Power to the People: Pride Goeth Before Ron Paul ….
Republican Congressman Ron Paul has been a member of the US House sporadically since 1976. He served terms of 1976 to 1977, 1979 to 1985, and 1997 to present, always serving different Congressional districts of Texas. Paul is a licensed physician and practiced for a number of years before entering politics. He is married, and he and his wife, Carol Wells, have 5 children. Paul ran for President once before, as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. Interestingly, he ran as the Libertarian nominee while registered as a Republican.
Paul has not visited New Hampshire very often. In fact, only Fred Thompson, who entered the presidential race a month ago in September, has visited NH less often than Ron Paul. That may explain why Congressman Paul is mired at 3% in the most recent NH poll.
Paul visited WMUR-TV, Channel 9, and appeared on their popular Conversations with a Candidate program in February. I had the opportunity to ask Congressman Paul if he believed that global warming was a serious problem. His response, "I don’t think that the jury has fully come in on global warming. There is still a lot of debate on that subject."
Given that context, I followed up by asking Paul if he felt that we need to embrace clean energy. Paul’s response: "I am a Free Trader and I think that if Clean Energy were a viable option, it would be more economical in the marketplace."
My final question centered on how Paul felt we should deal with making America energy independent. Paul stated, "We should look at more domestic drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and we should look at nuclear power as well as a short-term solution."
Paul’s positions, regrettably, are fairly predictable for this self-avowed free trader. Paul supports and believes as follows:
- He doesn’t believe that climate change is an important issue to voters. He has stated that some global warming may be occurring naturally and may not be caused by human beings.
- In a speech before the US House in 2006, Paul stated that "environmentalists go back and forth warning about a coming ice age to then arguing about the dangers of global warming. Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people."
- Paul has voted in favor of offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. He has also voted for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
- Paul would end all subsidies of any kind to all energy companies, including oil companies.
- Paul would suspend the federal gasoline tax when retail gasoline prices hit $3 a gallon.
- Paul co-sponsored legislation that would fast track the federal approval process for oil refinery construction or expansion.
- Paul voted in 2001 against raising CAFÉ standards to 27.5 mpg for 2005 and 2006 cars and trucks.
- Paul supports expanding the use of domestic coal as a fuel source. "Technology is improving all the time and by using coal this might be something that can help the US become more energy independent."
- Paul opposes domestic subsidies for the corn industry to support ethanol.
- Paul opposes offering any federal subsidies to the energy technology sector, much like oil, gas and coal have received for many years. As a free market trader, Paul believes that the market will only support the best product at the best price. All subsidies should be stopped.
- Paul opposes a carbon tax. Paul believes that the carbon tax is like legalizing pollution.
- According to Paul, energy independence does not mean that the US has to produce every single ounce of energy used. Paul believes that independence means having no government-mandated policy. If you need oil or energy, you can simply buy it.
- Paul thinks nuclear is a great source of power for the future. Paul believes "…it’s the safest form of energy we have." (Seriously, he actually believes that!)
Paul’s positions are predictable for a free trader and Libertarian at heart, and so will be his finish in the New Hampshire Republican primary. It is highly unlikely that his views will garner double-digit support in the Granite State.
Stay tuned to see if NH voters have the common sense for which I am giving them credit.
Next week: Former Senator Mike Gravel, Democrat from Alaska
SmartPower — the national, non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy independence
Ron Paul for President Campaign
NH Republican Presidential Poll
Also on GO:
Tags: Alternative Fuels, Climate Change, climate+change, global+warming, New+Hampshire, Political News, Politics, Presidential+Primary, Renewable Power, Ron+Paul
- Uncategorized
November 1st, 2007 at 12:12 am
I just went on a hike through the “Flume” at Franconia Notch in Northern New Hampshire and ran across an interesting interpretive environmental plaque posted on the trail that described the creation of the Notch and the environment in general in that area. I didn’t take a picture of the sign but it described how it was expected that the Earth’s climate would be warming for the next 20,000 years. I believe this old sign (pre-global warming publicity) is probably correct.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:13 am
Paul is correct on everything. A carbon tax will not stop planetary warming which is natural. It’s a UN scam, perpetrated by loons like Al Gore. 1 degree over 100 years does not make ‘global warming’. What happened to the ice age we were supposed to be suffering now?
Also you have his latest poll numbers WRONG.
Paul alread has 7.4% of JUST GOP VOTERS. Wait til you see the rest of the independents and how they will vote…you will be surprised.
NH has the good sense to vote someone like Paul in the high digits and I predict they will. We are sick of Democrat government tells us what to do all the time rule.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:42 am
Ho hum, just another hit piece. First one I’ve seen from an Al Gore groupie. Carbon tax? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Get back up your tree.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:59 am
What kind of comment would someone that supports expensive biofuels and government-mandated community conservation make? He would mock someone that makes a completely legitimate point about nuclear energy.
Anyone that stumbles upon this obscure article, has the ability to do research and find out that your opinion is jaded. It is almost like you used Paul’s name to draw traffic to your article.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:06 am
OK, Ron Paul may not be a purist green, but for all the right reasons (in my view). Namely, he is wary of over-regulation, is skeptical about the research related to cause and effect on the environment, does not disavow nuclear power. and does not want the U.N.-based fiats wrapped around our necks. So far, so good.
Well, what is the alternative? Which oil-mongering, war-for-oil zealot of the mainstream do you advocate? Which lobbyist or world body do you want to give your vote to? Yeah, a war with half the planet will make for a good study–then we can test the global warming theory for real.
At least, Paul is comfortable with non-military, non-intrusive technology. He doesn’t believe in the oil-hegemony, which is a major reason that Americans won’t telework or telecommute in greater numbers–because it is not fruitful to do so and because our oil-fed economy (and stoneage bosses) won’t allow it. Instead, we have planes roaring overhead, cars trapped in gridlock for miles, and rural landscape being raped to accommodate mini-cities. Many of these “green offenses” can be alleviated by use of more networking technology, restructuring jobs for the 21st century, and getting a handle on the monetary system and inflation which not only enable these evils but promote them.
Think about it. Who is belching up the smoke today? China. Why? Because our ridiculous economy promotes (or allows) us to buy so much of the junk the Chinese make. Then, look up in the sky–look at the air traffic; take a look at the roads. These are signs of an unenlightened economy.
Really, it is time to start thinking out of the box, and to address these issues in a more enlightened way than merely looking to the “tax-man” and the U.N. to solve the problems.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:20 am
Yeah, Ron Paul isn’t an eco-Nazi. Good for him!
I do get so tired of you eco-nuts ranting on about how the sky is falling and technology is bad and we’d all be better off if we all lived in caves or whatever.
Among other things, your philosophy is one of abject surrender, that the problems you posit cannot be solved, that the only way to avoid your catastrophe-du-jour is by compelling people to adopt lifestyles of which you approve.
How ’bout this? Just consider the possibility that technology is constantly changing, that just as yesterday’s ecological problems can be solved by today’s technology, today’s problems can be solved by tomorrow’s technology. And that tomorrow’s technology will be devised by people who intend to get rich by devising it.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:31 am
Just Google “neutralize nuclear waste” and you will find that there are already available and tested technologies to eliminate the waste output of nuclear power plants.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:43 am
Everyone Needs to wake up and research who is behind the global warming scam. I was at one time believing that it was a human promoted problem but after researching I have found that all of those claims are bogus. We as a people who take everything from the nightly news serious should always ask themselves one question. Who would benefit from this created problem? Let’s first look at the obvious reasons to ask such a question. Does anyone remember how the Bush administration first reacted to the “Global Warming Catastrophe”? I remember that they were all just brushing it aside and snickering about it. Now all of the sudden it is a global crisis. Why would that be? I’ll tell you why. It wasn’t time to present the solution yet. What do you mean, you ask. Well from reading history books I have come across many instances of leaders using a problem-reaction-solution ideology and also using the environment as a reason to have human sacrifices to please the gods. I really started to read about what some scientist have said about global warming and found out that it isn’t as unanimous a decision as the media would make it out to be. The fact of the matter is that there is a select few people in this world who want you to buy into the developing carbon tax. These few elitists have been waiting for the right moment to spring this trap onto everyone. Guess where the money will go from this tax. To the Rothschilds. This family has funded both sides of every war to grab more land and economic control. There main mission is to eventually lower carbon emitions through mass extermination of the worlds population to appease mother earth or Gala. This is apparent in the Georgia Guide stones where it states that the population of earth must never exceed 500,000,000. Also I would like each person not to just take my word on this matter but research who funds groups such as Greenpeace and others like it. Just ask questions and research for answers. The truth will set you free.
Peace
November 1st, 2007 at 7:11 am
Mike,
You have brought up a lot of interesting points. I think it would be great if you could get an interview with Paul and ask him about each of these issues.
You are probably unaware that Dr. Ron Paul is THE person in Congress who has authored and sponsored (twice) a bill to legalize industrial hemp at the federal level, so States like North Dakota can grow it. Hemp, that gives us 4.5 time the paper of trees - over 20 years. Hemp, one of the best sources for biomass fuels (BETTER THAN CORN). And yes Hemp, the strongest natural fiber in the world. With modern technology, hemp fiber can be made as soft as cotton. If we switched to hemp for fiber instead of cotton, we’d reduce pesticide use in US agriculture by 50% every year! That’s because hemp is 100% organic. It is also one of the best natural sources for cleaning contaminated soils of heavy metals, and other pollutants.
Needless to say, industrial hemp being grown in a free society, where capital can easily be generated (like a society with no personal income tax) for infrastructure, the Earth could be greatly benefited.
It’s hard to pin down Ron Paul unless you study his overall philosophy, and while you might not agree with all of it, Paul offers way more positives than any other candidate, and way less negatives.
Another quick thing to mention is Paul’s arguement that our foreign policy contributes to global warming. We go to war to secure oil. Our military operations around the world are responsible for millions and millions of barrells of oil a day. He would work to end that buy bringing our troops home for all over the world.
He has also states that he would negotiate one on one with other countries when it comes to pollution.
The best thing you could do is to attepmt to interview Paul and ask him about all these points you bring up in your article. Let him speak for himself. Believe me, it would be so much more possible for a new company (industry?) to come along with alternative fuels, environmental clean up, cleaner technologies, and other eco-friendly possiblities, under a Paul Administration than anyone else running for office.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:53 am
“Chernobyl was a real disaster. Would any of you nuclear people want one in your backyard?”
The Chernobyl reactors were of a design not used in the US, the RBMK (natural uranium-fueled, water-cooled, graphite-moderated), a design that American physicist and Nobel laureate Hans Bethe has called “fundamentally faulty, having a built-in instability.” Because of the instability, an RBMK reactor that loses its coolant can under certain circumstances increase in reactivity and run progressively faster and hotter rather than shut itself down.
Nor were the Chernobyl reactors protected by containment structures like those required for US reactors.
US reactors are pretty safe, and there may be ways to make potentially safer reactors than US ones (such as “inherently safe” gas cooled models being developed in South Africa), but even the nearly complete cooling water loss and partial meltdown of pressurized water reactor Three Mile Island kept the melted fuel contained.
Nuclear power is the safest power source in terms of death per watt hour delivered.