Ron Paul's record on the environment

[amalia]

Have any of you Ron Paul supporters checked his record on the environment?
I advise you to research this, THEN decide if you can still stand behind this man...

Amalia

[OrchardDweller]

I consider myself an environmentalist: I don't drive a car, I use public transport, walk or ride my bicycle. I recycle, re-use and compost. I buy local and eat organic and non-gmo as much as I can, I grow my own organic food which I trade with others who do the same. I don't support big corporations who pollute or produce GMO foods.

I wholeheartedly support Ron Paul. I've looked into his record on the environment and his voting record as well as why he votes the way he does.
I've also looked into the environmental damage that wars and the use of depleted uranium cause and like many informed environmentalists, I consider ending the wars top priority.

But I don't base my support for Ron Paul just on his stance on the environment. Ron Paul is the only candidate seriously dealing with such issues as the looming economic collapse and reversing this country's trend towards fascism. He wants to end the war immediately, where most other candidates won't even take the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the table.

Wars, economic collapse and fascism/corporatism/centralized power have proven to be disastrous for the environment.

The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.

The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.

In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:

-I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
-I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
-Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
-I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.

Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards. - Ron Paul

https://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/

[Braggi]

...
In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way....

This is very flawed thinking. He who knows the laws and can afford the best law firms can do whatever he damn well pleases, and Ron Paul isn't so stupid he doesn't know this. This is one of the "big lies" of the Libertarian party which is a party every bit as fascist as the Republicans and maybe more so. In a Libertarian world we could sue AT&T for tapping our phones on behalf of Republican witch hunts. However, we'd then be stopped cold, just like the the Republicans because it would interfere with "national security." I prefer passing regulatory laws that keep the corporations under some kind of control.

Fact is, we have a lot of lousy choices for president. All the candidates I know of are pawns of the corporate elite with the possible exception of Kucinich who, as we all know, is "unelectable." Ron Paul talks a good line. but I've been "inside" the Libertarian party and they are little better than the big parties.

I wish I had a better answer. I'll probably hold my nose (again) and vote for whoever runs against the Republicans.

-Jeff

PS. See the classic movie, "Where the Green Ants Dream" to see how fair legal systems are and how the poor and poorly represented are treated in court.

[Neshamah]

It has been firmly established that Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate. However, he is the only candidate who will reverse the power-grabbing executive orders of the last 60 years that are still in effect. That alone is sufficient reason to support him, at least until someone better comes along. He is also the only candidate besides Kucinich who will get us out of Iraq within six months.

It is for Congress to regulate or deregulate, not the President. Ron Paul, unlike most if not all of the other candidates, knows the limits of the Presidency. The President cannot trample our rights in the name of national security. Wire tapping, recording our internet searches, what books we read, and so forth will be a thing of the past under a Ron Paul Presidency. That may make us a little less safe, but the alternative is a recipe for fascism.

It is true that weakening the government too much can allow large corporations to become unaccountable mini-governments in its place. However, the bigger problem now is not lack of government intervention, but unequal intervention. The government funnels our money to some corporations and not others. Thus oil companies, airlines, defense contractors, and certain media conglomerates have government inflated influence while alternative energy, trains, and pretty much everyone else without enough money to bribe are permanently and hopelessly disadvantaged or practically silenced. Over time, the inequality gets worse.

We have to stop the government from getting worse before we can make it better. The 'electable' candidates are choices about how slowly or quickly to make the government worse. Ron Paul will at least shrink the government into something that can be improved without constant corruption from corporate bribes. We cannot have everything at once. Ron Paul provides a first step that will make the other steps possible.

~ Neshamah

[Braggi]

... Ron Paul will at least shrink the government into something that can be improved without constant corruption from corporate bribes. We cannot have everything at once. Ron Paul provides a first step that will make the other steps possible.

~ Neshamah

The Republicans, and their Democrat supporters are doing everything they can to "shrink Government." At least those parts of government that provide services to the people. Those parts that cause pain, suffering and generally make life less safe and enjoyable are growing about as fast as possible. I don't see Ron Paul doing anything differently.

The Libertarian stand on corporations is to remove all regulations and restraints. I see nothing in their platform(s) offering to restrict bribery, legal or illegal. If I've missed that (other than campaign speeches that say nothing specific) please inform me.

Thanks,

-Jeff