libertyvini’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Necessity Of A Single Standard?

  If a single unitary body needs to be empowered to enforce a single, unitary standard on everybody, then why are we all being sold on AGW theory as a scientific "consensus"?

  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.On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Much Like What I Have Been Saying Here All Along

  Even if you disagree with Ron Paul's free-market approach (and I agree with him), he's the only candidate to my knowledge to point out that current policies of war, subsidy, and legalized pollution are causing significant environmental degradation, that current regulatory policies are captured and explicitly externalize pollution, and that Federal management of public lands is shameful. If just those issues were addressed, we would see an immediate benefit, even with regard to AGW, even though Dr. Paul doesn't believe it's been proven! For one example, it was pointed out that coal-fired power plants emit acid deposition (much less than formerly) and mercury - his point is that the current regulatory environment allows it, i.e., the government explicitly allows power plants to profit by trespassing with pollution on our bodies and properties. If such behavior were made tortious again (as it was in the early industrial revolution) the cost of stopping such pollution would make many coal-fired plants un-economic. With those plants shut down, the price of electricity would rise, calling more innovation into existence, since alternatives would have to pollute less than the coal plants they replaced. Again, even if you don't believe a real free market would result in less pollution than a more-regulated market, it is obvious that it would, if implemented, be radically better than what we have now.On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Jeff Goodell Hates Ethanol And You Should Too

  The
  libertyguys
  have been saying this for a couple of years, here and elsewhere;"Why Ethanol Will Never Economically Replace Gasoline"

  Now if we could just get people to apply the same skepticism to corporate pledges to curb global warming! People, Big Business and Big Government LOVE to stampede the herd into policies that sound appealing but are really just boodoggles designed to enrichen them and screw you and me.

  Vince Daliessio www.libertyguys.org

  On His new piece says so in downright shrill terms posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Regulation Is A Business Strategy

  Remember that, before you advocate a tax or regulatory solution to a problem, any problem. The way the US congress works, regulations are written by the largest firms to be regulated, to uniquely favor their interest and penalize their competitors.

  Why not instead re-criminalize pollution as a trespass? Then at least you could sue in court for damages. The Coasean system we have now gives companies a pass for pollution as long as it is below some arbitrary standard, set by the largest firms at a level that allows them to pollute as usual, and that shuts out competing firms.

  If companies were held accountable for ALL their pollution, I am convinced the mix of power and transportation modes would be RADICALLY different.

  Vince Daliessio www.libertyguys.org

  On Debate shifting post-IPCC report posted 2 years, 8 months ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Carbon Offsets As A Fiat Currency

  The lack of a fair and objective way to assign carbon allowances and account for offsets is one major problem.

  The biggest problem is that like any regulatory program the concept has already been captured by some of the biggest polluters, who will manipulate the playing field to disadvantage competitors.

  The fundamental reason we "need" a multinational government "solution" is that our Coasean method of abrogating individual and property rights and handing them over to big companies is so ingrained there is barely a chance of ever going back. There is no way such a system can be fair, or in the long run, workable.

  Only re-establishing a 100% property-rights solution with full enforcement against trespassing by pollution can restore the environment without harming developing countries.

  Vince Daliessio www.libertyguys.org

  On The debate that has all the kids talking! posted 2 years, 8 months ago 18 Responses