Ron Paul on the Environment

[Seekarr]

He is insane if he actually the corporate market will develop a replacement for their black gold. You don't need to look further than yahoo finance to see how crazy that thought actually is.

The environment does require the government to protect it from forces who will otherwise continue to rape it.

[Hufenator]

Environmental policy has to be enforced preemptively by the government. Companies will pollute to what they can get away with. When "regulated" by the market, a company could pollute & cause people to get cancer, and may be sued into bankruptcy, but all those people would have already contracted cancer and the ground water will already be unusable.

There are certain things everyone has equal rights to, the environment and health care. Both should be the responsibility of the government.

[benastuart]

@Hufenator more like life, liberty, property, and the environment. Although healthcare companies should have to be obligated to take on anyone who can afford their *reasonable* health care plans

[swasomekayaker]

I'm not a huge fan of his environmental policy. He strongly thinks people's property should be protected from other people's pollution, and I agree with that. But what is going to protect nature? You can't own nature; in no way can it be thought of as private property. Ron Paul needs to rethink this policy

[zaalazar]

well a truly free market means that it's a fair game for all, which means that the big corporation cannot lobby their way out of the constitution... the government doesn't protect us the constitution does to which he goes back to... by protecting individual rights, individuals driven by a common goal can shut down a corporation if they witness pollution on their local environment, unethical practices and so on.

[luciferiexcelsil]

I think he has a wrong approach towards free market. Free market is a flawed concept. It simply leads to monopolies and under the table trusts which simply end up corrupting and disrupting the market's natural flow and you end up having 5 mansions surrounded by 50 shacks, this is historically proven. You want regulations in a market to keep it as fluid as possible but not to the point where it chokes it. Small government is good, however it needs to be efficient at what it does.

[rob3500gt]

@luciferiexcelsil free market does not lead to monopolies.... lobbyists and restrictive laws that raise the entry barriers for small companies do.

[luciferiexcelsil]

@rob3500gt Who put those laws? Big companies. How did they accomplish that? through the power that their capital gives them. Free market is a flawed concept as it generates huge amounts of wealth but for a few, and great misery and exploitation to most. It was seen through the 19th century and currently seen on developing countries. Just a simple fact. The great "middle class American living standard" is not thanks to Capitalism, but to regulatory laws imposed on the market and the companies.

[3Gallagher]

@luciferiexcelsil You are very confused...

[luciferiexcelsil]

@3Gallagher How so?

[DirtyMidgetStudios]

How Ron Paul protects the environment: No wars to scorch the earth, no government protection for large corporations who massively pollute, no corporate interests toward countries with oil supplies. Not only that, but Ron Paul wants to make marijuana legal, and if you've studied marijuana you'll understand how awesome hemp is.

[Strive4HealthyLiving]

Also, RP advocates repealing the regulations on the oil and gas industry here in the states, but there's a rising (and justified) concern over the safety of Hydraulic Fracturing; both for ground water and air contamination. De-regulation is a horrifying thought for me; especially in matters of environmental safety and human health.

[redbrickgreengrass]

@Strive4HealthyLiving Yeah, Dr. Paul sure cares about our health, don't he? Wants fracking, which pollutes our drinking water and kills life in rivers and lakes, drains aquifers. But "the market's gonna take care of it." Yuh huh. "You have no right to pollute your neighbor's air and water." Okay, but the market's gonna sort it, yeah? Cuz you want to end the government agencies that are supposed to protect these resources and leave it to the free market. Ok. And the courts are bought.

[Strive4HealthyLiving]

I'm a RP supporter, but I struggle to understand how an individual property owner could afford to take a large business or corporation to court over the pollution or corruption of air/water/property; isn't that what the EPA is -supposed- to do (although there is speculation as to whether or not they're doing their job in the first place or as ethically as they should) This is an earnest question and I'm seeking an intelligent and informative reply.

[redbrickgreengrass]

@Strive4HealthyLiving That's the catch: they can't. Dr. Paul is hiding the ball here. This is why he won't talk about environmental issues much: he'll be found-out. He will let the market sort out our national parks (he wants to sell em off) and the rest of our national resources. He prioritizes "energy independence," fracking, deep sea drilling, Artic National Refuge drilling, Alaska Oil Pipeline, coal (mountaintop removal), and god knows what else. I gave $ to his campaign, I regret it.

[KittensRsoft]

@Strive4HealthyLiving If these corporations are polluting, it's easy for us to say the EPA will handle it but if it is a property issue, property laws are enforced right away. It is a local problem not a letter to the white house or EPA that will take weeks to resolve. To call 911, instantly have scientists there on your property who work as a branch of law enforcement to detect pollutants and their source would save time and money to fly EPA associates to house/sustain and pay on top of that

[okohiaj]

Libertarianism is as much about WORKING TOGETHER for OUR HOME as much as it is about being free.

[redbrickgreengrass]

@okohiaj Ron Paul wants to sell off our home, our natural bounty, to the highest bidder. He'll let the market take care of our national parks, our natural resources, air, water, forests, etc. "Energy independence" is his top priority. Meaning, he'll allow those polluting, destructive industries to go HOG WILD and RUN ROUGHSHOD all over this country, to get at the COAL, NATURAL GAS, OIL, URANIUM, and POLLUTE EVERYTHING IN THE PROCESS. Yeah, he loves this country alright. To death.

[mondiablue]

@redbrickgreengrass Yep, he would love to see big corporations trample all over our national parks, and get rid of pollution laws all in the name of "liberty". So sick of people falling for his "liberty", "states rights" and "constitution" BS. Big corporations should NOT be running this country, but Ron Paul wants to give them even more power!

[curingaging00]

By shutting down many if not most of these foreign Military bases, keeping the US OUT of Wars, that would be helping the environment big time. These military bases take a lot of energy and money to maintain them. Going around Bombing the hell out of the middle east and Libya will only cause more pollution.

I Feel Ron Paul will do a better job at protecting Earth then Obama would.

[redbrickgreengrass]

@curingaging00 Uh, Ron Paul is just Stage Two in the Environmental Destruction Plan of the nutjob elites. Ronnie wants to sell off our natural resources, our national parks, our natural bounty, to the highest bidder, so they can exploit the energy sources buried deep within, because Ronnie prioritizes ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!!! Wooo hoo! Yeah, we'll be energy independent when we're getting radiation treatment for fucking cancerous tumors, and when we're on a wait-list for a new kidney or liver!

[KittensRsoft]

@redbrickgreengrass Try organic spirulina and maca root for your cancerous tumors, and we're building new kidneys and new livers from our own cells now but someone isn't putting money into the right places because of how giant the government has gotten. Also, I've heard worse conspiracy theories from my own party than this. Calm down, listen closely to what Dr. Paul says, he uses big words sometimes, carry on.

[christophedetiege]

free market could indeed do the deal but it might take long, but as a true libertarian i believe it'll do the job.

[redbrickgreengrass]

@christophedetiege Oh indeed, indeed, splendid old boy. Let's plough our little monies into energy companies, say, oil, natural gas, nuke-u-lar, and mining, like uh, mountaintop removal, coal mining, uranium mining, and uh, water privatization while we're at it, because they'll have to buy bottled once we've fucking fracked the hell out the place. Gut the regulatory agencies, they're no good anyways! He he he! Let the market take care of the widows and orphans, too I want to own an orphanage

[curingaging00]

@redbrickgreengrass Im not calling you a liar or an idiot or anything, But where did you read about things like this? Cause its very easy to mis-interpretate "Rand Paul" with "Ron Paul"

[AceofDlamonds]

It's almost a lose lose situation for humanity at this point..............too late and not enough alternatives to coal and oil.

Also, it is very expensive.......

[301Goldstar]

Your the man Paul!

[dajohnman57]

If Ford did not give in to pressures by big oil companies in 2000, the United States may very well be leading in the production of Electric vehicles. Ideally in its time, Capitalism=/=Corporatism.

[ashkaji]

People blow man made co2 way out of perportion. Mother earth produces more Co2 in a year then all of humanitys existance. Its rediculous.

[markphopkins]

Ron Paul says that the worst pollution ever was in the Soviet system. People take better care of the environment when they own private property. I agree with Ron Paul. Simply take a look at China and their pollution levels.

[nigelelsass]

@markphopkins : YES BUT where he is wrong is in the "tragedy of the commons". You can´t privatize the atmospheric system as it is "pooled by nature". => there is (i) an incentive for individuals to pollute and emitt GHG as much as possible to serve their needs... as long as the effect are spread globally and do not affect much locally, (ii) no incentive for single entities to reduce the pollution they cause as each only 1/(6billion) of the pain: it´s called the SPLIT INCENTIVE (in economics).

[nigelelsass]

@markphopkins : And there are MANY other cases where he does not get the concept of "SPLIT INCENTIVE" such as oil prices: if we all were to limit our consumption - there would be a much more favourable balance with supply and demand - which would benefit all users. Ronpaulnomics might be good for Saudi Arabia and Russia, not so much to America - unless he rethinks his concept.

[aaroche26]

If you don’t support the thesis that we’re in this period of global warming, somehow we don’t care about the environment. What we should care about is pollution. The whole problem is that pollution can be better taken care of under a private market system, under private property. Because nobody has a right to pollute their neighbor’s property, their neighbor’s air or their neighbor’s water. And if we had had strict adherence to this we wouldn’t have had so much pollution. - Ron Paul

[etzel33]

@aaroche26 People trash their property all the time. Property rights to air? Water from the sky, all yours if you can trap it? If we sold the Allegheny National Forest to ...say, Teledirect or Bechtel, what would stop them from dumping toxic waste there? You think they wouldn't? I'm all for private landholding, don't get me wrong. But allodial title? That's indefensible except from an anarcho-capitalist, plutocratic viewpoint.

[aaroche26]

@etzel33 Then we'll just continue bombing other countries. That should help Global Warming.....If people really want to take care of the environment, then there should be more demand from them in the free market. New Renewable Energy technology under a free market would work well. Cheaper and better quality in solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal and all that great stuff. Isn't that National Forest, Gov't property?

[etzel33]

@aaroche26 Of course we should get out of the wars we're in. It's bleeding our country dry. Nice to withdraw from NATO too. That's a different topic. What does it matter if land is owned by a government or privately by a handful of Lords? I'd say democracy is a much better system of ownership of natural resources. We all have equity in our air, water, and even coal and oil. Severance taxes would increase fos fuel costs making alternatives competitive and internalize environmntl costs

[nigelelsass]

@aaroche26 : What you fail to understand is that the energy sector is not like the IT sector. It is made of hardware and very intensive capital. Equipments are not purchased by their end-user.

The US gave around 70 billion USD for nuclear R&D, gives 40 billion USD to oil and gas, yet users do not pay for the real COST of oil (which is different from the price as it contains externalities such as pollution, climate effect, geostrategic risk, negative impact to trade balance, etc...).

[tubethatshitout]

I think that Economy and Environement is absolutly two different thing and yes we all have to change our lifestyle about environement because NATURAL RESSOURCES IS NOT INFINITE and thats is what the economics system is bases on..its base on a infinite Naturals ressources..

[etzel33]

@tubethatshitout Absolutely right. Corporations don't pay the costs of resource depletion. The only costs for oil and coal is the extraction and legal process. Scarcity and environmental costs are "externalized". This is why heavy severance taxes would benefit everyone, allow us to shift away from taxes on labor, and allow green alternatives to compete fairly.

[tubethatshitout]

@etzel33 yes that would be a good idea...we need BIG CHANGE, but we dont have much time i think..and who's gonna do it?? Ron paul?

[etzel33]

@tubethatshitout I'd doubt it. He's backed himself into a corner with the gold standard nonsense. I'm thinking things can be done at the state level. I'm thinking the Democrats might be accessible, especially in red districts where they really don't function at all. Popular uprising would be a nice way to spend the summer :) That or fix the Libertarian Party like we're doing here in Pennsylvania.

[LibertarianChristian]

I used to think man made climate change was happening, because i listened to all the propaganda and just blindly accepted it, after critically thinking about it and doing my own research, i'm not convinced.

[AllOtherNamesTaken2]

@LibertarianChristian then you looked into fake science or didn't understand what you saw

[Re3volution]

people that believe in global warming are idiots

[vidfreak56]

The only thing i disagree with is that free market will produce alternatives to oil, "on their own". I think this isn't always the case. We can't just sit by and wait for new sources of energy to just emerge, while we pay high prices to use the current source of energy(one reason why were in a recession now). I think some incentives need to exist to get the ball rolling, for the benefit of us all to have sustainable energy, and therefore have relatively sustainable prices.

[dnHooligan]

Henry Ford's original prototype had a body made of hemp "plastic" and ran on a hemp bio-fuel...unfortunately the federal reserve act put his future in the hands of the "money masters."

[martintierney10]

Its his only policy that I disagree with

[wind0wninja]

Centralized economic planning is a failure.

[dostoyevskyfan]

This chump has boiled down the spectre of global warming to one word, "overblown"

Can humans survive this belief?

[Chan234]

ron paul is a great candidate, but the environment is by far his weak point. You can tell even by the way he talks about it. Environmentalist may not go for the market and economic angle because it sounds less direct and passionate about it.

[xxxxlrdxxxx]

hey tell me this bro, do you think dropping thousands of bombs helps the enviroment? nope well then rp is helping it big time!

[curingaging00]

@xxxxlrdxxxx indeed, War has been proven from history major contributor to environmental pollution.

[KaneFenton4Freedom]

I agree with him 100%. He's amazing. I think global warming is natural and in a few years it will return to normal. The free market is the only solution. We pollute too much, not cause global warming, but pollute too much and to solve that the free market is the only solution unless you want communism, high taxes and a worse outcome. Free market is the best.

[2Hot2Fly2Much]

I would tend to disagree a bit on"Free Market is the best"the free market does not take into consideration the detrimental effects to the environment.We dedicate an entire day to Environmental Economics in some of my Economics Courses.I am working on my BA Economics and I am a strong advocate of a Free Market but I am just a responsible person.Global Warming is real and the only question is whether it is naturally occurring or caused by Humans.

[KaneFenton4Freedom]

Either way, the free market would handle it best. You have no proof or backup to say the free market wouldn't work for the environment. Plus, the governments the biggest polluters.

[2Hot2Fly2Much]

You don't even understand the Free Market.I bet you can't even identify all the different kinds of structures withing Markets.I have "no proof"?their is indisputable economic models withing the Economic field that support my point of view.Your argument is fallacious and bold considering my point of view is a factual theory developed by trained Economist not weirdos like you.My point of view is free market does not take into consideration the detrimental effects to the environment.

[LifeLibertyLove]

Wrong global warming is not even real and he knows it. If there are large scientific debates on both sides people will see the truth. But for now you and all your hippie friends will continue to follow the shepard Al Gore. Let me translate BAAAHH BAAAHH bah BAAAH!

[brad3417]

Go to Hell!!! Science has proven that carbon monixide causes cancer, asthma, and other health problems. Peolple who don't think the environment needs to be protected deserveto get cancer. FUCK YOU!!! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO POLLUTE THE AIR I BREATHE!!!!!!!!!!

[LifeLibertyLove]

Look at the videos on my profile as you clearly have no knowledge of the scientific study of Global Warming. Your the one ignoring logic and facts NOT me.

[dnHooligan]

YOU'RE obviously an idiot.

[LifeLibertyLove]

Sorry for being a heretic and looking at the scientific spectrum of global warming. You can be a sheep all you want and believe your lies.

[dnHooligan]

sorry, but you are simply choosing which propaganda you want to believe. if you look beyond the propaganda, you will see that we are destroying the future.

...but i guess a snotzi like yourself probably eats, drinks, and breathes propaganda, huh? who do you idolize more: hitler or bush?

[LifeLibertyLove]

I look at all the evidence, I am not a nazi I put that on my page to see who are the real oppressors.

[dnHooligan]

please take 20 minutes to watch "Story of Stuff" and then look into: (key words) rainforest, deforestaion, climate change.

...and since you rationally investigate everything, please answer this:

What is unique about Earth's 6th mass-extinction?

(the one we are currently experiencing)

[Eceoes]

I agree with dnhooligan. Global Warming is a reality, and maybe the inevitable destruction of planet earth. Many Libertarians believe Global Warming does not exist because THEY WANT to believe it doesn't exist.

Oh and as for science, there is a lot of science that points out global warming does exist. The people who deny global warming, are just paid off.

And Ron Paul sucks, his "free market" approach is not what US needs. I'm glad Obama is president.

[bassman5588]

If you look closely at the mainstream people who deny global warming, you will find they are the EXACT same people who told us that cigarettes do not cause cancer, and want intelligent design taught in schools. There's a right wing conspiracy going on and Ron Paul's in on it. He's got his army armed and ready. Say it with me, CON SPIR A CY!!!.

[InfoSeeker93]

@dnHooligan ur a sheep... for listening to the sheep that think global warming doesnt exist... with all the melting ice and climate changes going on.

[HeartofGaia5]

I suppose your one of those people that thinks there above nature---> a person I extremely disslike. Calling people sheep isn't really going to help your case and as far as I am concerned the only place I see anyone argue that climate change is not happening is on Youtube. I know plenty of biologists, oceanographers, and scientists that know whether and climate who all say the same thing. The climate is changing and it is due, in part, to human activities.

[HeartofGaia5]

Weather*

Not to mention that there is something really going on lately with the weather that is funky. In the last year there were snow storms in Israel, Iraq, and China which crippled cities there. Those places do not get snow, not to mention Katrina and the hurricane that hit myanmar!!! We are having unusual weather a and there is enough scientific evidence to suggest we have an impact on climate. But thats the problem people don't realize we can have an impact on this world.

[HeartofGaia5]

Btw the only reason were sitting here now is because roughly 3 billion years ago proto-photosynthetic animals put oxygen in the atmosphere so more advanced life forms could exist. A single celled organism changed the composition of the Earth's atmoshphere and yet you say that we cannot change the composition of the atmosphere. Well your wrong and science proves that. Its time to rethink our relationship with this planet...

[LifeLibertyLove]

Really? Because I know lots of people in REAL LIFE. Yeah that's right not on youtube that are teachers and professors alike that do not believe in Global Warming. Also I don't like how you label everyone who does not believe in global warming believes they are above nature. I don't know anyone who believes they are above nature and if they do they are not very intelligent. If you look at history you'll see that this is just a cycle I have a national geographic magazine right here with it,

[XZisle]

Do you know any scientists that are not getting funded per time they say that global warming is true? Many of the scientists that are proponents of global warming are getting more funding with the increased amount of worry it causes.

Looking at the data, I find it inconclusive. {By the way, look at Earth's history to find the crazy patterns of weather, even prior to the industrial revolution.} -\XZisle/-

[Eceoes]

I completely agree with HeartofGaia.

[tipback]

The so-called free market is a system of supply & demand..Paul says as much too. So the unemployed and all those that make money by crime..could be the have-nots when the costs of goods rise beyond the ability of the poor to acquire certain goods. It could become the law of the jungle

[proofset666]

RP, you make me sick comparing democratic environmental regulation to communism. Communism was a totalitarian system with no accountability. Go back to Texas.

[OctoBox]

Proof: In a communist country there is heavy regulation, in Democratic country there is heavy regulation -- This is why the founding fathers did not want us to fall into a democracy, read their memoirs and public speeches. The word "democracy" is not mentioned once in the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution. Only voting was to be democratic, nothing else.

[codediporpal]

...and the communists made a complete mess, where as we've done reasonably well over here with our environmental regulation. What RP doesn't seem to get is that is was NOT the free market that solved problems like smog in cities, lead in motor fuel, acid rain, etc. It was regulation.

[OctoBox]

Code: The regulation was made after large consumer advocacy (privately run) and consumers started purchasing products and alternative sources that lead to the Gov't getting on board. What you don't understand at every instance where regulation "seems to work" they turn around and "support" the lost profitability of the intended regulated industries -- Welfarism!!! So, regulation never shows the full costs.

[OctoBox]

I'm an Econonmist by Training and a Financial Analyst by profession -- Organic Food Industry. In a "true" free market, with zero regulation, and yardstick competition within gov't where the motivation is to maximize efficiency a corporation would only have 2 influences: 1) Consumer and 2) Consumer Investor - Consumers bail Consumer Investor bails -- corporation goes bankrupt - no subsidies no bailouts!!

[OctoBox]

Let me restate, that should have been zero subsidization with very low regulation -- Gov't must infuse yardstick competitive regulation in certain industries, but when I say low, I mean really really low regulation.

[codediporpal]

I'm all for cap-and-trade, market incentive, etc. and letting the market deal with the details. So what would have been the preferable way to deal with the health hazards of the smog in LA besides outright regulation of emissions and fuel quality?

[OctoBox]

Code: When by artificial means industries are supported by subsidization and things grow out of hand, sometimes "artificial" means are used to curb it -- both however, come at huge costs and a precedence of bailout, corporate and governmental dependence grows, one not easily released or quitted. They use Chemo (which can cause cancer) to kill Cancer - the fight fire with fire method works only in extreme and infrequent cases.

[proofset666]

RP is smoking too much of the free market crack. Can't wait till his ilk are saying that when breathable air becomes scarce the market will create innovative solutions. In fact it will cause the economy to grow!

[Redmenace1024]

My hard earned $100 at work and worth every penny.

Go Ron Go!

[KingMucktoad]

As a socialist I disagree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, but I have to say, you can't help but respect him. He really believes the freemarket will take care of everything even I will admit in a lot of ways he has a point. Basiclly althought I wouldn't vote for him I understand why many people would.

[codediporpal]

Of course everybody likes liberty. But ask a Libertarian how the free market would have solved smog in Los Angeles and it's pretty hard to have much respect for their ideas. The are in utter denial about the Tragedy of the Commons type issues.

[OctoBox]

"Tragedy of the Commons" should be restated the "Tragedy of failed regulation."

Google: "Environmentalism and Resource Economics (lecture 19 of 32)David J. Heinrich"

Should be the first link!

[angrydragon]

Yah AvangionQ, seems like in the short-term.

[AvangionQ]

Ron Paul's idea of letting the free market correct itself for the benefit of the environment seems a bit short sighted - if we wait for the eventual crash in the oil supply without a ready available alternative energy source, the market economy will crash. Putting a small amount of tax dollars to work researching in future alternative energy sources seems the wiser investment.

[piotrbentley]

RON PAUL 2008!!!