Ron Paul a supporter for green energy… I Don’t Think So
The Iowa caucuses have ended and all the republicans now turn and focus on New Hampshire for next week. However, let’s take a look at one of last nights more successful candidate’s stance on green energy – Ron Paul. A special thanks goes to Bill Weinberg for doing the research and providing links to support his findings you can find his blog and this complete story here.
ProCon.org notes Paul’s votes to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling. A pro-oil website with the deceptive name of ANWR.org (they must have beat the enviros to the URL—the kicker is “jobs and energy for America”) approvingly states of Paul: “The congressman’s voting record on ANWR includes consistent support throughout his career.” Sic! They don’t mean “support” for protecting ANWR, but destroying it! The website goes on the enthuse (exclamation point in original): “He also believes refuges should be privatized!”
Did you catch that? Wants to disband the Interior Department, and privatize national wildlife refuges—and, presumably, national parks, national monuments, Bureau of Land Management range-lands and all other Interior holdings. In other words, Exxon and ilk may lose their oil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if a putative President Paul follows through on his isolationist rhetoric, but they will reap a bonanza destroying the last undeveloped public lands at home.
What else have we got? Oh yeah, New Hampshire Primary 2012 Green blog notes that Paul has flip-flopped a few times on climate change, but in 2009 called global warming a “hoax”—in fact, “one of the biggest hoaxes of all history.” On The Issues notes that he “Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases” and “Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution.” The legislation at issue in this 2009 NO vote would have required utilities to supply an increasing percentage of their demand from renewables and efficiency savings.
Treehugger, before getting to the anti-environmental dirt, again notes Paul’s anti-choice position on abortion. They provide a link to Paul’s own webpage on the issue—where he states forthrightly if none too logically that he wants Roe v. Wade “repealed.” (Anyone who passed civics class knows that court decisions cannot be “repealed” like laws—they can only be overturned by the courts.) Treehugger correctly states: “That’s about the most un-libertarian thing imaginable (libertarians being obsessed with getting the state out of our private lives and all.” Thank you. They next note that Paul wants to abolish birthright citizenship, and opposes an “amnesty” for what he calls “illegal immigrants.”
But when it comes to environmental issues, the man who would betray women and immigrants into the hands of Big Brother suddenly sees any public oversight as an onerous menace to liberty. Here’s the energy plank from his website:
- Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.
- Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.
- Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.
- Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create—not to Washington.
Great News right, so we can look forward to…More Gulf oil spills, more Fukushima-type disasters, and not even any regulatory regime to provide the threadbare pretense of public oversight that currently obtains. This is what you’re cheering on, you pseudo-left nudniks who support Ron Paul. Think about it.
Dr. Paul simply wants to put the power of environmental protection into the hands of the people. The thing that everyone has to realize is that a government under Dr. Paul would require THE PEOPLE of the United States of America to be more active in their local governments for their issues to be heard. This is how the country was founded and solidified in the Constitution. Dr. Paul believes in very small federal government where THE PEOPLE make decisions. So, if THE PEOPLE of Alaska want to continue protecting the wild, then THE PEOPLE can. I am an environmentalist, my degree is specifically in solar energy electrical engineering. My wife is an environmental lawyer. We realize that the easiest way to protect to environment and have our voices heard is on the state level. Think about how much money we as environmentalists have to raise to beat the companies like Monsanto ect on the Federal level. On the state level WE THE PEOPLE have much more power with our votes and money. The federal government was set up to only involve itself in our lives if there is an disruption of our “life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.” Other than that, the federal government should not have any power. Of course, if you don’t believe in the foundations of the country or the views of the founding fathers then you will disagree with me. I just believe in freedom and with that, we as environmentalists can really make a difference in the world.
If Ron Paul could win – he would get my vote. But since he cannot, voting for him would only be a vote that detracts from another and thus, potentially put a greater of the two evils in power. Although RP’s approach does have some potential wrinkles that may become difficult… for example, if you’ll recall, in the days of the Constitution, there was slavery, there were lesser laws on “dueling” to resolve conflict, the status of women, etc. The question that begs me an answer is; would the people of this country be able to handle “true freedom”. Would we be able to respect every man and woman’s personhood. I believe that until these and more likely others are known with some degree of certainty, Ron Paul could not truly be electable.
Ron Paul is the only person who is speaking truth in this contest although, I also do not diminish the voice of President Obama either. President Obama I believe has the intent for the people, the problem is he is playing by the current rules in place which are a manifest of the corruption within this country’s policies. The President therefore, in my mind is the lesser of the the two evils who must be given a second term. For if he were not, the Republican Party would take us further into the policies that benefit the “powers that be”, which is furthest from those of RP. Obama at least presents policies that help the average and the lesser, even if he still is leaving plenty on the table for the corrupt. So I say to you and all other RP supporters, it is fine and great to support RP in this primary however, in the general election, you MUST cast your support behind the President. If so, in time the people may regain the control you seek. In truth however, there may still be 2-3-4 more election cycles before this ship could be righted. Ron Paul is the voice of “the right”, but unless he has a path to victory, he simply “saps” away votes from another.
Show me a Path to Victory and I would assist with a gathering of voices, and votes!
A Concerned Individual with an Audience…
You both have good views – we would be willing to help…