An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment

grist.org ^ | 10/16/07 | Amanda Griscom Little

[MNJohnnie]

Screaming louder and longer doesn’t change the fundamental fact that Paul is unfit for the Presidency or that none of you Paulbots are capable of actually answering the question “what and how would Paul do any of the things he promises.

All you are doing is hearing what you want to hear in Paul’s words and looking no deeper. You are projecting your own opinions on what you think Ron Paul’s words mean. HE has not told you anything at all. He merely has mouth slogans allowing you to put your own spin on them.

That not an honest, serious campaign, that is demagoguery.

[Allegra]

I'm trying to stop the war, and bring back a sound economy, and solve the financial crises, and balance the budget...

Hmm. There are two ways to "stop" a war.

Win it or

Surrender.

Gosh, I wonder which method ronpaul advocates?

[George W. Bush]

Did you see this?

---

2. (Asked of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party) Which of the following candidates would you be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, or if you would support someone else.

	Giuliani	F. Thompson	McCain	Romney	Huckabee	Paul	Tancredo	Brownback	Hunter	T. Thompson	Gilmore	Other	None/ no opinion
2007 Oct 12-14	32	18	14	10	6	5	2	2	1	n/a	n/a	2	9
2007 Oct 4-7	32	20	16	9	7	2	1	1	1	n/a	n/a	1	11
2007 Sep 14-16	30	22	18	7	4	4	1	2	2	n/a	n/a	1	10
2007 Sep 7-8	34	22	15	10	5	1	1	2	*	n/a	n/a	2	8
2007 Aug 13-16	32	19	11	14	4	3	1	1	2	n/a	n/a	2	11
2007 Aug 3-5	33	21	16	8	2	2	1	1	1	2	n/a	3	10
2007 Jul 12-15	33	21	16	8	2	3	*	2	1	1	*	1	11
2007 Jul 6-8	32	21	16	9	2	*	2	1	3	2	*	1	10
2007 Jun 11-14	29	21	20	8	3	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	8
2007 Jun 1-3	35	12	20	14	3	1	2	1	1	1	--	1	10
2007 May 10-13	32	12	24	10	1	--	1	2	*	1	1	3	13
2007 May 4-6	36	14	21	9	1	*	1	1	1	2	1	3	11
2007 Apr 13-15	38	11	24	10	2	2	*	1	1	1	2	3	6
2007 Apr 2-5	42	12	18	7	1	2	2	1	1	3	*	4	7
2007 Mar 23-25	34	13	22	4	2	1	1	3	1	2	1	3	13
2007 Mar 2-4	49	n/a	21	10	1	n/a	1	1	1	2	*	3	11
2007 Feb 9-11	42	n/a	25	6	2	n/a	2	4	2	2	2	4	10
2007 Jan 12-14	31	n/a	27	7	1	n/a	n/a	1	*	2	2	17	13

USATODAY.com

---

[KDD]

Hmm. There are two ways to "stop" a war.

Win it or

Surrender.

What country are you waiting on to surrender to us? Iraq? They surrendered years ago. Many of us in this country don't care for our military to be employed as international social workers in the same places we send them to destroy.

[Allegra]

What country are you waiting on to surrender to us?

Whoa...maybe you need a break from the bong.

Many of us in this country...

And many of us of our country do not espouse the Code Pink, MoveOn, A.N.S.W.E.R., Daily KOS, Harry Reid, Ron Paul and his Cult line.

Keep that in mind.

[traviskicks]

Progress is progress!

Did you see this:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

Once that cash starts to be spent we’re going to see those polls jump.

oh and btw, paul is going to be on leno on the 10/30.

[KDD]

Whoa...maybe you need a break from the bong.

Typical ignorant non-answer from the "hate Paul" platoon.

Would you like to see where Free Republic used to stand on the type of nation building adventures you are now encouraging. There is an entire archive of posts condemning Clinton for such like actions. I have posted a few of them in making this point before. Revisionism seems to be the stock in trade for internationalists who also try and claim the label conservative. Such BS doesn't fool me and it will not fool a lot of others. You have what has become a little echo chamber of "hate Paul" sentiment on these threads...The passionate hate displayed on these threads only stokes the curiosity of onlookers and perhaps they will read some of the 900 articles and speeches by Ron Paul just to find out just what about the man could instill such passionate hatred of the him by people such as you...In that way you bring more converts to Ron Paul's message of freedom. So carry on.

[RedRover]

So, as I read this, under the Paul plan, my neighbor would be able to sue me for smoking a cigarette because I am polluting his property. I could also be sued for driving an SUV or using a leaf blower.

Is my reading correct?

[traviskicks]

lol, well I don’t see how a cigarette or SUV would count for anything, besides if someone didn’t want you smoking or driving it on their property. But if you blew leaves all over someone else’s lawn I’d think you’d be liable if you refused to clean them up. Don’t you agree? If you were burning coal or something and blankened your neighbors house and lungs or drilling and contaminated their water supply, I think you should be liable.

I think this sort of property rights based environmentalism is very interesting and has been absent from the environmental debate in most quarters and conservatives haven’t made it an issue.

[RedRover]

I think it’s interesting also though I wonder how you prevent the whole thing from getting out of hand. For instance, no one could build a nuclear power plant in this country. They’d be tied up in court forever by the “no nukes” crowd.

[sergeantdave]

His solution to pollution is certainly good and well tested. It was used extensively in 19th century America and worked.

The problem is that America would once again need to recognize individual property rights, which liberals and RINOs will never do. It would interfere with their fascist march toward socialism.

[Red Boots]

I think this sort of property rights based environmentalism is very interesting and has been absent from the environmental debate in most quarters and conservatives haven’t made it an issue.

Most environemntal programs these days are based on hypothetical harm, not actual. To require that actual harm be demonstrated would effectively shut down a lot of environmental regulation, a good thing in my opinion.

For example, the curent EPA laws on ground water, requiring all aquifers to be cleaned to drinkable standards, even if no one has, or will ever , use them for drinking water.

ANother example; a local outcry ( led by big enviro) against a small operator of natural gas drilling waste sumps. They are going to raise public hysteria to get the guy shut down, even though he's followed all local zoning permits, and no harm has been shown.

Third example; a rash of babies born without brains was blamed on a local chemical company along the Texas-Mexico border.

Environmental lawyers sued, a hysterical jury convicted, and the company, and it's shareholders had to pay a multi-million dollar settlement.

LAter, it was found that the defect was actually caused by a corn fungus, which had profilerated that year beause of heavy rain.

This would be great for the economy, as it would limit envrionmental problems to those actually caused, and alternative technologies to those that actually were cost effective without subsidies.

[traviskicks]

In theory, anyone could build a nuclear reactor anywhere, even next door to someone else, provided there was no pollutants/radiation etc.. to a harmful level, see post 52 for more on this. I think in the article paul even says nuclear energy is a good idea.

The one weakness I can see in this general theory, as brought up in debate with a budy of mine who works for a company that manages compliance for various industries, is that if someone was to pollute your property, say water supply, but then went bankrupt, you’d be stuck with the damages.

My response was that bankrupcy laws need to be tightened so that people are accountable for their credit, actually ‘tightened’ is a misnomer, the current laws should be repealed to allow contracts to be drawn up between indivduals, creditor and lender. Also, people could buy insurance, both the possible polluter and the individual, sort of like uninsured collision insurance for the individual and ‘disaster’ insurance for the possible polluter.

I’m not sure tho, the details need to be fleshed out.

[Fudd Fan]

a really great articulation of conservative conservation ideology

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

IMO, a great articulation of Conservative/Libertarian philosophy on the environment and energy policy

But...but...this can't be. Paul's a secret lefty who's in bed with all of the other left-wing groups. Oh dear, how can we demonize him on this topic? (wrings hands)...

Paul-basher #1: We can't debate the facts here, gotta go with Plan B.

Paul-basher #2: Deploy photo-shopped .jpeg, I want something real cute this time, an anti-war nut holding a Ron Paul 2008 sign.

Paul-basher #1: Great idea! Now just center the pic...easy now...make sure you insert a Neo-Nazi skinhead in the back there....now add some pink, as in Code Pink....there we go....

Paul-basher #2: Perfect! That'll teach the Paulites! Google this, Paul nutters!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

Can you imagine the other candidates giving an answer like that? Paul absolutely ate this guy's lunch with this answer.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

over 900 speech's and articles outlining his positions. That is more information in the public domain on Ron Paul's views then all the information on the rest of the candidates combined.

All written by Paul himself too.

[traviskicks]

He gave a similar response in an interview on healthcare from someone at the kaiser foundation, it was great, destoyed their premise on their idea of what insurance was.

[t_skoz]

If you disagree, show me a better one.

[Fudd Fan]

“IF” I disagree? You’re not sure?
Oh well, I’m assuming there was a “please” implied in your post somewhere, so here’s one for starters.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/04/23/talking_about_federalism