Wednesday, February 6, 2008

CLCV: Ron Paul's Stance on Global Warming

The California League of Conservation Voters has recently released a breakdown of where all the candidates stand on the issue of global warming. Ron Paul currently lists energy and environment as two of the major issues on his official campaign website. So surely, you would think that Ron Paul would be willing to put some thought on the very issues that he's hoping to campaign on, right? Think again. From their website under Ron Paul:

LCV Lifetime Score: 30%
Carbon Cap And Targets: No articulated position
Fuel Efficiency: Opposed 33 mpg in 2005
Renewable Electricity Standard: No articulated position
Efficiency Targets: No articulated position
New Coal Plants And Liquid Coal: No articulated position
Answers to our questions? Did not answer
The Ron Paul campaign a campaign of empty promises. His supporters will proclaim his as a straight talker who's willing to give thoughtful responses to the pressing issues of our day, but his inability to even answer basic question says otherwise. The Ron Paul campaign boils down to a few sound bites like "I will work to restore a free-market in energy," without going into detail on how that would actually work, much less actually delivering on it. In short, Ron Paul is a politician, and not even a very good politician. Global warming is one of the most pressing matters of our age, and the "free" market has decided that they enjoy Al Gore's message a lot more than Ron Paul's. Why does Ron Paul hate the free market so?

Of course, Paultards will probably insist that the potential devastation of the all human life as we know it isn't a "real" issue, like Ron Paul's doomsday prediction on hyperinflation. Because imagining a scenario where the factories at the US Mint goes crazy ala I Love Lucy and starts doubling our money supply exponentially over and over again is so much more plausible than believing that an unchecked and massive output in carbon emissions might produce problems faster than the free market can correct for.


Anonymous said...

R(i)P's position on global warming gets dodgier still . He seems to think that property rights and resort to the courts is a solution to this. This has to be farcical . One it assumes with global warming that if climate change is affecting your property and health you are going to be able to pin point one specific group to sue , two , it ignores the need for government action and cooperation between governments and ,three , well something needs to be done before the situation craps up not after , jeez.

I also note he thinks the case for global climate change is exaggerated , supports the oil industry , and employs the tactic of suggesting there are two sides to the debate to try to undermine the vast amount of evidence already established and the virtual consensus on the science. Man is he slimy .