Ranking the Candidates' Alt Energy Support: Congressman Ron Paul

Over the next ten days, I will be ranking ten of the Republican Presidential candidates on their alternative energy positions -- to figure out which candidate is the best to “cure our addiction to oil.”

#10

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.

Paul has opposed every bill 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)

• Voted NO for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 – To develop an energy policy that addresses tax incentives, conservation strategies, regulatory standards, research and development programs, energy efficiency, and alternative sources of energy (07/28/2005)

• Voted NO for the Energy Omnibus bill - To enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people (06/15/2004)

• Voted NO for the Securing America's Future Energy [SAFE] Act of 2001 - To enhance energy conservation, research and development and to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people (08/02/2001)

The problem is that Ron Paul has a tendency to vote against proposals for government spending, initiatives, and/or taxes. Could any progress be made in the alternative energy field without any of the three? 

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.

Anyone disagree?

Comments

[pearcebrad]

I completely disagree with this statement. It shows a lack of information about Ron Paul. As supporters know, Ron Paul has introduced legislation to remove Industrial Hemp from the controlled substances act. Industrial Hemp could essentially replace both trees and fossil fuels in the products we make. Hemp is the best known plant for making diesel.

Kucinich is the only other candidate with that history with industrial hemp, in that he co-sponsored Ron's bill.

But, it was just that, Ron's bill, Ron Paul introduced legislation to remove industrial hemp from the controlled substances act and end the biggest environmental crime in history (that is, hemp being illegal while forests are chopped down, the skies are polluted, and tons of gross fertilizers are used to grow cotton)

[Mark.Walters.PLY1]

I completely disagree as well. Ron Paul believes in a true lazzie faire economy, and is trying to remove as much government over regulation as possible. And most people who know about Ron Paul understand why he votes no on most spending bills, because they are over run with pork and over regulation.

Paul does believe that there is life left in gas, I would hope that most people do. He also believes that the best way for any technology to advance is let private researchers do their work unencombered by the federal grant sysytem. What if research was completely unencombered by federal regulation, how much faster would we have cheap alternative, profitable safe energy, like pebble bed reactors? Or are pebble bed reactors a dirty word here?

[junk]

This article has one problem with me - it ranks the candidate based on government programs to embrace alternative energy. This article is most likely written by a typical baby boomer, taught to have government to "do it for them". alternative energy is the peoples responsibility. Ron Paul understands the key to a successful free society is one that maintains liberty themselves, not surrender it to a governmental body. Please - support alternative energy, as we the people, and do not pawn the responsibility off to an illusionary force the has never been competent. Ron Paul has my vote.

[libertyeconomics]

I disagree. The ONLY efficient way to allocate resources is pursuant to market demands. What Ron Paul pointed out during the debate is that the PRICE MECHANISM will compel people to develop alternative resources. He is absolutely correct. Do not forget about the price mechanism. On the market, prices are set pursuant to supply vs. demand. The greater the demand, the lower the supply, the higher the price. Consumption runs inversely with prices. If oil becomes that scarce, the price will rise naturally, and people will naturally curtail consumption, finbding cheaper alternatives.

What I find to be breathtaking is the paradox in people not only wanting the government to police "price gouging," but also they want the government to control consumption by compelling us to "conserve" resources. Which is it? Are you for lower or higher artificially determined prices?

It is when the government intervenes in the marketplace that prices move away from equilibrium, as no longer do beneficiaries of the government need to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand. Prices can be set above, or even below equilibrium. Just look at the government giving away all sorts of "free" goods and services. When the government owns the forest, the loggers need not calculate the benefits of chopping a tree down vs. diminishing future income and the capital value of the forest as a whole. It is only the free market that manages and allocates resources wisely.

Just look at the the biggest abuser of the environment - viz., the government on government land. Look at the atomic tests. Who in their right mind would detonate an atomic weapon on their own property like that?

[jaweich]

I also disagree with the article. As Ron would not subsidize hydro-carbons like the current system does. Our gas is so cheap compared to other counties like Hong Kong or England $5.62 / gallon! He would allow the market to do its job to find new and better ways for energy!! Ron Paul has my vote as he is the only candidate that would start to reverse extreme federal government regulation!

[jamesccagney]

I too disagree with this article and find it short-sighted. Just because you don't subsidize something doesn't mean you don't support it. Ron Paul is realistic and knows that politicians (including himself) don't know what the best technologies are. It should be left up to the market and private individuals/organizati... to determine where to spend money. Hence, let's un-subsidize and un-government support oil and give that money back to the private sector where they can be free to pursue whatever alternative fuel options they would like. If the people want those options then they will succeed. That is my opinion at least and I believe Dr. Paul at least feels similar to that.

[Alex Spanter]

I actually agree with the article. The private sector will never be able to make a large impact without government intervention. Tax initiatives and government spending are essential if we ever want to get alternative energy to be in the limelight.

[oliverc.web]

I disagree with the article. What makes anyone think that a bureaucrat knows which alternative energy solution is going to be the best? We're spending so much tax payer money subsidizing E85 and the likes but what happens if it's discovered that was the wrong decision, we've wasted a ton of money on a bad technology. Bottom line: I trust the free market a lot more than I trust the government to make these decisions.

The most we should do is implement a Pigouvian tax on carbon emissions to deal with the negative externality issue of global warming. That way the market decides what the best new technology will be. Of course if we do implement a Pigouvian tax then a very significant number of other taxes should be eliminated so as not to totally destroy the economy, not to mention everyone's liberty.

[willers32]

I agree with Dr. Paul's postion that there should not be a "national energy policy" of any kind. Dr. Paul supports dismantling the Department of Energy (along with MOST other cabinet departments) because the Constitution of the US does not permit the Federal Government to do anything at all with regard to energy. It is a market matter, not a government matter.
Dr. Paul understands that when and IF "alternate" energy sources become economically competetive, they will succeed. He also understands that ANY subsidies of alternate energy system will in fact misallocate scarce resources and thus be wasteful. Subsidies of any kind are bad economics. They divert scarce resources from economically viable products into products that have lesser value to consumers.
Dr. Paul understands that the mess we are in today is the RESULT of decades of government intervention, both at home and abroad. He will end these interventions, both in the economy at home and in the affairs of other nations. He will allow the free market to function. Then and ONLY then will we be able to see what energy systems are actually practical.
Ron Paul has my vote - for this - and for many other reasons.

[alpha24seven]

The point being missed is that alternative energy IS competitive right now! Take solar for example. Solar is government subsidized (insert favorite government entity here) to the tune of approx 50% installed cost. The dirty little secret is that the majority of the solar manufacturers are profitable. Why and how is it being subsidized? The subsidies are going to middle men and for marketing. If we end the subsidies immediately, all these solar companies will have to actually compete with each other. Watch the prices plummet and hold on to your hat for the new energy revolution.

It's refreshing to see a politician that understands this and isn't just pandering to get the uninformed vote.

[willers32]

Actually the dirty little secret about solar power is that it takes MORE energy to manufacture a solar panel than the panel will produce. THAT's why subsidies are "needed." With average efficiencies in the 14% range, the panels simply cannot reach the energy breakeven point that will make them suitable for replacement of fossil fuels.
BTW - I live on a boat and actually USE solar panels to keep my batteries charged. (I just couldn't find an extension cord long enough to let me plug into the grid.)
Solar energy IS NOT competetive with fossil fuels - yet. When they reach the 25 to 30% efficiency range, that might change, but we're not there yet.

[ryder92111]

Sorry Ron Paul supporters, but you are living in a pipe dream if you think you can be both dependent on foreign oil yet also not back a strong military to keep it flowing. If a single rogue state were ever to decide to close the Persian Gulf to raise the price of oil or to seize it for themselves, who then do you think should step in to intervene if not us? We live in a world ruled by global competition for resources, not one ruled by theoretical Libertarian theory of an idealized free market economy.

And for those of you who think more domestic refineries and drilling are the answer, as Ron Paul does, you are living in a pipe dream too. This nation hit peak production in 1970 and the numbers have never bounced back despite better technology and the discovery of new oil fields. There are only two choices: either you protect and pump more foreign oil via a strong military (The GOP position), or you back a new national alternative energy program (The Democrat position). Ron Paul's belief that a free market economy will solve the problem on it's own is not only naive; it's a threat to our national security and economic freedom.

A free market economy is not the answer to everything. This nation never would have built a railroad system, a freeway system, or sent a man to the moon without the support and planning by the federal government.

[tconsugar]

I am going to say, I disagree with the article.

Ron Paul is a true statesman, who supports alternative energy. Perhaps not vocally by saying we need to have Cellulosic Ethanol, Biodiesel, Geo Thermal in every household or Concentrated Solar Power. Quite honestly, sure, government money has helped, but ,with all special interest groups and with Capital Hill crammed to the gills with pork I think we would be much better off to allow the free market to handle our energy needs. This country has not had sound energy policy for as long as I can remember and matters are only getting worse. I would much rather let a scientist who has a very good and sound understanding of our energy sources and has a game plan of how they are going to harness it, then some empty suit sitting in a swivel Italian leather chair that has NO idea of how to properly tackle this enormous energy problem this nation, and world will soon be facing. Ron Paul knows this, which is why he believes that the free market should handle this, and also wishes to dismantle the DOE. The government has been sitting on its hands. As someone has already said, people want the governemtn to handle both enforcement of price gouging and then also supply routes, holy hell, pretty much saying you want to give the Bush adminisration and the 110th Congress the key to everything. Uhhhh....no thank you. Let a white coat handle this one, then a two piece suit.

[tconsugar]

A LOT of energy out there, waiting to be harnessed. Petroleums time has certainly come and gone. It was the worlds gift to us, and now, it is time for something more reliable, and also, more eco friendly.

[Carrie]

Read the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and tell me how dismantling many of the policies that protect our air and our water while feeding BILLIONS to oil companies actually helps our environment. Trust me there is no cure there.

[Carrie]

Read the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and tell me how dismantling many of the policies that protect our air and our water while feeding BILLIONS to oil companies actually helps our environment. Trust me there is no cure there.

[Tad W]

My response is that I have no doubt that Dr. Paul voted against all of these bills. In fact he votes against almost everything, earning him the title of "Dr. No."

He would argue that the government has no business telling a free market economy what energy source use, so long as it's use doesn't impact the rights of others. He would also argue that a small government could get out of the way, and that in itself would encourage PRIVATE investment into alt. energy sources.

In short, let me take this quote from the article:

"The problem is that Ron Paul has a tendency to vote against proposals for government spending, initiatives, and/or taxes. Could any progress be made in the alternative energy field without any of the three?

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."

Where does this assumption that all new technology has to come at the end of a government grant come from? Did Edison or Bell have government support for their research?

[scandinavian]

Unfortunately i support paul in most areas but like "corporate managed free trade" or other ideal cases this is a case that will be corrupted and requires investment by the US to speed indepedance that would others happen a 100 years from now. It took a 100 years for the oil industry to be become the size it is. We do not have a 100 years to produce enough technology to do the same out of the desires of international businesses that have already stripped american knowledge and businesses and hostily took them over and sent them over sees to meet the crooked demands of the international community of elite investors...

This one is simple like the manhattan project. Invest together Govt, industry, people, and lock down ip, dont allow it to be sold abroad. Then we will gain back our competitive advantage that we can not keep in a world of globalists that only care about themselves instead of the free market.

I would encourage dr. Paul to think long and hard about like free trade this corruption in energy that america can not wait on.

[scandinavian]

Unfortunately i support paul in most areas but like "corporate managed free trade" or other ideal cases this is a case that will be corrupted and requires investment by the US to speed indepedance that would others happen a 100 years from now. It took a 100 years for the oil industry to be become the size it is. We do not have a 100 years to produce enough technology to do the same out of the desires of international businesses that have already stripped american knowledge and businesses and hostily took them over and sent them over sees to meet the crooked demands of the international community of elite investors...

This one is simple like the manhattan project. Invest together Govt, industry, people, and lock down ip, dont allow it to be sold abroad. Then we will gain back our competitive advantage that we can not keep in a world of globalists that only care about themselves instead of the free market.

I would encourage dr. Paul to think long and hard about like free trade this corruption in energy that america can not wait on.

[law]

I disagree that Ron Paul is bad for renewable energy and I agree that he might not directly promote it, but his actions will actually force us to switch over to renewable energy

Right now the problem is that renewable energy cannot compete fairly, we need to get rid of oil subsidies and get rid of nuclear and coal subsidies. We then level the playing field and solar and wind become more competitive.
When we stop protecting our interests in foreign oil, what is going to happen? Well our suppliers are going to look for the highest paying buyer and the closest located buyer, so the USA will lose oil supply thus driving up our oil prices and gas prices. How can one nation use 25% of the world's oil, it's our foreign policy. Ron Paul may set into moton the exact thing we need to push us over to renewable energy and alternatives.

In the end Ron Paul cannot deliver everything he is talking about in 4 years, such as doing away with the IRS, we need to first reduce government spending on the military and than we need to have a large surplus for a few years and as we do away with more government spending and the surplus gets larger we can lower taxes until we get rid of the income tax. We can't do away with the IRS in his first week of presidency.

[User 136734]

We can not trust the government to develope alt fuel becuase they are in bed with big oil and have a vested intrest in keeping oil as the primary source of energy. I believe the free market can and will make it happen.

[cAT-iraqsSUCK]

I agree with this articles, sure an "empty suit" may not know which alternative energy is best, and scientist will definetly know which is, but even so, scientists need money for research and that's where those grants come in (and btw for those of you who say they don't NEED the grants, then why are they always and forever whining about it, or underfunding etc.)
Ron Paul strikes me as a good candidate in all areas except this one. His solution to this particular issue seems to be, "Lets ignore it and it'll go away." He seems to propose to simply let things spiral to the worst possible point, till we are forced to simply "switch" to an alternative, (As if those alternative are so affordable and readily available.)
He's giving this issue the ol' political spin by trying to please everyone yet not really giving a concrete answer on what EXACTLY he will do.
Nope don't like him on this issue, and I'm getting a sense of how he will deal with other tough issues. (Let the "MARKET" take care of it. Which then begs the question, "what's your price?")

[cAT-iraqsSUCK]

I agree with this articles, sure an "empty suit" may not know which alternative energy is best, and scientistS will definetly know which is, but even so, scientists need money for research and that's where those grants come in (and btw for those of you who say they don't NEED the grants, then why are they always and forever whining about it, or underfunding etc.)
Ron Paul strikes me as a good candidate in all areas except this one. His solution to this particular issue seems to be, "Lets ignore it and it'll go away." He seems to propose to simply let things spiral to the worst possible point, till we are forced to simply "switch" to an alternative, (As if those alternative are so affordable and readily available.)
He's giving this issue the ol' political spin by trying to please everyone yet not really giving a concrete answer on what EXACTLY he will do.
Nope don't like him on this issue, and I'm getting a sense of how he will deal with other tough issues. (Let the "MARKET" take care of it. Which then begs the question, "what's your price?")