The author of this article is saying Ron Paul has "A cult following online second only to Barack Obama's.

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?

I am new to this site and came across this interview on Digg but I give kudos to the interviewer for this effort and her interviews of the other candidates.  I am a supporter of Ron Paul and I believe firmly that his solution of allowing private property and local courts to address pollution is by far the best one.  I also applaud his desire to get the federal government out of the business of subsidizing industries and research efforts because they inevitably distort free market innovations by entrenching special interests and corporations who are then able to destroy start-up competition with their unfair, government sponsored advantages.  This has been going on for decades with disastrous results and continues at a fevered pace today.  I will also add that I firmly believe that any politician who thinks he/she with their 'bold policies' can change the world are inherently dangerous.  The world is far too complex for the will of a few to be forced on the masses.  Respect for each other's life, each other's rights, each other's property, each other's customs, and the rule of law is all we need to truly make this world a better place but it can only happen locally, one community at a time.  Ron Paul is the only one that gets it.

Really think that Ron Paul gets it right on this one?  As a supporter of Dennis Kucinich, I'm often told that Ron Paul is a similar anti-war candidate.  Ron Paul is not like Dennis in any way.

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!

Ron Paul's Meetup members: 55,269
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.  

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. And we had market solutions in the past, before the EPA, ESA, etc, they rarely work because those types of solutions are not ultimately about the environment, they are about the $$. These regulations were enacted because the previous system didn't work.

robofx, James Bowery, and thruthunderyournose appear to be correct about Paul's internet popularity towering above the other candidates. Thanks for setting us straight. We've posted a correction.  

Lisa Hymas
Grist Senior Editor

Ron Paul's ambivalence on the environment is very clear when asked about global warming.  He is not convinced about the degree of human influence and doesn't consider it a big deal.  A previous post is absolutely accurate that his ideas - particularly his reliance on the market - sound a lot like George Bush.

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.

I ran across this article on Google News. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I have a degree in economics and I consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist, too.

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.

Many times, public land abuses occur because laws that are on the books aren't followed, because federal agencies are so under funded they can't enforce them, or, as has happened during this administration, federal employees are told to ignore certain laws or mis-interpret them by politically appointed supervisors. Living in a state with a large amount of public land, I have seen first-hand results of the "tragedy of the commons" and when the Forest Service is asked why this happens, they almost always cite a lack of funding. Property rights are already well defined, and with federal or public land the rights belong to everyone. If you find that your public lands are being abused by a few to the detriment of many, take Ron Paul's advice and sue the federal goverment for non-enforcement of existing laws. Or better yet, vote for someone who will properly fund our federal agencies and not undermine the laws in place to protect our public lands.

Ron Paul is not like President Bush at all. Bush may say he is in favor of free markets, but he's not. He favors heavy subsidies to the oil industry; and when that backfires, making us dependent on foreign oil, his solution is heavy subsidies to the nuclear industry. The only reason he expanded Medicare to give people free prescription drugs was to subsidize the pharmaceutical industry. Bush was responsible for one of the biggest expansions of government ever in a very short period of time.

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...

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.

How can you argue on the one hand that litigation is Paul's solution to the violation of environmental principles while in the same breath claim that he doesn't really believe in laws?  His entire argument about how to truly protect the environment, and his political philosophy in general, relies entirely on following the letter of the law, be it the US Constitution, or the rights of private property owners to real legal recourse against those who have done them (the environment) harm.

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?

Good post, Vince. Let me add something to my earlier post...

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.

Ron's saying that the pollution problem should be handled locally... The local people know about a problem long before the central inspectors find it! Think about this. The fed is not needed, the state would be much closer and handle the problem at the local area. Each state already has their own DEQ. Environmentalists, as are many who read this, would be our best line of defense. They will be constantly sticking their noses where they belong (pun intended) and helping to find the violators. Under "Big Gov." the Big Corps. have a way of getting special privileges. the Big Corps (and big Gov) do way more pollution than any one else. Also, No manufacture could produce any kind of fuel that would pollute any person (the good neighbor policy!) The individual states already have guidelines for this. Who needs the fed in this application. We have some frightening times ahead of us. Do you want more of the same old thing we've been getting? How many promises have we already heard. Ron has said that his mentor is Ludwig von Mises. Check him out and understand this man's philosophy. We could wish that all our politicians were so noble. He (RP) would never allow anyone to pollute a neighbor (because of his principals and his integrity) Of course he can't preside over individual cases, but his heart is in the right place. And please try to understand his position  of giving the wars, immigration reform, securing our borders from possible terrorists and the economy higher priority than global warming... I don't say this to offend anyone. But the reality is that these matters are more pressing (at this time) then the environmental issues which are also important, but not so pressing (from a presidential position!) Oh, if you really want to help fight fossil fuel pollution, then  Google: Joseph Newman    find his website and watch his latest video of his "energy machine". Joe may seem a little eccentric now, but I have been following this man's story for over 20 years and our own (Big Gov again) would not issue him a patent (fought against him tooth and nail!) for his revolutionary idea/machine... He runs a HUGE 7,500 lb machine off of a few 9v batteries. He figured out a way to use voltage to turn a motor (instead of current). What he has is REAL,  It's just real expensive to build a balanced machine to rotate at high speeds.      

My comment that Paul is for litigation but not laws was not illogical.  The point was he's in favor of suing.  Unfortunately, his political philosophy - that laws must be derived directly from the Constitution - does not allow for laws capable of dealing with modern environmental problems.  In other words, he is in favor of litigation; there just won't be any laws to protect the environment he so strongly urges people to protect.

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.

Dockens wrote:

"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.

would be great tools if everyone had the same amount of money and property, within an order of magnitude.

I'm with davedenali.

(Speaking of which, and quite coincidentally, I'm eating some stollen with my coffee this morning. Yum! Fruitcake!)

mihan, maybe you should research the issue more before assuming that you are smarter than famous Nobel Prize winning Economists. But let's say, for a minute, that you're right, and that Ron Paul's plan did not work. Since Ron Paul does not have any hidden agendas (he doesn't support big corporations, he doesn't take money from lobbyists, etc.), I'm sure he would come up with a better way. He wouldn't let the environment suffer just so he could say that he's applying a particular theorem.

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?)

Actually, I wasn't referring to assuming innocence or not, I was referring to setting limits on pollution before a company decides to go past those limits. Ron Paul seems to be for removing departments like the EPA, although they are the agency to set limits to pollution.

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.

Noam Chomsky said something like the following, "The free market has never been tried, not even once."

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.

As a green libertarian, I find Ron Paul to be very attractive, though part of me cringes at his acceptance of coal and nuclear.  I'm libertarian, but not as zealously free-market as Ron Paul.  An ideal pairing would put Ron Paul as the vice president to someone like Edwards.  Or even Ron Paul and Kucinich would make a nice match - perhaps balance each other out!

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

It's nice to hear a candidate who is on board with the concept of "don't subsidize pollution", but mostly he's stuck in the mindset that environmentalism = clean lakes at the campground.

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.

"The Federal government does not hold (or should not hold) a monopoly on setting laws nor standards."

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.

exists. This is why:

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.

States should be able to standards that better reflect the environmental challenges and realities each are facing.  This approach should do better than the Federal government applying blanket, one size fits all policies with enforcement.  

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.
 

Actually, I see Ron Paul's approach as brilliant, if you understand the principle behind the thinking.  Allow me to preface my thoughts first.

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!

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.

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.

Either this blog is full of trolls from the Ron Paul campaign or there are a lot of people that don't know anything about real land.  

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.

People are desperate for change and many seem willing to blind themselves to Ron Paul's faults and what he really supports. See the post by hikerreese above, he says it well. I would rather have a candidate who is against the war and will support the environment, not leave it to the greedy hands of private ownership.

Sometimes hype, money and/or good looks seems popular with the disasterous results - Bush (money,Hillary - (more money and hype) etc.  It would be more honest to see Kuncinich and Ron Paul be the canidates for president.  Doesn't honesty mean anything any more?  Let's have an honest debate on the future of the USA instead of the hell hole vested interests will (are making) make this country.  What about the constitution? Bush has not been impeached. What does that say about what goes on the Washington?
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...

"The Federal government does not hold (or should not hold) a monopoly on setting laws nor standards."

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.  

States almost never use a stricter pollution standards than the EPA requires them to use.  When the EPA weakens pollution standards, States follow suit and weaken theirs as weak as the feds let them.  If we eliminated federal laws and the EPA we would have pollution laws but they would be a lot weaker and enforcement a lot spottier.  

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.  

First, thanks to all for thoughtful responses, regardless of position taken.  Our decision-making at a national level would be vastly improved with such respectful discourse.

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.

How come I kept hearing a coo coo clock sound when I was reading his interview?

Definition:

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)...

Ron Paul is opposed to a woman's right to choose.
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.

Some would argue that Ron Paul's view on abortion coincides with exactly what you desire, 'respects all human beings in all things..'  The difference being the definition of 'human beings'.

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.

Dear Dr. Paul,

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,

I consider myself a passionate libertarian-environmentalist.  What I would bring to Ron's attention, or remind him, that through actions of Congress the nuclear power industry was born, subsidized and controled.  I am sure he would not be for the current situation in which the American Taxpayer picks up the insurance side of the nuclear liability question.  If the industry could not get full liability insurance for operations, then that would be the nail in the coffin for nuclear power.  That is the reason the industry itself said it needed the tax payer to pay anything beyond a certain amount, the bill in the 70's past and was signed I believe by Nixon.  Ron Paul would want Nuclear power to stand up to the test of the free market, if it could not pass muster, then so be it for nuclear power.  

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.

Michael, I doubt you will get a reply since he is very busy, but as a libertarian-environmentalist,please permit me to answer your open letter. First read my last post about Nuclear power and the Gamboa Rainforest/Eco Tourism. Your first question asks if he would, "Keep public lands in public hands"? I will give you the short answer if you promise to keep an open mind. The short answer is no. Now here is why. First, you and I can agree on that wild natural areas and wildlife should be both preserved and protected. So you can forget about having to argue for the value to humanity for these precious things. Ron Paul and you and I can agree on this important value.  Further we can both agree on the fact that both wild lands and wild life is in decline, being burned and exploited and the wildlife faces extinction. So we can both agree on this assessment and we do not have to waist our breath convincing each other on what we already agree on.  So, wild lands and wild life is both precious and in danger, this we acknowledge. Now, many of my fellow environmentalists are not honest with me if they do not think my intentions are pure, which they are, so lets give each other this benefit of discussion, we both mean well.  So now back to the "public hands" part of the phrase. This implies public ownership and control, hence really government/bureaucratic/political control over the precious resource.  I submit it has been this way in many countries, from the USA to Brazil to Africa, and its not working.  You yourself acknowledged above that wild lands and wild life is in decline, being burned and exploited and the wildlife faces extinction. From Chimps, to elephants, from Rainforest's to coral reefs, our natural environment is more than threatened, its under attack. My hero Edward O Wilson has done a good job of sounding the call.  So, the system we have now, a public/bureaucratic/political one, is failing.  So lets think outside the box. Lets see if we cannot BUNDLE private property rights in such a way as to tie the self interests of owners with the self interests of wild lands and wild life.  I submit it can be done, and the mental work, yes work, is well worth the effort.  Once you see that we can prescribe private property rights, design them, and focus them, we can strongly influence and preserve the outcome we both want and desire.  You ask the right questions and go in the right direction, ie "can i block access to the creek?", but don't stop there. Look at the Gamboa rainforest in Panama for example. The interests of the resort has been tied to the interests of the national park. Success!  So you see, it is your limitations on what private property rights can do or are, that hinders you.  Do not say, "we can do better, next".  That is like giving up on wild life!  Their future is at  risk under the current system of collective government controlled property "in public hands".  To end with the Czar Russia comment, tells me you have it backwards,..it was Russia after all who had collective ownership under both the Czar and Communism and the environment suffered horribly...thank god there was a lot of it. Wild life extinctions was pushed to the brink.  No, what we need to do is tie together the private property system with the self interest of the environment, and that responsibility is ours because no one else cares as much as we do.  Think about it. Treg  

I hate the name calling and smearing.  I hate it when Rush, Hanity, & O'Rielly comment in this smart ass way, its intellectual laziness.  Please, make an reasoned argument or shut up. We are better than them. And if you noticed, Ron Paul is not one of them and never once slandered environmentalist or faulted us for what we hold dear.  He says private property is the way to go to protect these things. So its an opinion, certainly the public/government/political control over the environment now is NOT working to anyones satisfaction.  Perhaps he is right, there is a better way by tying together the self interest of private property ownership and wild life & nature.

I hate the name calling and smearing.  I hate it when Rush, Hanity, & O'Rielly comment in this smart ass way, its intellectual laziness.  Please, make an reasoned argument or shut up. We are better than them. And if you noticed, Ron Paul is not one of them and never once slandered environmentalist or faulted us for what we hold dear.  He says private property is the way to go to protect these things. So its an opinion, certainly the public/government/political control over the environment now is NOT working to anyones satisfaction.  Perhaps he is right, there is a better way by tying together the self interest of private property ownership and wild life & nature.

Pro Choice libertarians also believe in a woman's right to choose.  They agree with Paul however, its a States Rights issue, just like gay marriage issue.

I hate the name calling and smearing.  I hate it when Rush, Hanity, & O'Rielly comment in this smart ass way, its intellectual laziness.  Please, make an reasoned argument or shut up. We are better than them. And if you noticed, Ron Paul is not one of them and never once slandered environmentalist or faulted us for what we hold dear.  He says private property is the way to go to protect these things. So its an opinion, certainly the public/government/political control over the environment now is NOT working to anyones satisfaction.  Perhaps he is right, there is a better way by tying together the self interest of private property ownership and wild life & nature.

Liberal, if one reads an old dictionary, is referred to as having an open mind.  Those who call themselves liberal today have just as closed a mind as do righties just in their own way.

<<
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.

As a Paul supporter, I am glad to see this side of the issues which does not normally get air or print time. I happen to be someone who is conscientious in my living however I do not believe that the solution is to force it upon everyone else.

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 :)

Though I consider myself a bleeding heart liberal, I have to applaud Ron Paul for being the first Libertarian to bring up the following plank in the Libertarian Party platform...

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.

Ron Paul is right. There is a way to cleanly burn coal. In fact, The RCBC (Rotary Cascading Bed Combustor) can use the dirtiest lignite coals, sewage sludge, municipal solid waste, and a host of problem wastes as fuel to be cleanly converted into energy. But since the EPA allows landfills and coal plants to pollute and trade pollution credits, there is little demand for them. A Ron Paul presidency (which advocates strict source accountibility) would help me sell a lot of these units. Who needs biofuels? Trash is a very renewable resource.

What the?!?

i finally decided it was time to start caring about myself and do my best to help others. that is why, for now,  i consider myself a Ron Paul supporter. I really have not come across many issues which I disagree with him.

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!