Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
Ron Paul has the least favorable position on alternative energy. He believes the American economy will continue to depend on oil in the foreseeable future. He is putting alternative energy on the back burner and instead focusing on increasing the number of domestic refineries. Just recently, he voted Yes for the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.
On the contrary, Paul has opposed every bills supporting alternative energy investment:
Voted NO for the Clean Energy Act of 2007 - To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewable Reserve to invest in alternative energy (01/18/2007)
It would be extremely difficult for such a candidate to lead us towards energy independence if he is unwilling to invest in a cleaner future.
Does anyone disagree?
Categories: Republican Presidential Candidates on Alternative Energy
When "green technologies" are more attractive they'll receive the funding necessary. Paul opposes Federal funding of alternative energy research for the same reason he doesn't support subsidizing oil companies. Doing so distorts the energy market, and in the end consumers would have no idea if they're honestly paying more or less.
Reply to this
Sure we all hate our oil addiction. But the federal government created the addiction in the first place. There is a history of subsidizing the true cost of gas, so alternatives can't succeed. And what will the feds choose for our next addiction? Ethanol seems to be their choice, but there is unintended side-effects like pressure on people's food supplies. The federal governement should not be in the business of picking winner, and that is why Ron Paul thinks having the feds choose our energy policy does more harm than good.
Reply to this
I agree with this article. Private sectors can't thrive without government intervention. It will be be essential for tax initiatives and government spending to get catalyze the alternative energy movement. What Ron Paul is doing is stalling the process.
Reply to this
I have to disagree here. Paul isn't the greenest candidate because he does vote against government initiatives to clean things up, but he has said, many times, even on Bill Maher, that our foreign policy subsidizes big oil and that our foreign policy must change. His belief is that we subsidize big oil by matianing our military presence in the Middle East, and if we did not have that, the market would be forced to cope with the inherit instability of oil before wars and such break out.
Reply to this
Fighting oil wars is unsustainable. Subsidizing wind power so it can compete with subsidized oil and coal companies is stupid. Ron Paul wants to stop subsidizing all energy. the result would be conservation and lower taxes to pay for the viable development of wind, batteries, and other technologies now held back by government policies. Evaluating Ron Paul on how he voted to expand government pork doesn't accurately measure his policies.
Reply to this
Does corn ethanol fuel policy increase oil use and oil profit?
* Some folks think so
* Clean Air Performance
Professionals
Reply to this
”Unlike MTBE, little is known about the impacts of ethanol releases into groundwater or the environment. However, because ethanol is the primary ingredient of beverage alcohol, which is classified by the California Proposition 65 Committee and other cancer experts as a human carcinogen, many are concerned about the possibility that ethanol may pose a cancer risk. Additionally, independent researchers have determined that ethanol in groundwater can extend plumes of other more potent gasoline carcinogens (benzene, toluene, etc.) up to 25%. In addition, ethanol is less effective than MTBE at fighting air pollution, and due to transportation and supply problems, will likely increase gasoline prices.”
Stella Sez, Hemmings Motor News, July 2000
http://clubs.hemmings.com/clubsites/capp/july.html
Reply to this