An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment

Enviros may roll their eyes at a candidate who dismisses the U.S. EPA as feckless and disposable, who believes all public lands should be privately owned, and whose remedy for an ailing planet is "a free-market system and a lot less government." But Ron Paul, the quixotic libertarian U.S. rep from Texas, has a cult following online second only to Barack Obama's, and has won unexpected attention in the GOP presidential debates with his provocative ideas.

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."

I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and development because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol and it turns out that it's not economically feasible. So, my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property -- water, air, or land. It is very strict.

Q But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can't be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private parcels?

A The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air -- that can be properly defined by property rights. Water: if you're on a river you certainly can define it, if you're on a lake you certainly can define it. Even oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.

A Certainly, any time there's injury to another person, another person's land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with the government.

A You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

A It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war, and bring back a sound economy, and solve the financial crises, and balance the budget.

Q Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous materials, like lead in children's toys?

A If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can't inspect every single toy that comes into the country.

A Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the country because it was a steel town. You couldn't even see the sun on a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up -- not by the EPA, by local authorities that said you don't have a right to pollute -- and the government cleaned it up and the city's a beautiful city. You don't need this huge bureaucracy that's remote from the problem. Pittsburgh dealt with it in a local fashion and it worked out quite well.

Q What if you're part of a community that's getting dumped on, but you don't have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?

A 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.

Q You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?

A Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment.

Q If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much -- something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly.

A Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create diesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.

Q But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?

A Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

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.

Q What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?

A I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. 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.

Q So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?

A No. [Laughs.] 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.

Q What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?

A They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.

Q You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?

A It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don't think that would work.

A I don't like that. That's sort of legalizing pollution. If it's wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It's wrong to do it, it shouldn't be allowed.

A You should be held responsible in a court of law and you should be able to be closed down if you're damaging your neighbor's property in any way whatsoever.

Q Who would set the law about what pollutants could and couldn't be emitted? Congress?

A Not under my presidency -- the Congress wouldn't do it. The people who claim damage would have to say, look, I'm sitting here, and these poisons are coming over, and I can prove it, and I want it stopped, and I want compensation.

Q You've described your opposition to wars for oil as an example of your support for eco-friendly policies. Can you elaborate?

A Generally speaking, war causes pollution -- uranium, burning of fuel for no good purpose. The Pentagon burns more fuel than the whole country of Sweden.

A Sure. But independence does not mean to me that we produce everything. I don't believe governments have to provide every single ounce of energy. I see independence as having no government-mandated policy: If you need oil or energy, you can buy it.

Q What about being independent from the Middle East, so we're not buying oil from hostile countries?

A I think it's irrelevant. We wouldn't be buying it directly, we would be buying it on the world market. I don't think the goal has to be that we produce alternative fuel so that we never buy oil from the Middle East. The goal should be to provide all useful services and goods through a market mechanism instead of central economic planning or world planning. That system doesn't work.

A Coal is a source of energy and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property.

Q But coal technology has been proven to harm people -- with poisons like mercury and asthma-causing particulates -- so should old-style coal plants be allowed to continue operating?

A Use of the technology I mentioned to prevent harm to people, even if it costs more for the coal producer, is another example of how costs must be internalized to the energy source. To the extent coal can be efficiently produced in a way that does not pollute another's property or another's physical body, it will be chosen as a viable energy source. Certainly no producer of energy or anything else has a right to pollute or harm another's property or person.

If coal is not competitively priced when all costs to keep production safe are internalized to the producer, then coal will not be purchased or produced. I do not happen to believe this will be the case, but it is for the market to sort out, not politicians in Washington. It may be that, from time to time, as other energy sources become scarce, "safe coal" will be viable even if it is not at some other point in time.

A I don't think anything's wrong with ethanol -- it's just not economically competitive. It's only competitive now because those who produce it get subsidies.

A Nothing really special, other than trying to explain to people that you don't need government expenditures and special-interest politics to promote safe, environmental types of energy. That comes about through a free-market system and a lot less government, and I think that's the most important thing I can contribute.

Q You mentioned something in a past interview -- the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending?

Q You had said in another interview, "I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign."

A Oh, I don't recall exactly that. But I have a lot of environmentalists that work with me very closely and support these issues.

Q If you could spend a week in a park or natural area in the United States, where would it be?

A There's probably hundreds of places. I probably have gone to Colorado more than any place, around Telluride and Ouray.

Q Can you describe your connection to the natural world? Have you had any memorable outdoor or wilderness adventures?

A My favorite thing is riding bicycles, and at home my hobby is raising tomatoes. I live on the San Bernard River in Texas and I belong to an environmental group that works very, very hard to protect the natural aspects of that river.

Q Can you elaborate on what you've done personally to reduce your energy and environmental impact?

A Well, no, other than the fact that I'm just always aware of doing anything damaging to the environment. I don't think I do anything that damages it at all. I don't ride my bike because I think I'm destroying the environment by driving my car; I ride it because it's a great way to be outdoors and enjoy the environment.

Screaming louder and longer doesn’t change the fundamental fact that Paul is unfit for the Presidency or that none of you Paulbots are capable of actually answering the question “what and how would Paul do any of the things he promises.

All you are doing is hearing what you want to hear in Paul’s words and looking no deeper. You are projecting your own opinions on what you think Ron Paul’s words mean. HE has not told you anything at all. He merely has mouth slogans allowing you to put your own spin on them.

That not an honest, serious campaign, that is demagoguery.

I'm trying to stop the war, and bring back a sound economy, and solve the financial crises, and balance the budget...

Hmm. There are two ways to "stop" a war.

Win it or

Surrender.

Gosh, I wonder which method ronpaul advocates?

Did you see this?

2. (Asked of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party) Which of the following candidates would you be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, or if you would support someone else.

Giuliani F. Thompson McCain Romney Huckabee Paul Tancredo Brownback Hunter T. Thompson Gilmore Other None/ no opinion

2007 Oct 12-14 32 18 14 10 6 5 2 2 1 n/a n/a 2 9

2007 Oct 4-7 32 20 16 9 7 2 1 1 1 n/a n/a 1 11

2007 Sep 14-16 30 22 18 7 4 4 1 2 2 n/a n/a 1 10

2007 Sep 7-8 34 22 15 10 5 1 1 2 * n/a n/a 2 8

2007 Aug 13-16 32 19 11 14 4 3 1 1 2 n/a n/a 2 11

2007 Aug 3-5 33 21 16 8 2 2 1 1 1 2 n/a 3 10

2007 Jul 12-15 33 21 16 8 2 3 * 2 1 1 * 1 11

2007 Jul 6-8 32 21 16 9 2 * 2 1 3 2 * 1 10

2007 Jun 11-14 29 21 20 8 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 8

2007 Jun 1-3 35 12 20 14 3 1 2 1 1 1 -- 1 10

2007 May 10-13 32 12 24 10 1 -- 1 2 * 1 1 3 13

2007 May 4-6 36 14 21 9 1 * 1 1 1 2 1 3 11

2007 Apr 13-15 38 11 24 10 2 2 * 1 1 1 2 3 6

2007 Apr 2-5 42 12 18 7 1 2 2 1 1 3 * 4 7

2007 Mar 23-25 34 13 22 4 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 13

2007 Mar 2-4 49 n/a 21 10 1 n/a 1 1 1 2 * 3 11

2007 Feb 9-11 42 n/a 25 6 2 n/a 2 4 2 2 2 4 10

2007 Jan 12-14 31 n/a 27 7 1 n/a n/a 1 * 2 2 17 13

USATODAY.com

Hmm. There are two ways to "stop" a war.

Win it or

Surrender.

What country are you waiting on to surrender to us? Iraq? They surrendered years ago. Many of us in this country don't care for our military to be employed as international social workers in the same places we send them to destroy.

What country are you waiting on to surrender to us?

Whoa...maybe you need a break from the bong.

Many of us in this country...

And many of us of our country do not espouse the Code Pink, MoveOn, A.N.S.W.E.R., Daily KOS, Harry Reid, Ron Paul and his Cult line.

Keep that in mind.

Progress is progress!

Did you see this:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

Once that cash starts to be spent we’re going to see those polls jump.

oh and btw, paul is going to be on leno on the 10/30.

Whoa...maybe you need a break from the bong.

Typical ignorant non-answer from the "hate Paul" platoon.

Would you like to see where Free Republic used to stand on the type of nation building adventures you are now encouraging. There is an entire archive of posts condemning Clinton for such like actions. I have posted a few of them in making this point before. Revisionism seems to be the stock in trade for internationalists who also try and claim the label conservative. Such BS doesn't fool me and it will not fool a lot of others. You have what has become a little echo chamber of "hate Paul" sentiment on these threads...The passionate hate displayed on these threads only stokes the curiosity of onlookers and perhaps they will read some of the 900 articles and speeches by Ron Paul just to find out just what about the man could instill such passionate hatred of the him by people such as you...In that way you bring more converts to Ron Paul's message of freedom. So carry on.

lol, well I don’t see how a cigarette or SUV would count for anything, besides if someone didn’t want you smoking or driving it on their property. But if you blew leaves all over someone else’s lawn I’d think you’d be liable if you refused to clean them up. Don’t you agree? If you were burning coal or something and blankened your neighbors house and lungs or drilling and contaminated their water supply, I think you should be liable.

I think this sort of property rights based environmentalism is very interesting and has been absent from the environmental debate in most quarters and conservatives haven’t made it an issue.

His solution to pollution is certainly good and well tested. It was used extensively in 19th century America and worked.

The problem is that America would once again need to recognize individual property rights, which liberals and RINOs will never do. It would interfere with their fascist march toward socialism.

I think this sort of property rights based environmentalism is very interesting and has been absent from the environmental debate in most quarters and conservatives haven’t made it an issue.

Most environemntal programs these days are based on hypothetical harm, not actual. To require that actual harm be demonstrated would effectively shut down a lot of environmental regulation, a good thing in my opinion.

For example, the curent EPA laws on ground water, requiring all aquifers to be cleaned to drinkable standards, even if no one has, or will ever , use them for drinking water.

ANother example; a local outcry ( led by big enviro) against a small operator of natural gas drilling waste sumps. They are going to raise public hysteria to get the guy shut down, even though he's followed all local zoning permits, and no harm has been shown.

Third example; a rash of babies born without brains was blamed on a local chemical company along the Texas-Mexico border.

Environmental lawyers sued, a hysterical jury convicted, and the company, and it's shareholders had to pay a multi-million dollar settlement.

LAter, it was found that the defect was actually caused by a corn fungus, which had profilerated that year beause of heavy rain.

This would be great for the economy, as it would limit envrionmental problems to those actually caused, and alternative technologies to those that actually were cost effective without subsidies.

In theory, anyone could build a nuclear reactor anywhere, even next door to someone else, provided there was no pollutants/radiation etc.. to a harmful level, see post 52 for more on this. I think in the article paul even says nuclear energy is a good idea.

The one weakness I can see in this general theory, as brought up in debate with a budy of mine who works for a company that manages compliance for various industries, is that if someone was to pollute your property, say water supply, but then went bankrupt, you’d be stuck with the damages.

My response was that bankrupcy laws need to be tightened so that people are accountable for their credit, actually ‘tightened’ is a misnomer, the current laws should be repealed to allow contracts to be drawn up between indivduals, creditor and lender. Also, people could buy insurance, both the possible polluter and the individual, sort of like uninsured collision insurance for the individual and ‘disaster’ insurance for the possible polluter.

I’m not sure tho, the details need to be fleshed out.

IMO, a great articulation of Conservative/Libertarian philosophy on the environment and energy policy

But...but...this can't be. Paul's a secret lefty who's in bed with all of the other left-wing groups. Oh dear, how can we demonize him on this topic? (wrings hands)...

Paul-basher #1: We can't debate the facts here, gotta go with Plan B.

Paul-basher #2: Deploy photo-shopped .jpeg, I want something real cute this time, an anti-war nut holding a Ron Paul 2008 sign.

Paul-basher #1: Great idea! Now just center the pic...easy now...make sure you insert a Neo-Nazi skinhead in the back there....now add some pink, as in Code Pink....there we go....

Paul-basher #2: Perfect! That'll teach the Paulites! Google this, Paul nutters!

Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

Can you imagine the other candidates giving an answer like that? Paul absolutely ate this guy's lunch with this answer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

	Giuliani	F. Thompson	McCain	Romney	Huckabee	Paul	Tancredo	Brownback	Hunter	T. Thompson	Gilmore	Other	None/ no opinion

2007 Oct 12-14	32	18	14	10	6	5	2	2	1	n/a	n/a	2	9

2007 Oct 4-7	32	20	16	9	7	2	1	1	1	n/a	n/a	1	11

2007 Sep 14-16	30	22	18	7	4	4	1	2	2	n/a	n/a	1	10

2007 Sep 7-8	34	22	15	10	5	1	1	2	*	n/a	n/a	2	8

2007 Aug 13-16	32	19	11	14	4	3	1	1	2	n/a	n/a	2	11

2007 Aug 3-5	33	21	16	8	2	2	1	1	1	2	n/a	3	10

2007 Jul 12-15	33	21	16	8	2	3	*	2	1	1	*	1	11

2007 Jul 6-8	32	21	16	9	2	*	2	1	3	2	*	1	10

2007 Jun 11-14	29	21	20	8	3	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	8

2007 Jun 1-3	35	12	20	14	3	1	2	1	1	1	--	1	10

2007 May 10-13	32	12	24	10	1	--	1	2	*	1	1	3	13

2007 May 4-6	36	14	21	9	1	*	1	1	1	2	1	3	11

2007 Apr 13-15	38	11	24	10	2	2	*	1	1	1	2	3	6

2007 Apr 2-5	42	12	18	7	1	2	2	1	1	3	*	4	7

2007 Mar 23-25	34	13	22	4	2	1	1	3	1	2	1	3	13

2007 Mar 2-4	49	n/a	21	10	1	n/a	1	1	1	2	*	3	11

2007 Feb 9-11	42	n/a	25	6	2	n/a	2	4	2	2	2	4	10

2007 Jan 12-14	31	n/a	27	7	1	n/a	n/a	1	*	2	2	17	13