TT`s Lost in Tokyo : republicans

Doug Bandow urges Republicans to rebuild based on calls for a modest foreign foreign policy

TokyoTom — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:38:00 GMT

Doug, you were right on Iraq in 2003 and are right now , but haven't you forgotten one little thing? What gives you any cause to believe that the stiff-necked neocons and others who fell for their war-mongering (the Christian right and other) will...(read more)

The evolution of Palin: Is the battle over evolution a struggle against science, or a proxy war with the state?

TokyoTom — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:58:00 GMT

In the context of a review of the focus on "creationism" that Alaska governor Sarah Palin has injected in the presidential election, Christopher Caldwell , a senior editor at The Weekly Standard , has attempted to explain (in The Financial Times...(read more)

Ron Bailey/Reason: Gore's proposal to generate all power carbon-free in 10 years requires trillion$ on nukes

TokyoTom — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:47:00 GMT

On July 17, Al Gore challenged our nation to produce " 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly carbon-free sources within 10 years ". Ron Bailey , science correspondent of Reason online , has examined whether Gore's...(read more)

Hope from Democratic candidates on War? See "A Responsible Plan to End the War"

TokyoTom — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:17:00 GMT

Democrats presently in Congress don't seem to care too much about doing much to stand up to Pres. Bush on the war in Iraq, despite becoming the majority party on the back of a wave of voter revulsion over the war in November of 2006. This lack of...(read more)

Climate spin: Who changed "global warming" to "climate change"?

TokyoTom — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:08:00 GMT

Answer: It wasn't the enviros who changed the use of this term, but rather high-powered corporate lobbying interests and their allies in Bush government and the Republican party , spearheaded by leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz...(read more)

Ron Paul on the environment and energy

TokyoTom — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:16:00 GMT

1. There is an excellent interview of Dr. Ron Paul now up at Grist, the environmental news and commentary site, that explores some of his views on environmental and energy issues. I am with him in principle but think he has underestimated the seriousness of the climate change problem and not seriously thought through the issues yet.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Selected remarks on international issues include the following (emphasis added):

"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."

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."

Q: "You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global warming?"

A: "I think they're more capable of it than politicians."

Q: " What's your position on a carbon tax?"

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."

[Note: This seems ambiguous, but I suppose RP intended to disagree with the concept of permits as well as taxes.]

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."

Q: "Do you support the goal of energy independence in the U.S.?"

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."

2. Dr. Paul also discussed energy and the environment in an interview in June, when he said the following:

Q: "Especially after the release of Al Gore’s global warming documentary, the environment has been very much on people’s minds. Where do you stand on global warming?"

A: "Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance."

Q: How about KYOTO?

A: "I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn’t do that. Instead it’s placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply. It’s bad science, it’s bad policy, and it’s bad for America. I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id447.html

3. The New York Times has a new article on the views of the Republican candidates on climate change, but somehow they managed to miss Ron Paul:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/17climate.html?bl&ex=1192852800&en=07847552491b852f&ei=5087%0A

Why are Republicans unhinged on energy policy?

TokyoTom — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:01:00 GMT

In a post of the same title at at NRO, Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of Cato do a great job of demonstrating there is absolutely no relationship between energy policy and national security.

However, they forgot to provide the answer to their own question - Republicans are "unhinged" on energy strategy for a very simple reason - because "energy security" is a very convenient way of justifying a meddlesome and paternal big government, and the Republican administration is in charge of the pork spigots and can control the flow of favors to special interests.

Do Taylor and Van Doren find the Republicans "unhinged" only because they expected that Republicans actually meant their disavowals of "nation building" and the like? Though Americans seem to share a congenital idealistic streak, I suspect that they are not that naive.

No doubt the Dems will also find "energy security" to be a convenient way to aggrandize their own power, reach into Americans' pocketbooks to direct federal largess their friends and to keep the US involved in the internal affairs of other countries. They will have been aided by a Republican administration that was more liberal in the assertion of the right to exercise power than many Democratic administrations that preceded it.