Environmentalists Can Start to Debate the Pros and Cons of a Ron Paul Presidency

Posted on Tuesday, November 6th, 2007

By ahedgehog

Alex Scholz

Is a Ron Paul presidency the specter of the unbridled capitalism of an 18th century London blackened with factory smoke, the waterways polluted? Or is it more like the start of the 20th century of Teddy Roosevelt promoting a national parks system and conservation? Yesterday, a doctor and congressman, long a darling in the alternative health community, raised 4.3 million dollars from 37,000 donors in a single day. He says he wants to bring America back to its constitutional roots. And environmentalists have a chance to discuss what that potentially means.

When asked about protecting the environment, Paul answers that giving massive government subsidies to a host of industries such as big oil and agribusiness as well as the massive American military-industrial complex is anything but environmentally friendly. He would seek to end those subsidies and greatly reduce the military-industrial complex by pulling out of Iraq, and almost everywhere else for that matter. He argues to let people keep what they earn (he wishes to abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS) and donate or invest their own money in organic food, land conservation, biodiesel, etc. as they see fit. In all matters, he refers to the wisdom of the founding fathers, saying our ills stem from having drifted from our constitutional roots.

These arguments to stop subsidizing major corporate entities and get the government out of our personal lives have resonated strongly in the alternative health communities and with organic farmers–two groups with whom environmentalists have frequently had common cause. It isn’t very unusual to walk in a yoga studio and see flyers for meditation, health food seminars and Ron Paul for president. While this might have something to do with his public statements, it probably has more to do with a substantial body of health care legislation that he has supported or introduced to make things easier for these folks to do their thing free of government interference.

The significance of Paul’s environmental legislation is less obvious than that of his health care legislation, yet environmentalists might start asking to what extent specifically environmental legislation is the best way towards achieving what they ultimately want. There is a tendency in the environmental community to rubber-stamp a strong government approach over a libertarian approach as the lesser of two evils, and yet one has to consider the environmental value that can be assigned to greatly paring down the US military-industrial complex, getting ranchers off federal lands, stopping massive subsidies to agribusiness, or ending the war on drugs with its Silent Spring-like aerial spraying of Columbia, Peru and Bolivia.

Concerns naturally exist about property rights vs. the Endangered Species Act, global warming, or preventing clear-cutting of old growth forests in private hands. However, Ron Paul might ask us to consider how the US made such great environmental gains under Teddy Roosevelt before the central government became so strong, or if things are actually better now. With Ron Paul having something close to 12 million dollars cash on hand and an almost rock star-like internet following, these all seem like questions worth considering.

5 Comments

Steven, November 7th, 2007 on 12:27 am

I am about to graduate this December from NCSU in Environmental Technology. The environment has been an important issue to me since I was a kid watching Captain Planet.

I strongly support Ron Paul’s candidacy and his approach to the environmental issue. It will take away the bureaucratic bullsh*t research that our universities and government entities are forced to conduct because oil companies and other interests groups are funding them. I could list example after example of research that has been done for years for absolutely no reason but to find loopholes to allow companies to pollute more. I’ve been working with one for 2 years now.
What a Ron Paul presidency will do is end this and allow us the freedom to research our own innovative solutions leading to new technologies that would be much more meaningful in today’s society. It will end our reliance on the government telling us what to do and what to research and allow us to be responsible for our own actions.
Responsibility is the key, it is time for us to make a change. Personally I don’t need government to take care of me from cradle to grave, to teach me whats right and whats wrong. I search and find out for myself.
Jenny Barwick, November 8th, 2007 on 2:33 pm

Anyone who knows and loves Wendell Berry and his message of local stewardship of the environment must also love Ron Paul. How I would love to see reprints of this article able to be passed out at farmers’ markets everywhere! And going to all members of the Carolina Farm Stewardship.
Darren, November 10th, 2007 on 1:46 pm

Ron Paul understands that the best environmental protection comes from the private ownership of property–land, water, air, animals, everything. He knows that deviations from that, such as public land, environmental laws, endangered species laws, etc, actually act to destroy the very things they’re intended to protect. It’s amazing to me that so many environmentalists are also statists, when it’s the free market that truly leads to environmental progress.
Molly, November 13th, 2007 on 3:05 pm

Here in the mountain west the insatiable appitite of powerful but faux “environmentalists” has done more damage to habitat and species than any anthropogenic force in known human history. The “wilderness” myth alone may be the greatest culprit.

In North America man literally evolved with the
forests, thinning with anthropogenic fire and creating grasslands for ungulates (meadows, prairies, and open forest savannas). These in turn greatly enhanced water flow through the landscape creating much more abundant waters.
The net result was a world much more conducive to species and habitat abundance than the ever more barren and catastrophic fire prone situation we have today with all the ESA “protections” such as the “wilderness” designation.

Extremists in the “environmental” community mislead the masses on these issues and continue their campaign which is failing on all counts. Charismatic blather does not equal success. Since our traditional family ranching and forest harvest have been greatly curtailed wildlife sightings have greatly diminished. Our “wildernesses” have become the thicketed, diseased incendiary devices for the destruction of our forests. Almost half of these “environmentally protected” situations are what is called stand replacing. That means that the genetic links within our forests that have come forward since the last ice age, through all climate shifts etc. are being destroyed in vast areas forever. In these cases replacement most often comes in the form of scrubland and as such a much diminished capacity to support natural diversity and an enabler of drought.

The “environmental” largess enabling the destruction of the property owners here, (The forest harvest families were the ones who went to the FS when they were adopting Industrial logging rules and told them this would not be good for the forest) filters down from transnational corporations and bankers thru the likes of the Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund (now partnering with the World Bank.

If you are really concerned with the environment do research beyond the internationally acclaimed stratigists and PR people’s charismatic pap and agendas developed by the corporate interests funding and staffing the “environmental” movement. The urban public has no idea what a truly abundant intact nature looks like so accepts incendiary, diseased, self-destructive thickets, even fire destroyed landscapes as being “saved”.

Google “sosforests” for a start.
James Guilford, December 29th, 2007 on 10:40 pm

What is the myth of wilderness ? Is Molley saying wilderness never exsisted ? Molley, forest, provide cover and shelter for wildlife, meaning you are less likly to spot creatures from developed settings,ie-your house window,car,tractor ect. It is a fact when creatures are forced to roam from degraded habitats they are more likly to be seen. And far to often seen as road kill. I cant speak for fire regeims in the west, but in the east fire plays a much deminished role in the ecology of our forest. Here ,thick moisture holding forests are much less likly to experence catastrophic fires. However more managed pine tree farms, without canopies,natural canopies burn very hot and are often very destructive both to ecosytom and to economy. I believe the lesson we need to learn is that managing every speck of earth for financial gain,and often for immediate financial gain is in the long run detrimental for all involved. Does the wilderness myth you speak of explain the exsistence of the giant california Redwoods or the Grand canyon ? What other anthropogenic activity than the enviromental movement led to the reality of these common landmarks ? Your concern surly lies not with the enviroment but rather with your bank account via the family farm. This is certanly justifiable, but please do not lamblast nature enthusiasts and enviromentalists as crooks and liars without getting the facts.

A Future for Species Preservation and Conservation