrelevant and has only succeeded in making it a partisan issue when it shouldnít be.

I donít want to hear Paul debate the validity of it. Itís irrelevant because we know that pollution is bad. Making it a global issue is pointless, and has succeeded in making something an issue of party affiliation more than it has addressed anything.

Why canít Paul talk about the mercury, pharmaceuticals, and antibiotics in the water? Why not talk about smog, ground level emissions, congested cities, and hazardous chemical waste? It doesnít have to cause Global Warming to be bad. I am much more concerned about local pollution that nobody is arguing about existing. If Global Warming is real, changing the pollution we know endangers our health on the small scale will lead to correcting the large-scale problem, whether it exists or not.

Whereís the representation? The environment shouldnít be a yes or no question.

Well, first of all, I want to thank everyone for their responses. I also want to thank the administrators for allowing me to join the discussion. Iím especially impressed with the guest forum option, because it represents a real willingness to reach out to anyone that actually wants to give themself a chance to understand libertarian ideas.

Additionally, I want to be completely forthcoming to whomever it may concern, and say that, I already plan on voting for Rand Paul in the Primary, and hopefully in the General Election as well. I want Rand to become the next President of the United States. Iím not here to debate against Paulís stance on the issues.

Nonetheless, I think that he falls short in some areas of articulation. For that reason, I feel itís necessary that he improve the way he explains, and responds to, questions about the environment. This is not a reflection on Paul; itís a reflection on the media and the mainstreamís short attention span.

As much as I appreciate, and agree with the responses my post received, I know they have not been satisfactory answers in the past, for single-issue voters, and environmentalists, in general.

I believe two issues are going to dominate the political season and one of them is going to be the environment. Unfortunately, I worry and expect, it to all center around Global Warming/Climate Change. That means it will wind up being a completely partisan issue, that doesnít address the real issue.

As I previously stated, the environment is important to me. While most politicians are going around trying to save the world, I want to see more done in my community and state to see these issues addressed.

Now, I want to be clear that I donít think the federal government should interfere in these issues. As I said, itís my state and local governments that arenít addressing the antibiotics and other chemicals found in our rivers and streams. Itís not even an attack on industry. At the moment, most of our water contaminants are the result of outdated waste treatment plants.

In the past, libertarian candidates, Ron and Rand included, have simply responded to environmental questions as though they will be solved as side-effects of the much more important solutions. Most people that weigh a lot of their decision on environmental issues do not accept that as a valid answer.

The first thing is that it requires a lot of work. I supported Ron Paul the last two times he ran. However, I had no idea that I would be supporting him when I first started to research his stance.

You see, I am one of those environmental issue voters. Itís not the only thing that is important to me, but it is in my top 5. For a lot of people, itís the top.

I think Paul has a major opportunity here, especially when the government wastes more energy than anyone. Energy is money. Itís not enough for Paul to simply respond to questions about the environment. The answers canít imply that there are other issues more worthwhile. The people asking care, thatís why we are asking. It would speak immensely to individuals, such as myself, if Paul were to speak more proactively about the ways government can reduce pollution, energy use, or any other government waste that impacts the environment. Making that connection for people can help make all the difference.

CaptUSA
04-13-2015, 06:21 PM
I believe two issues are going to dominate the political season and one of them is going to be the environment.
Yeah, unfortunately, it's not that big of an issue. This actually says more about the circles in which you travel than it does about American politics.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lji_c-2sqkwhdfcnpbaqmq.png
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/g7yqm0khleqlx0q3dmlr-a.png
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

To reiterate my previous point - the best way to do this is to make the link that the size and scope of the federal government is what does the most harm to the environment.

Natural Citizen
04-13-2015, 06:21 PM
Some good points, PoliticalChains. I get a bit annoyed by Global Warming trumping the terms of controvesy myself.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-13-2015, 06:25 PM
You see, I am one of those environmental issue voters. It’s not the only thing that is important to me, but it is in my top 5. For a lot of people, it’s the top.



What do you mean by top? Top 5? I really have not seen environment at the top of the list for a long time.


http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/01/1-15-2015-priorities_01.png



http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/15/publics-policy-priorities-reflect-changing-conditions-at-home-and-abroad/1-15-2015-priorities_01/

Natural Citizen
04-13-2015, 06:25 PM
Yeah, unfortunately, it's not that big of an issue. This actually says more about the circles in which you travel than it does about American politics.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lji_c-2sqkwhdfcnpbaqmq.png
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/g7yqm0khleqlx0q3dmlr-a.png
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx



Your graph states that Americans are less worried about race relations than most other issues. Do you actually believe that? Have you been paying attention to what has been driving the headlines?

dannno
04-13-2015, 06:26 PM
The environment has always been a big issue for me, global warming is really a way to distract environmentalists from actual toxic pollution and has them focused on a non-pollutant, clean CO2 which trees and plants enjoy immensely.

The way Rand's father, Ron Paul once framed it in a Presidential debate at the Reagan library, back in the 1800s the industrialists created environmental regulations to shield them from lawsuits that were being hurled at them for polluting people's property. They did it in the guise of protecting the environment so it would enjoy popular support. These laws shield corporations from total indemnity and allow them to pollute people's property. If the government repealed environmental regulations and protected property rights, we would have more environmental controls and those who pollute would be more responsible for their actions.

Rand is trying to secure the Republican nomination, so you will be hearing the debate framed in that context for some time.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-13-2015, 06:27 PM
Your graph states that Americans are less worried about race relations than anything most other issues. Do you actually believe that? Have you been paying attention to what has been driving the headlines?



I would bet that honkies do not put that at the top of the list like the black man and the lib media.

GunnyFreedom
04-13-2015, 06:27 PM
The truth is that government mandates often increase pollution levels over and above that you would have in a true free market subject to appropriate litigation. As it stands now, by the government stepping in and saying "Contaminant X is considered dangerous over Y ppm" means that a company can pollute your yard, kill your pets, and so long as their Contaminant X is not above Y ppm then they are shielded from liability, and all you can do is move. These liability shields exist because a company is fulfilling its regulatory obligations by only polluting a little instead of a lot. Therefore you just have to suffer and die without recourse. Without these regulations, all you have to do is demonstrate the pollution and argue the potential for harm, and voila, they will be required to clean up their toxins.

The reality is, we live in a MORE polluted world today on account of regulatory mandates than we would in a true self-correcting free market that allows proper pollution litigation. However, no matter how true that is, dedicated environmentalists by and large will never believe it, because it would mean their strategy over the last 50 years has been wrong, and nobody wants to repudiate the last 50 years of their own in-group's efforts.

Natural Citizen
04-13-2015, 06:30 PM
I would bet that honkies do not put that at the top of the list like the black man and the lib media.

You're likely correct. I'm just saying that it isn't practical to downplay it the way that the capt did is all. Think of it like basketball. If you aren't practicing there is always someone else who is. And when you meet he or she will beat you. Every single time.

acptulsa
04-13-2015, 07:08 PM
What Gunny said.

The EPA is a corporate creation. It's there so corporations can go into court when they get sued by the people they're poisoning, tell the judge they're in EPA compliance, and be protected from paying for the damage they're causing. This did not happen when what regulation there was came on the state level, or at the very least, it did not happen in every state.

The libertarian position is far more sensible, in my opinion. Do harm, pay for it. No protection. No dependence on often ineffective standards. Any company with a lick of sense would actually have to study the local terrain and their processes in advance, instead of simply meeting an arbitrary, lenient, one-size-fits-all-locations standard and gaining immunity.

Can't promise this will happen overnight. I, too, would like to see this happen right away. But there are many such fish to fry. This is, however, the way to go, and Rand Paul is the only one even slightly likely to get us there.

otherone
04-14-2015, 05:48 AM
Your graph states that Americans are less worried about race relations than most other issues. Do you actually believe that? Have you been paying attention to what has been driving the headlines?

What drives the headlines are distractions from actual issues.

osan
04-16-2015, 12:11 PM
The "low hanging fruit" of pollution control has long since been picked.

There is no more lead in paint and the Cuyahoga river is not catching fire.

Now we are trying to reduce pollution and emissions to points that are economically and in many cases technically unfeasible.

Pollution is a fact of human life. If you eliminate it, you eliminate us. The air in America is quite clean. The waters... mostly so, though there are exceptions. Dunno how the fracking thing is going to pan out in the longer term.

You make a good point: diminishing returns, as well as unattainable goals. If you have life, you have pollution.

osan
04-16-2015, 12:15 PM
What do you mean by top? Top 5? I really have not seen environment at the top of the list for a long time.


http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/01/1-15-2015-priorities_01.png


The absence of "freedom" or "liberty" or "human rights" is noted.

osan
04-16-2015, 12:18 PM
...so long as their Contaminant X is not above Y ppm then they are shielded from liability, and all you can do is move.

Nah. You can burn their facility to the ground.

:)

pcosmar
04-17-2015, 09:13 PM
The environment is an important issue to me,

"The Environment" ??
Please define.
Yours or mine?
I have clean water and air.. Are you OK with Ticks and Fleas? (they are part of "the Environment")
Roaches and Rats..??
Do you live in a city? Do you wear synthetics?
Do you hunt your own food or buy it prepackaged?

Just what do you mean by "environment" Nature or some man fucked construct where you live? (city)

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-17-2015, 09:18 PM
The absence of "freedom" or "liberty" or "human rights" is noted.


Good point.