Green News and Opinion

because he supports a smaller, more decentralized government. The decentralization creates an environment which allows the growth of third parties to flourish. He is also intimately familiar with and sympathetic to the plight faced by third party candidates, because he was one himself when he ran as a Libertarian in 1988.
 

Also, he would stop federally subsidizing big oil. The price would rise, and alternative fuels would emerge in the market, hopefully before the government gets in and corrupts it.
 

I'm a big Paul supporter, but I must tell you guys he does not take global warming seriously. Its not that he isn't concerned about the environment, its more that he is very skeptical of anything as politicized as GW. However, he has stated (as was already mentioned) that his first step into reducing carbon emissions would be to stop subsidizing middle eastern oil with our foreign policy.

He's big on holding private industry accountable for polution and whatnot, and wants industrial hemp to become legal (he already has a bill for this on the table).

He'd probably try to push some ballot reform through to help 3rd parties, but I doubt congress would go along with it.
 

I think Greens should absolutely support Ron Paul. Totally ignore the fact that he's a "republican." He is basically against partisan politics, and is running as a Republican so that he can play in the national debates; as a huge critic of the Republican party, I can say this is a strategy I totally approve of.

Greens should support Ron Paul as much as they should support Dennis Kucinich.
 

Ya know I gotta throw my two cents worth in on this one...

It is true that on some of the SOCIAL issues Libertarians and Greens are in the same ballpark if not in the same inning...But on the environment and business issues they aren't even playing the same sport...

On his website's issues page, Paul
is 100% against a womans right to choose abortion. Under property rights he is against regulations. I can only read this to mean that if a person owns 100 acres of hardwood forest(Libertarians also want to sell off public land except that which is called for in the Constitution), go for it and clear cut that bad boy as long as it doesn't harm anyone else...According to Libertarian literature I have read, it comes down to... do what you will, if it harms no one...The problem with this, in my opinion, is that Libertarians dream that big business will do the right thing, and be fair to their workers, enviromentally friendly, and will spend the resources to make these things possible...Yeah...and Santa comes to see me every Christmas...

I admit, the Libertarians are better than republicans on most things, but I don't see how or why the Green Party of Texas or anyother state would thow their resources behind them...

Bry
 

Ron Paul doesn't understand global warming. However, I strongly believe that is irrelevant. If Ron Paul became president, the problem would be solved. How? It is simple. In a Ron Paul presidency, there would be no such thing as subsidies for anything, including R&D for oil and gas companies. In addition, there would be no troops stationed anywhere outside the USA, including those currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, etc. At the same time that the economy would be booming due to the end of the federal income tax, the price of fossil fuels would climb, and entrepreneurs would scramble to come up with green solutions. Who knows? Maybe even Exxon would get cash in on the green revolution. There is a huge difference between free-market capitalism and corporatism. In this scenario, free-market capitalism would save the day.
 

I agree we should support Ron Paul 100%.

Why?? 1st, because right 3rd parties have ABSOLUTELY no chance of winning, thanks to the screwed up election laws.

2nd, Ron Paul is not power hungry. He has been consistent on the issues for decades. He wants bureaucracy to be removed from the private lives of individuals. And he wants the federal govt to STOP subsidizing Big Oil, Big Pharma, and the corporate-military-industrial complex.

I have seen him talk about air pollution, environmental issues (i think it was the New Hampshire Town Hall - YouTube.com). What he says makes sense... all the EPA accomplishes is just shifting around pollution credits!

Ron Paul DOES care about the environment, but he doesn't think the federal govt should be the ones to regulate those issues...I mean we ALL know that the federal govt corrupts up pretty much everything it touches! State & local govts should handle those matters, as well as individuals having rights as property owners.

See this brief summary:
http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-and-environment.html