This is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.
Update: Ron Paul dropped out of the presidential race on June 12, 2008.
Enviros may roll their eyes at a candidate who dismisses the U.S. EPA as feckless and disposable, who believes all public lands should be privately owned, and whose remedy for an ailing planet is "a free-market system and a lot less government." But Ron Paul, the quixotic libertarian U.S. rep from Texas, has a bigger cult following online than any other presidential candidate*, and has won unexpected attention in the GOP debates with his provocative ideas.
Some of those ideas arguably have environmental merit. Paul is known for his zealous opposition to the Iraq war, which he duly notes causes pollution and the "burning of fuel for no good purpose." He wants to yank all subsidies and R&D funding from the energy sector, which many believe would benefit the growth of renewables. A cyclist himself, he has cosponsored bills that would offer tax breaks to Americans who commute by bicycle and use public transportation. Still, his libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn't do diddly about global warming because, Paul reasons, "we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather."
I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.
For more info on his platform and record, check out Grist's Paul fact sheet.
What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?
On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and development because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol and it turns out that it's not economically feasible. So, my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.
On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property -- water, air, or land. It is very strict.
But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can't be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private parcels?
The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air -- that can be properly defined by property rights. Water: if you're on a river you certainly can define it, if you're on a lake you certainly can define it. Even oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.
Can you elaborate on when government intervention is and isn't appropriate?
Certainly, any time there's injury to another person, another person's land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with the government.
What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?
You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.
Would you dissolve the EPA?
It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war, and bring back a sound economy, and solve the financial crises, and balance the budget.
Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous materials, like lead in children's toys?
If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can't inspect every single toy that comes into the country.
So you see it as the legal system that brings about environmental protection?
Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the country because it was a steel town. You couldn't even see the sun on a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up -- not by the EPA, by local authorities that said you don't have a right to pollute -- and the government cleaned it up and the city's a beautiful city. You don't need this huge bureaucracy that's remote from the problem. Pittsburgh dealt with it in a local fashion and it worked out quite well.
What if you're part of a community that's getting dumped on, but you don't have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?
Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular trash service, were taking their household trash to the next town over and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town. Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except that, for a good number of years, legislatures and courts have failed to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has persisted since the industrial revolution when, in the name of so-called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically popular entity.
When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are -- a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another -- concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.
You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?
Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment.
If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much -- something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly.
Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create diesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.
But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?
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.
To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.
What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?
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.
So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?
No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus -- those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.
What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?
They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.
And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.
You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?
It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don't think that would work.
You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global warming?
I think they're more capable of it than politicians.
What's your position on a carbon tax?
I don't like that. That's sort of legalizing pollution. If it's wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It's wrong to do it, it shouldn't be allowed.
Do you think it should be illegal to emit harmful pollutants?
You should be held responsible in a court of law and you should be able to be closed down if you're damaging your neighbor's property in any way whatsoever.
Who would set the law about what pollutants could and couldn't be emitted? Congress?
Not under my presidency -- the Congress wouldn't do it. The people who claim damage would have to say, look, I'm sitting here, and these poisons are coming over, and I can prove it, and I want it stopped, and I want compensation.
You've described your opposition to wars for oil as an example of your support for eco-friendly policies. Can you elaborate?
Generally speaking, war causes pollution -- uranium, burning of fuel for no good purpose. The Pentagon burns more fuel than the whole country of Sweden.
Do you support the goal of energy independence in the U.S.?
Sure. But independence does not mean to me that we produce everything. I don't believe governments have to provide every single ounce of energy. I see independence as having no government-mandated policy: If you need oil or energy, you can buy it.
What about being independent from the Middle East, so we're not buying oil from hostile countries?
I think it's irrelevant. We wouldn't be buying it directly, we would be buying it on the world market. I don't think the goal has to be that we produce alternative fuel so that we never buy oil from the Middle East. The goal should be to provide all useful services and goods through a market mechanism instead of central economic planning or world planning. That system doesn't work.
What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future?
Coal is a source of energy and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property.
But coal technology has been proven to harm people -- with poisons like mercury and asthma-causing particulates -- so should old-style coal plants be allowed to continue operating?
Use of the technology I mentioned to prevent harm to people, even if it costs more for the coal producer, is another example of how costs must be internalized to the energy source. To the extent coal can be efficiently produced in a way that does not pollute another's property or another's physical body, it will be chosen as a viable energy source. Certainly no producer of energy or anything else has a right to pollute or harm another's property or person.
If coal is not competitively priced when all costs to keep production safe are internalized to the producer, then coal will not be purchased or produced. I do not happen to believe this will be the case, but it is for the market to sort out, not politicians in Washington. It may be that, from time to time, as other energy sources become scarce, "safe coal" will be viable even if it is not at some other point in time.
I think nuclear is great; I think it's the safest form of energy we have.
Ethanol?
I don't think anything's wrong with ethanol -- it's just not economically competitive. It's only competitive now because those who produce it get subsidies.
What environmental achievement are you most proud of?
Nothing really special, other than trying to explain to people that you don't need government expenditures and special-interest politics to promote safe, environmental types of energy. That comes about through a free-market system and a lot less government, and I think that's the most important thing I can contribute.
You mentioned something in a past interview -- the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending?
I'm not sure I understand that. Green Party?
You had said in another interview, "I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign."
Green Citizens?
No, scissors, like you cut paper with.
Oh, I don't recall exactly that. But I have a lot of environmentalists that work with me very closely and support these issues.
Who is your environmental hero?
Nobody in particular.
If you could spend a week in a park or natural area in the United States, where would it be?
There's probably hundreds of places. I probably have gone to Colorado more than any place, around Telluride and Ouray.
Can you describe your connection to the natural world? Have you had any memorable outdoor or wilderness adventures?
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.
Can you elaborate on what you've done personally to reduce your energy and environmental impact?
Well, no, other than the fact that I'm just always aware of doing anything damaging to the environment. I don't think I do anything that damages it at all. I don't ride my bike because I think I'm destroying the environment by driving my car; I ride it because it's a great way to be outdoors and enjoy the environment.
*[Correction, 16 Oct 2007: This article originally stated that Ron Paul's online following was second only to Obama's. In fact, by many measures, Paul's internet support is more widespread than Obama's or any other presidential candidate's.]
A video interview with Bill Moyers
The Yes Men reveal their next big stunt
A video interview with the Yes Men
Comments
View as Flat
robofx Posted 4:32 am
16 Oct 2007
I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is not true. Seems to me Ron Paul blows away every other candidate in every measure of internet support.
Anyone?
Permalink
rvbrvb Posted 5:05 am
16 Oct 2007
Permalink
James Bowery Posted 5:38 am
16 Oct 2007
These four measures are alexa.com, trends.google.com (user queries), trends.google.com (mainstream press stories carried on the Internet), meetup.com, youtube.com and hitwise.com:
http://www.hitwise.com/political-data-center/key-candidat ...
I'd like to see cites used by the interviewer for the statement that Obama leads Paul in Internet popularity.
Permalink
askantik Posted 7:07 am
16 Oct 2007
It's obvious that Ron Paul is full of a big load of you-know-what as far as green issues. And for the record, Ron Paul is anti-war. Dennis is pro-peace. There's a difference.
Honestly, some of the stuff Paul says in this interview sounds like Bush.
NOBODY BUT DENNIS IN 2008!
Permalink
thruthunderyournose Posted 7:45 am
16 Oct 2007
Obama's meetup members: 5,572
Ron Paul has WAY more REAL people willing to WORK to get him elected.
Ron Paul's YouTube subscriber's: 32,368
Obama's YouTube Subscriber's: 11,502
And if you want the debates to be about something OTHER than the war - vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Since Republicans pick their nominee from 49% voters 51% delegates. Democrats choose their's from 100% Delegates' votes.
Permalink
dockens Posted 7:52 am
16 Oct 2007
Permalink
davedenali Posted 8:12 am
16 Oct 2007
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 8:17 am
16 Oct 2007
Lisa Hymas
Grist Senior Editor
Permalink
truegreencore Posted 10:25 am
16 Oct 2007
Allowing the market to operate can potentially do some good. Obviously, ending oil subsidies can assist in the development of renewable technologies. But, his view of the world is pretty limited: perceiving everything in terms of markets.
There is a reason the government exists. Corporations cannot pass laws and cannot be trusted to abide by them. In fact, they are frequently in blatant violation of laws that have been set. Ron Paul's faith in markets is frankly a little naive when talking about the environment, something which has consistently been undervalued in the marketplace.
There are also obvious inconsistencies within his worldview. The harm of coal is just one instance. How do you internalize mercury in the burning of coal? And, how do you ensure that corporations are internalizing harm of their products or services? This is the province of government agencies, again, because corporations have proven they are quite unwilling to abide by laws.
Paul's solution to violation of environmental principles (he doesn't really believe in laws) is litigation. It is bizarre that he relies so heavily on the ability of people to sue when courts have been reluctant to grant standing to people harmed. And, by the by, how do you argue harm has been caused if you dissolve the EPA responsible for setting limits?
Anyway, I digress. This guy just scares the hell out of me because so many progressives are on the Paul bandwagon due to his position on the war.
Permalink
dmspilot00 Posted 11:06 am
16 Oct 2007
Private land is better than public land. Haven't you ever heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Public goods are overused and abused to the detriment of the environment and all parties involved.
If public resources are abused, then the answer, as Ron Paul says, is property rights. He is obviously familiar with the Coase Theorem, that states that when property rights are well defined, bargaining will result in the optimum outcome for everyone. Take, for example, our air and water--they are polluted because they are usually considered public goods rather than having private property rights. If I owned my own air, I could prevent companies from excessively polluting my air by charging them a fee--in effect, I sell some of my air to them. And I say "excessive pollution" because if the maximum pollution allowed was zero, the economy would grind to a screeching halt.
I do disagree with Ron Paul a little bit on the subject of pollution taxes, because the Coase Theorem doesn't work perfectly due to "transaction costs" which are almost always present in the real world. Either a pollution tax or a cap-and-trade approach are sound alternatives both economically and environmentally.
So, although I disagree with Ron Paul on some of the details, I am still going to vote for him, because of the "big picture" -- this will be the first time in my lifetime that I've had an opportunity to vote for a principled, intelligent candidate with true integrity; and with his strong grassroots support, he has a real chance of winning.
Permalink
dockens Posted 11:19 am
16 Oct 2007
Permalink
dmspilot00 Posted 11:19 am
16 Oct 2007
Favoring big government and favoring free markets are mutually exclusive positions. Bush is a liar, he lied about being for small government, he lied about his religious beliefs, he lied about being against nation building, he lied about the Iraq war, he lied about being against mercury in vaccines, etc., etc...
Permalink
libertyvini Posted 11:22 am
16 Oct 2007
Permalink
rvbrvb Posted 11:38 am
16 Oct 2007
In this very interview he states..."To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore."
This position relies heavily on laws and their strict enforcement. It also shifts the burden of cleaning up pollution to those responsible for it. This mechanism would force polluters to change their ways which, one could assume, would hurt their profit margins due to higher costs and would then drive up the price of their goods or services in the marketplace as they attempt to protect their profitability. Take it a step further (as Paul suggests) and remove unfair government subsidies for that same polluter and suddenly the market, as a result of strict enforcement of the laws and rights of property owners, has created a real incentive and opportunity for entrepreneurs and innovators to enter the market with cheaper AND CLEANER products or technologies. If we had this system all along and stopped special interests and lobbies from influencing government policy and subsidies I assure you the marketplace would be much further along innovating our way out of this mess.
The corn ethanol scam is a contemporary example of how government intervention makes matters worse. By subsidizing corn ethanol in this country we have increased our reliance on petro-chemicals to fertilize the corn, process the corn into ethanol, and transport the ethanol (since it cannot be moved by pipeline it must be shipped by fuel burning trucks). In addition, we have driven the price of food inputs through the roof which hurts the lower and middle class people the most as food costs are a much larger % of income. It also seems immoral to me to consciously convert food into fuel while people are starving across the world today with the unintended consequence of only enriching the very large corporate special interests and mega farmers. Of course after all of that we have done little if anything to actually help the environment! Doesn't sound terribly progressive to me. Why not just remove the government subsides of big oil and ethanol, and enforce the laws and punish those who violate them?
Permalink
dmspilot00 Posted 11:50 am
16 Oct 2007
In order to reduce pollution, the polluters need an incentive. Property rights and litigation (as Ron Paul recommends), taxes, and cap-and-trade approaches all would give companies very good incentives for curbing pollution.
But what incentives do companies have under our current system, a system of regulatory bodies setting seemingly arbitrary limits? Currently, the incentive is not for companies to reduce their pollution, but to pollute up to the maximum allowable amount. And even more insidiously, the current system gives companies a strong incentive to lobby and capture their regulatory bodies so that they work in their favor. Under the current system, there is very little incentive to minimize pollution.
Permalink
lwil007 Posted 3:16 pm
16 Oct 2007
Permalink
truegreencore Posted 6:57 pm
16 Oct 2007
The global nature of environmental problems is a perfect example. How does one establish the guilt of an individual or a specific company to their property from 1500 miles away?
I would sue the manufacturers of toy companies using phthalates but in Ron Paul's world the EPA would not exist to set acceptable human levels. Oh, but don't worry, the chemical company told me it was safe.
Permalink
Starchild Posted 8:06 pm
16 Oct 2007
"The problem I see with RP's 'solutions' is that they are reactionary in nature. You wait until after a coal plant or neighbor is polluting and causing you harm and then sue him, but by then it may be too late."
Dockens, have you considered applying for a job as a speechwriter for George Bush? I can imagine him appreciating your logic as a rationale for a military first strike against Iran:
"The problem I see with these diplomats' 'solutions' is that they are reactionary in nature. You wait until after the Iranian regime has nuclear weapons and is giving them to terrorists and causing you harm and then fight back, but by then it may be too late."
Your approach also holds a lot of potential appeal for extreme "law and order" types:
"The problem I see with due process is that it is reactionary in nature. You wait until after a criminal has committed a crime and caused you harm and then arrest him, but by then it may be too late."
Oops, there goes "innocent until proven guilty!" Hmm, maybe "reactionary" isn't always such a bad thing -- at least the way you define it.
Permalink
mihan Posted 11:42 pm
16 Oct 2007
I'm with davedenali.
(Speaking of which, and quite coincidentally, I'm eating some stollen with my coffee this morning. Yum! Fruitcake!)
Permalink
dmspilot00 Posted 1:17 am
17 Oct 2007
Also, let's not forget that the President of the United States is a leader, not a dictator (despite what Bush wishes). If Congress disagreed then his plan would not get implemented. We need to look at the big picture and get someone with principles, integrity, and intelligence in the White House.
Oh, and I completely forgot the reason I even came to this site. I am sick of Ron Paul's campaign being called "quixotic." If anybody in politics is deserving to be called quixotic, it's President Bush, who calls himself "the decider," and "the decision maker," and who started an unwinnable war in the name of idealism (at least his own view of idealism), and to eliminate the imminent threat of nonexistent WMDs (Wind Mill Devices?)
Permalink
dockens Posted 1:56 am
17 Oct 2007
I am just suggesting to not get rid of the regulations, these define the limits.
Starchild says: "Oops, there goes "innocent until proven guilty!" Hmm, maybe "reactionary" isn't always such a bad thing -- at least the way you define it."
This actually isn't my definition of reactionary, this was how you changed my words to create a whole new and different definition.
Permalink
american Posted 1:56 am
17 Oct 2007
I find Paul's authenticity and integrity appealing, as I do his priorities.
He has demonstrated that our politics and policies are messed up, with that everyone can agree; that does not mean, however, that his theories for solutions are correct.
I agree that in an ideal situation the private property rights and the legal system should bring responsibility on the agitators.
One problem is that this doesn't necessarily take care of non-property owners, or even property owners for that matter, as, again, these are theories. We have never seen them really work, wholesale.
Another is that the courts themselves are political: as outside the boundaries of propriety they now are for instance, they require the politics of a fed up populace to bring them back in to line. For example: Enter Ron Paul.
Free-market economics and private property benefits theories in economics are just that-theories. I posit that unyieldingness concerning ANY idea is dangerous: it is a blind spot. Only the most avaricious tend to get to the pinnacle of "the marketplace."
So, the free market will solve everything if we just let it operate properly. Well, our democratic system was supposed to operate with a certain felicity and integrity, too, and act as a mechanism to solve problems. It was intended that it regulate the economy within constraints. The political system has been corrupted by money. Get rid of the money; don't get rid of the system. Isn't it right now that we have the economic system parasitizing the political one, not the other way around? Ideal states for the so-called "free market" and "private property" mechanisms are probably as intractable as that for the political system. Of public land and private he says that private is less fouled? Absolutely false.
Regarding making all things private property: this planet is 7,900 miles in diameter: that is it. The PLANET, regardless of our thinking, even, should have some open natural spaces, although I am sure that humans fundamentally need it too. We are part of the planet, inseparable. It is time for economic and political systems that maintain the vitality of natural systems: this is what we live on now and what we live on in the future. It requires an algorithm not of a marketplace! Not of human activity alone! It requires rigor not just as to markets and property but to goodness, wholesomeness, and propriety.
All that said, I would vote for Paul so that he could set about on his worthy immediate goals with the knowledge that the courts and the congress would temper some of his really radical notions.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 1:57 am
17 Oct 2007
Some mentioned and unmentioned benefits and detriments of Paul's proposals:
-Drug war ends; industrial hemp boosts production of environmentally sound products like hemp biofuels, hemp plastics, hemp clothing; marijuana production boosts economy and revives farming from death by corn
-Military operations are cut significantly; fossil fuel use cut considerably
-Separation of big government and big industry creates a fairer markeplace for competitors with oil, corn, plastics, cotton, coal, etc, by not giving them subsidies
-National Parks and Public Lands would have to be somehow safeguarded from the abuses of private entities
-Officially recognizing pollution as an attack on the property/health of another may result in more stringent laws; China's pollution, which migrates over the Pacific to California, would be seen as an international attack on American property
Permalink
s5 Posted 3:04 am
17 Oct 2007
And partly this is the fault of libertarianism in general, which balks at anything that has the appearance of collectivism. Global warming is a collective problem. If my neighbor emits more than their fair share of CO2, it's not going to affect my land or my property in any way. The harm caused by CO2 emissions is not one individual harming another; it's the collective actions of civilization harming itself.
Permalink
rvbrvb Posted 3:58 am
17 Oct 2007
Over time, private enterprises and non-profits could easily replace the EPA and create independent and competing guidelines and testing. Phasing the EPA and allowing independent, private laboratories to compete with the EPA for standard setting could only help the science, the environment, and the consumer. Why can't private companies or organizations with rigorous missions benchmark and test environmental products and issues? The EPA is in full effect today and still tainted toys get through. Why can't an entrepreneur start a business that says they will put their stamp of approval on imported products from China and assure their safety? Consumers may have to pay a bit more for products that have this assurance but if the company is reputable and does a good job consumers will demand that stamp on products they buy because they recognize the obvious value. If that company screws up or loses the public trust they can be held liable and if they were dominant they have just given a market opportunity to a new entrant to do the job better.
Ever been to http://www.ewg.org? They do tremendous work as a non-profit and offer consumers independent testing of cosmetics and household products that the FDA doesn't even touch. Why can't there be more of that?
Anyhow, Ron Paul has said numerous times that getting rid of the EPA is very low on his list of priorities and would also require a consensus (so probably never happens anyhow). As an earlier poster commented, his immediate and prioritized policy of ending the war will have the most dramatic, beneficial environmental impact out of every candidate (Kucinich excluded).
Permalink
s5 Posted 4:37 am
17 Oct 2007
This is inherently contradictory. In order to have a standard, there must be a single body who sets the standard, and that body must have the authority and legitimacy to enforce it. If the market is full of a zillion competing "standards", then it's not a standard - it's a mish-mash of individuals doing what they want, which is the opposite of a standard. No monopoly, no standard.
The alternative is exactly what we have now: everyone deciding for themselves what constitutes "green" or "responsible" behavior, forcing individuals to do endless legwork to decipher what the claims mean in reality. We already have that system today. So if you want to see how effective it would be, look no further than the present.
And yes, the EPA is less effective than it could be precisely because it has been crippled by Reaganism. A government agency can't do its job when its own leadership believes that government can't / shouldn't solve problems. Well no wonder it fails to do its job - it's designed to fail, to "prove" that it shouldn't exist.
Permalink
american Posted 4:48 am
17 Oct 2007
Outside subscribes to the "ecoterrorism" mantra.
They show individuals in all their pictures, rarely groups or families having fun together.
(Do this: pick up any old copy and count the number of pictures of individuals and the number of people doing things together)
There is never a celebration of good old-fashioned fun in the great American outdoors. The symbolism, innuendo, focus, conjecture, subject matter is always on individual satisfactions, spending money, winning against others, and enjoyment of technology. I have never seen a picture or an article of people just sitting around enjoying a campfire and conversation for instance. Very sterile. Very technology oriented.
They lionized Richard Lindzen, an outlandish global warming skeptic, in a very one-sided way in their October 2007 issue.
They will never hesitate to glorify New York City, even though the place in the world center of a variety of capitalism the never ceases to look askance at the destruction of the natural world.
They continually glorify wealth. It is clearly a subject much dearer to their hearts than nature.
Outside portends to be an environmentally oriented publication while at the same time subliminally favoring anti-environmental, anti-organic, anti-natural, and anti-heritage-in-nature viewpoints. They very nearly always have conclusions that are non-environmental or otherwise hope-less when they touch on environmental problems.
They have an ostensible circulation of 650,000. They rarely write about any of the major environmental organizations. They could do much good without losing readers, but they don't. Everyone knows these problems exist. Their readership, if any readership does, certainly supports more thorough and substantial environmentally reporting.
They do not tackle major environmental issues with hard-hitting journalism.
Please beware. Thanks.
Permalink
rvbrvb Posted 5:07 am
17 Oct 2007
It is impossible for one agency or organization to 'monopolize' perfect knowledge or information regarding the environment and also simultaneously know the finest ways to deal with protecting it from a policy standpoint.
Wouldn't it be in the interest of the country to have competing approaches on the state level and then share best practices?
The practical approach of day to day enforcement of private property rights and ending government subsidies would only enhance the system.
Permalink
Wade Posted 10:57 am
17 Oct 2007
Government is hardly ever the solution. Especially when it's the Feds and a 'one size fits all' answer. Typically, the more local an issue, the more control citizens have over their own lives. They can work it out amongst themselves instead of being told what to do by a nameless, faceless agency.
Second - it's almost always about money and power. The EPA is 'about the money.' So neither side can claim the high ground.
And third - there is no perfect solution. People have biases... we have bad judges making bad rulings... etc, etc. The best we can do is try. Which is where the Constitution and Dr. Paul's approach comes in.
I see two basic approaches in dealing with issues like this. One is to come up with 100 laws to try and stop people from doing something, only to find you have to keep on writing more laws because people find loopholes.
The second would be what Dockens refers to as 'reactionary.' I would refer to it as each individual being accountable to one basic 'rule of law.' The phrase 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' once read 'the pursuit of property,' an indication about how important it was to the Founding Fathers that people have a right to own property. It should be a natural or inalienable right, like religion, and not a right given to us by the government. The key to following this basic natural law is not infringing on another's rights, also a natural right.
In the perfect world, people would look at that basic principle and think before they did something that might infringe on the rights of another. This isn't a perfect world - but there's no perfect law either - possibly the reason the Founding Fathers tried to clarify what rights came from 'our Creator.' I do believe most people would be inclined to think first if they had to follow one basic rule of law. When there are 100, all we try to do is get around them.
Finally, regarding being 'reactionary in nature.' Somewhere in the '100 laws' approach, there is bound to be government infringement on the inalienable rights of the property owner - meaning the government has now given you your rights. Everyone is punished for something that might happen, rather than ruling on individuals who have broken the law. Should we be preemptive in case someone breaks the law, or assume innocence until proven guilty?
The basic principle of a right to private property, to liberty, and to doing no harm to your neighbor is not only simple, and constitutional... it's brilliant!
Permalink
libertyvini Posted 11:05 am
17 Oct 2007
More to the point, I work in the occupational health field, and OSHA hasn't ever set the most protective standards for industrial chemical exposure. independent groups like ACGIH are way ahead of them.
It's a weak argument that ignores the wants and desires of each individual in favor of what 50%+1 voters can be defrauded into accepting, at BEST, and what a gaggle of clueless regulators can be captured into doing, usually.
I wish he had made a more considered remark on nuclear power, for although the technology for safe, environmentally-friendly nuclear power exists, its deployment is hampered by the closed, monopolistic, nuclear power industry and its captured regulatory agencies.
Again, though, it isn't hard to understand Dr. Paul's prescription - stop subsidizing pollution, and stop repressing the right of individuals to a redress of pollution grievances. If we can get that done, and AGW is determined to be a real threat, we will ALREADY BE MOVING ON IT.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 1:46 pm
21 Oct 2007
President Paul would only be able to get the least controversial points of his program past the congress and supreme court.
If the majority of citizens liked his philosophy, it would take several congressional elections to transform congress into a likeminded body. If the majority of citizens disliked his philosophy, they could replace him in four years.
Think of him as a counterweight.
Permalink
hikerreese Posted 5:47 pm
21 Oct 2007
Paul wants to sell off the National Forest, drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, lower the minimum wage, and he against ratifying Kyoto. Why is Grist giving him space? He wants to get rid of the EPA for Christ sake and actually believes that private land is better managed.
Old growth forest does not exist on private land. Yes, I do know about the private hunting estates that have a speckling of big trees on them and these do provide places for Cheney to shoot his friends. Large tracts of old growth exist in public land and nowhere else. Many endangered species exist exclusively on public land because there is no way to stop development on private land. US waters are vastly cleaner than they were in seventies thanks to the Clean Water Act. Sure, the EPA is a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats but the fact that our waters are improving suggests that sometimes they have the power to stand up to corporations. Bush feels the same way as Ron Paul about the EPA.
We are on a runaway train fueled by corporate greed and Paul would have us remove the only brakes on the system that actually work.
What is really sad is that Grist gave him the time of day and that many readers actually buy it.
Permalink
dockens Posted 10:03 am
22 Oct 2007
Permalink
lifetree Posted 1:28 am
23 Oct 2007
I personaly see a balance in socalism and free market. Ron has a point - the balance is about other's rights - human rights and free speach. What is the best way to do it? Ask all the canidates that one.
All government is socalism. It is the agency which makes sure that we can exist together on the planet. Make it a dirty word is to see the world go to hell in a hand basket. Bush's war is an example of what happens when this is not understood. Goverment becomes a tool for selfish interst.
Good luck Ron. I hope ypu are right and can create courts that are free from corruption and can see the bigger picture. Remember even animals have rights too. We need them. Good luck Dennis. Make peace possible and craete a positive progressive future. May the best man win. The best man or woman does not come from New York...
Permalink
markbahner Posted 2:07 am
23 Oct 2007
This is inherently contradictory. In order to have a standard, there must be a single body who sets the standard, and that body must have the authority and legitimacy to enforce it. If the market is full of a zillion competing "standards", then it's not a standard - it's a mish-mash of individuals doing what they want, which is the opposite of a standard. No monopoly, no standard.
No, it's not contradictory at all. For example, every state and locality has speed limits on roads. There are different limits for different roads, but that does NOT mean that "it's a mish-mash of individuals doing what they want." There are "laws" and "standards" for how fast people can go on various roads.
Or to take another example, I sat on a jury in a medical malpractice case several years ago, in which the criterion for judgement was what was standard practice in North Carolina.
The great thing about states or localities making laws and setting standards is that there is an opportunity to compete. There is also an opportunity for laws and standards to be appropriate for state and local conditions.
The fact that there isn't a federal law or standard on some issue doesn't mean that there are no laws or standards on that issue.
Permalink
hikerreese Posted 3:01 am
23 Oct 2007
We like to think that local governments are more honest than the feds and sometimes they are but they are powerless. Locals governments can't afford scientists so they are forced to trust corporate scientists or the EPA. Without nationwide pollution laws polluters would shop around and find city councils that are either polluter friendly or have no ability for enforcement.
Private property advocates complain about the US Fish and Wildlife telling them they can't destroy critical habitat for endangered species. They also claim the right to pollute their land. Ron Paul is their champion.
Permalink
Sora Posted 7:30 am
23 Oct 2007
Second, although slightly off-topic, thanks to "american" for the skinny on Outside Magazine. Having a keen eye for the obvious, I cancelled my subscription after counting 14 ads in one issue for generally gas-guzzling SUV's, including the Hummer.
The fact that the United States still produces millions of planet-hostile vehicles is a pretty good example of the myth of the free market.
Permalink
rvbrvb Posted 3:58 pm
23 Oct 2007
"Title: Sue obstructionist EPA
Agency stonewalling California's waiver request
Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should make good on his threat to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to grant his state the waiver it needs to set tough new limits on auto emissions of greenhouse gases.
Oregon should be first in line to join that lawsuit. Right behind should be the 13 other states that have adopted the same tailpipe standards but can't put them in place until the EPA gives California the required waiver that's clearly allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. The same waiver that the EPA has granted California for air pollution controls without question or delay dozens of times in the past..."
Read rest of article here: http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support ...
A perfect example of why we all need to think hard about the wisdom of voting to empower the Federal government more and more, election after election, year after year. Is it really doing what we think it is beyond the rhetoric or would we truly be better off having more influence on local and state levels regarding the issues that concern us most?
This is also an indictment of how special interests who have consolidated power in Washington and then can impose their will across the whole country are the real problem.
Permalink
fvanoly Posted 6:38 am
24 Oct 2007
Permalink
rvbrvb Posted 4:14 pm
24 Oct 2007
Dementia is a progressive degenerative disease or syndrome of the brain.
Key symptoms are:
Well-defined, vivid, visual hallucinations. In early stage, the person may even acknowledge and describe the hallucinations. Other types of hallucinations are less common but sometimes occur. These might be auditory ("hearing" sounds), olfactory ("tasting" something) or tactile ("feeling" something that isn't there)...
Permalink
bams Posted 4:59 am
28 Oct 2007
That makes him totally unfit in my book.
I want a politician who actually respects all human beings in all things, not just those he/she chooses based on a personl belief system.
Permalink
rvbrvb Posted 12:01 pm
28 Oct 2007
Ron Paul's views on life and rights to life, especially that of the fetus, are guided by his experience as an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies and who has also witnessed late-term abortions in practice.
Ron Paul says that in his medical practice if he injures a fetus or unborn child then he is legally liable for that baby. He also points out that if someone negligently injures a pregnant woman, like in a car accident, that person is liable for the life of both the mother and the unborn child. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is responsible for the deaths of both lives. In all of these examples the fetus legally has a right to life and another person who injures or takes that life is liable.
While Ron Paul's definition of life is from conception forth his view on abortion law allow both definitions to coexist. Our Constitutional Republic specifically allows this by leaving these issues to be decided by the States independently.
Many people agree with Ron Paul's definition of life and feel very strongly about it. However, with the federal government involved they are forced to live in a system that requires them to fund abortions with their tax dollars. Conversely, many people disagree with Ron Paul's definition of life and or feel very strongly about a woman's right to choose. If abortion was federally abolished they would be forced to live in a system in opposition to their beliefs.
By removing Federal jurisdiction and leaving the issue to the States and allowing them to set their own laws according to the will of their respective populace the our Constitutional Republic allows for both views to coexist.
Ron Paul is not trying to 'force' his views on everyone. In fact, he is taking himself out of the debate/decision and allowing state level and local law makers to write the laws that reflect the potentially 50 different views on this issue.
Liberal states will reflect liberal values. Conservative states will reflect conservative values. That is the beauty of the system we have and Ron Paul understands and respects that.
He applies similar thinking to issues like gay marriage, education, the environment, etc. I think that his respect for the Constitution and his appreciation that people do have different values and that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing one group's values over another group that makes him uniquely 'fit' to be President.
Permalink
MIKE CHIROPOLOS Posted 2:45 pm
28 Oct 2007
I'll take you at your word. All land should be private (that was the Editor summarizing your beliefs and I couldn't find that on your campaign website, so maybe Amanda didn't quite get it right), you enjoy visting Telluride and Ouray in Colorado, you like to bicycle, and you believe private litigation is the answer to polluted air.
What's your position on the call to "Keep public lands in public hands"? Are you aware Telluride and Ouray are surrounded by public lands? That the Uncompahgre, Gunnison and San Juan National Forests are all that keeps rich Texans and other trophy homers from building on every last acre in these scenic locales? Seriously, next time you visit, drop by the county courthouse and look at the land ownership records. You'll find that the private lands all have houses up to the forest boundaries. And ownership is trending to absentee and out-of-state. How does that affect a community?
What if the private land owners all subdivided, and the subdivisions were full of roads and houses? What about the wildlife, Ron? Does your circle of friends and advisers include a wildlife biologist, or a public lands hunter or angler, or a birder? Would you tell them that in your America we could all sue each other if we didn't like how our neighbors managed their lands for wildlife? And not to worry, we could hunt and fish and hike and camp and bird or off-road to our hearts' content -- so long as we can afford to pay private property owners for the privilege?
Should I, as a private property owner on a creek path through town used by thousands of my fellow citizens every day, have the right to deny access because I think the government has no business owning the propery behind my house as well as the front? Am I entitled to charge a toll and establish conditions of use?
Is your America consistent with the founders' vision? What about the kids, Ron? What about the kids?
In the Declaration of Independence, is the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal" dependent on each citizen's ability to sue to enforce that right? Does the inalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" extend beyond one's propery boundary? Do you march to a beat of a different declaration that says something about the rich inheriting the Republic?
At best, you think for yourself and speak your mind, a bit like Senator Mike Gravel. You're less predictable and pandering than Mitt or Hilary, and I like that. But your vision for America sounds like the Czar's Russia with the industrial blight of an English coal town in the 19th century. We can do better. Next.
Yours truly,
Permalink
Treg4RonPaul Posted 8:35 am
14 Nov 2007
An excellent real life example of what privatization of national parks could look like is to see what Panama did to protect its millions of acres of rainforest and wild life. Google The Gamboa Rainforest Resort in Panama. In an excellent way, the Panamanian government sold off its National Park by giving a monopoly right to the resort, tying together the self interest of the resort and the Park's survival and making Eco tourism a viable industry. In much the same way, most of our national parks could be "sold" and better managed. Then, thousands of us would buy stock in the Sierra Club-Hilton Resort Joint venture who would no doubt be the highest bidder. By looking closely at the bundling of property rights with wildlife, we can bring an end to animal extinctions and precious natural resources being burned, exploited and poached. My fellow environmentalists, such as Edward O Wilson who is one of my heroes, I wish to submit the way to salvation is through better use and control of private property rights, tying together the self interest of owners with the self interests of the environment & wildlife. Our professors who assumed--unthinkingly--that only government ownership and socialist/bureaucratic control was the only way, the best way, has proven wrong as the death rate of our forests and extinctions of wild life continues to attest. Indeed, if ownership is not switched over from massive government/political/bureaucratic control over to a smart, highly defined private property system, I fear the loss of all our wildlife and forests and even oceans. I submit we take Ron Paul's lead, and think out of the box for once.
Permalink
Treg4RonPaul Posted 9:08 am
14 Nov 2007
Permalink
Treg4RonPaul Posted 9:19 am
14 Nov 2007
Permalink
Treg4RonPaul Posted 9:21 am
14 Nov 2007
Permalink
Treg4RonPaul Posted 9:23 am
14 Nov 2007
Permalink
Treg4RonPaul Posted 9:25 am
14 Nov 2007
Permalink
ybul Posted 9:24 am
19 Dec 2007
<<
It also seems immoral to me to consciously convert food into fuel while people are starving across the world today with the unintended consequence of only enriching the very large corporate special interests and mega farmers. Of course after all of that we have done little if anything to actually help the environment! >>
We actually hurt the environment by turning the topsoil and losing sequestered carbon by the process of oxidization, also the increasing size of the algae bloom in the gulf is a negative side of this GOVERNMENT DESIGNED PROGRAM.
Now in cattle in the arid west, we have broken our pastures out with, oh no, barbed wire fences, from the other ranchers who run in common with others. When an individual takes ownership of a piece of land they tend to care for it better than if they do not. The others that still try to maximize the time spent in a pasture or someone else will take the grass that is there's causes great harm as opposed to moving onto and off of the land quickly as happened in a period of time when herd animals congregated in just that herds.
This allows the land to heal after it has been used. Now cattle are going to damage the environment you say. I say that how is the seed from an old plant going to be planted without an animal stomping it it.
The Methane produced, well as no studies have been preformed on a cow eating grass versus one eating grain, that is a question that one must ask.
Yes there need to be limits and laws, but if you set up a law stating how land should be used back in Washington, you will end up with a disfunctional system as the legislators will not allow for flexibility in how the rule is applied in each local.
Minimum wage in XYZ, nebraska should not be the same as in NYC. You can not craft many laws at the federal level that serve the whole well.
Permalink
lkrasner Posted 6:47 am
20 Dec 2007
If you eat healthy foods, exercise and keep active you will reap the benefits, if not you risk developing health problems and needing medical care. The libertarian view is to allow people to chose their own way of life and let the 'healthiest' forms of living become popular because they work well against the alternative.
Currently the Environmental movement is pushing just the opposite philosophy and that is: 'Everyone should follow what is best for the planet or else risk getting penalized.' Carbon Tax. Have less children. Etc.
This is completely the wrong approach. Just as we shouldn't penalize those who don't eat organic foods because they will create a future strain on our healthcare system, we should not be penalizing(taxing) the people for their so-called carbon footprint.
What about the food producers who make junk food? As more people go organic and want to avoid additives/chemicals in their food which is thankfully happening now, they are being forced to change directions. As trans fats become known as unhealthy, the food producers change their food ingredients.
This is an example of how an open market can create positive changes and does not require government regulation to dictate directly to the companies.
If we had a truly free market with energy, this could establish a similar change. This is what Dr. Paul is speaking about - unfortunately the environmental movement has for so long considered government regulation and taxation as the only solution to these issues. That is why we are facing a Carbon footprint tax on the individual - this is not the solution.
As a side note I do believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is still anything but conclusive and Dr. Paul again is right on this as well. Just recently we had a senate committee reporting stating that over 400 International Scientists disputed man-made global warming but were not fairly represented.
We all want a safe and beautiful planet - we need to study what is happening fully and not through the eyes of politicians :)
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:17 am
29 Dec 2007
No one should be permitted to release harmful pollutants that travel beyond THEIR property. It is essentially trespassing and violation of one's neighbors property rights. Clean air and water entering "your" space, should leave free of harmful chemicals. Industry would be forced to internalize all costs.
This is why Ron Paul believes, I think, strengthening personal property rights would protect the environment. It is a two-way street... protect industry's rights AND individual rights. This was brought up very briefly during an On Point interview of Ron Paul, but the host of the program failed to pursue this line of discussion. It is very disappointing that this plank of the Libertarian Part platform is not discussed more.
The same strategy could be used for protecting endangered species, since harming animals that travel independent of human boundaries or destroying ecosystems that provide important "services" deprives your neighbor of the pleasure of enjoying a healthy environment.
If Ron Paul truly wishes to apply the principle of not permitting activities the deprive your neighbors of their own right to clean air and water. AND if Ron Paul is truly committed to putting an end to military adventures, bringing all of our troops home, cutting military spending, and examining the ultimate causes of hostility in the world, I'm going to cast a vote for him in the primary and, perhaps, in the November election. I think the result would be a huge net gain for our nation, the environment, and the rest of the planet. A Democratic Congress should be able to prevent Ron Paul from inflicting any harm. Remember, legislation emerges from the House. Ron Paul would not be able to dismantle agencies like the EPA without Congressional support. Only the President can bring all of our troops home and dramatically cut military spending. Imagine the peace dividend available for building a sustainable green economy.
Permalink
AahabAabye Posted 10:45 am
31 Dec 2007
Permalink
AahabAabye Posted 11:37 am
31 Dec 2007
Permalink
aedealy Posted 1:43 pm
04 Feb 2008
I DO consider myself an environmentally-conscious individual and so reading this interview was a great way for me to begin to uderstand his position, and I must say I am not entirely convinced. Try to follow me, it may get a bit scattered.
I believe RP's major flaw in regards to the environment, and perhaps other issues too, is his faith in humankind. I 100% agree people should be allowed to choose the life fit for them, unfortunately there happens to be a lot of people in this world who scare me and don't care about the planet nearly to the same extent I do. So, let's get rid of national parks and extend private property, but are you really willing to put your faith in your neighbor and their ability/desire to keep this place as glorious as it is? The law does provide some way to make sure no hamr is done to others, but what about people who chop down all the trees on their property. They aren't directly harming anyone, but the CO2 released and decreased trees helping produce oxygen will surely affect everyone. However, I do believe some of this may be balanced by the closer-knit communities less federal government will hopefully create.
So, maybe it isn't RP's stance that concerns me so much as it is other people; or maybe it is myself and my lack of faith that is so concerning. Either way, RP has definitely got people thinking of brighter days.
P.S. Big Brother IS watching, so hello!
Permalink