Ron Paul on the Environment
Brian Doherty | November 30, 2007, 12:37pm
I've noticed a disconnect between the seeming cultural hugeness of global warming anxiety and how comparatively absent it has been from presidential politics this season. Ron Paul, who totally avoids this stuff in his standard stump speeches, is called on to explain free-market approaches to environmental problems in this Salon interview (which originally ran last month at the enviro mag Grist.)
Interviewer Amanda Griscom Little sums him up, with a bit more respect than I would have expected:
Some of those ideas arguably have environmental merit. Paul is known for his zealous opposition to the Iraq war, which he duly notes causes pollution and the "burning of fuel for no good purpose." He wants to yank all subsidies and R&D funding from the energy sector, which many believe would benefit the growth of renewables. A cyclist himself, he has cosponsored bills that would offer tax breaks to Americans who commute by bicycle and use public transportation. Still, his libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn't do diddly about global warming because, Paul reasons, "we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather."
Excerpt from Paul's own comments, sounding like a classic old-school Rothbardian:
Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular trash service, were taking their household trash to the next town over and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town. Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except that, for a good number of years, legislatures and courts have failed to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has persisted since the industrial revolution when, in the name of so-called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically popular entity.
When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are -- a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another -- concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.
........
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.
And global warming? Maybe we've got more immediate concerns, Paul says:
If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.
To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet, I think it's a worthy discussion....I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus -- those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.
Brian Gordon | November 30, 2007, 3:43pm | #
While I agree with Mr. Paul on several points, 'proving' pollution is problematic. It can often be done only after the fact, using statistical analyses that allow polluters to argue about the cause.
There is also the problem of corporations paying pseudo-scientists (or real scientists willing to prostitute themselves) for bogus studies that cover up a problem for a few more years of profits. The tobacco industry provided a perfect example, and now the fossil fuel industry is doing the same thing.
Mr. Paul wants to ensure that current externalities are applies to corporations, so that a cost is put on emitting CO2, for example. Good idea - what's the price? And he opposes pollution taxes because he says that corporations should simply not be permitted to pollute - again, a good idea, but who's deciding what pollution is? I can't see a way of avoiding government agencies to do these things.
Finally, my greatest concern with Mr. Paul, whom I consider by far the best Republican candidate, is the market fundamentalist view, as George Soros calls it. Not everything has a price, though it may have a value. It seems to me that market fundamentalists have replaced worship of God with worship of the market, and have become as blind to its shortcomings as religious zealots have to faults or inconsistencies in their brand of religion.
To be sure, if the United States followed Mr. Paul's prescriptions, the world would be a much better place. The U.S. might also be much poorer, given the amount of wealth extracted from "American interests" overseas. On the other hand, the U.S. might be wealthier if the hundreds of billions of military expenditures were eliminated or redirected to useful purposes. The longer he stays in the race, the more honest he will make all Republicans.
Julian | November 30, 2007, 11:11pm | #
The fact that people actually vote yes or no for one candidate or the other based on candidates' positions on global warming is somewhere between hilarious and scary.
- Global warming is happening. The planet's temperature is rising (very slowly) and this is a fact. However, this fact alone bears NO RELEVANCE AT ALL to American politicians.
- MAN-MADE (KEY word here folks) global warming IS NOT a fact. It is a theory which we are steadily developing better technologies to accurately assess. There are, for example, researchers and experts in the Bay Area of CA who are building and assembling more advanced equipment as we speak which- THEY HOPE- will allow us to better determine whether human industrial activity has accelerated global warming...and indeed whether that is even truly possible.
- When people talk about "greenhouse gas proflieration" and how "CO2 is doubling and increasing out of control," they always seem to leave out these interesting little bits of info:
* 98% of GREENHOUSE GAS IS WATER VAPOR.
* From the remaining TWO PERCENT (of gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect), Carbon Dioxide(CO2) accounts for the VAST MAJORITY.
* Scientists have repeatedly shown that increases in CO2 cause faster, more efficient plant growth.
* Keeping the above point in mind...consider that the estimated ratio of trees (NOT bushes, shrubs, mosses, vines, etc...TREES ALONE) to human beings on planet earth is about 800 trees to every human.
- Climatologists and geologists (besides those I have spoken with at universities I have two in my family) will say over and over when you ask them: "YES, global warming is occurring. HOWEVER we cannot currently determine whether this is due to human activity or whether we even CAN do this."
Considering all the above, it is sheepish at best and brainwashed at worst to actually write off candidates based on their skepticism (since NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE) of whether we should spend BILLIONS of dollars on federal government programs to combat the climate of planet earth...something we DONT KNOW IF WE CAN ACTUALLY EVEN DO.
Politicians who use this "issue" (which may or may not even BE) as a "the sky is falling" divider- you can believe it or not, but the sense of assurance that some politicians have considering the scientific community is still largely unsure of this is suspect.
Check out Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"
or "The 5th Edition Handbook on Population" for some interesting reading on the whole issue.
Also, I couldnt help but notice how the author of the article passes off proposals like nuclear energy and drilling in the ANWR as somehow deal-killing, silly proposals. An interesting view, since both energy options are ALTERNATIVES to respective actions already being taken:
- Nuclear energy is almost second to none in its cleanliness, efficiency, and output. France has embraced this method to the point where over half the country is powered by it. Our ALTERNATIVE to this which are CURRENTLY being pursued is largely "more and more petroleum." After all, embracing nuclear power as an energy source would in no way eliminate wind, solar, and hydroelectric methods already at work. Paul also actively favors industrial hemp and hempanol- read into the staggering energy/paper/clothing/fuel possibilities on that if you are unfamiliar with it.
- Those who are aghast at the idea of drilling in Alaska seem to completely ignore the legitimate case for it, obsessed instead by the fearful notion of a chipmunk fleeing its tree at the noise of oil drilling.
* Anyone remember that Alaska alone IS HALF THE SIZE OF THE CONTINENTAL U.S. FOLKS? Make a pinprick on a map of Alaska and you'll see the space represented that about 50 refineries would occupy.
* Many experts (mostly geologists and seismologists) currently believe there is MORE oil under Alaska than in the Mideast.
* Considering the above two points, and that we OWN Alaska, its time to consider the ALTERNATIVE- as in, where we are CURRENTLY GETTING most of our petroleum:
The gulf of Mexico region (far and away the majority of our oil comes from here, around 60-70%) including Venezuela, whose current dictator despises us and likes to verbally threaten us periodically with oil supply.
and...
The Mideast. Im not sure I have to spell out all the problems and complications we face getting it there...
So my question to those who dread the thought of America weaning itself off of oil (which we should be doing) by pursuing nuclear energy, Hemp farming, and drilling in our biggest, most vast state is....do you want America to stay mercantilistically entangled in the Middle East instead?
