One President Ron Paul, Please

How Ron Paul can end up being the greenest President in history.

Home | Page Title

To those doing everything in their power to create President Paul,

 

Hello.  I would like to point out how Ron Paul, if he changes his message slightly, can easily be the greenest candidate of them all. 

It should help him get elected, so please read and then pass it on if you agree.

 

THE FREEING OF THE GREENS

THE GREENING OF THE ANARCHISTS

 

The other day, ….. pondering how to help get Ron Paul elected I realized it’s just a question of message if he wishes to be the number one choice of us greens.

 

We haven’t had free markets for energy and vehicles [and many other products] in this country for a century if not longer.  

 

Libetarians tend to despise environmentalists because the ones they read and see in the mainstream media seem to wish to regulate almost everything. [Democrats  ____ me off.]   That and because deep down, they fear an agency which will monitor every last molecule globally.  And in the wrong hands who wouldn’t? 

I hear their call of freedom. I am very much a Libertarian. 

I wish to create a USoA much as many of them do ; a mosaic of extremely eccentric states.  

 

But I also worship science. 

Sagan and Heinlein are my idea of light reading. 

I crave knowledge .

What many Libertarians [and I as well] have forgotten is freeing America’s homegrown markets is perhaps the most environmentally friendly way we can create a RealCiv.    We can green our civilization if Ron Paul is allowed to free a few important markets 

Most greens are anarchists …. I mean Libertarians in their hearts, trust me. 

 

Examples:

 

1] In the last decade, a vehicle was produced which ran on electricity.  It was fast and traveled much like a small car you’ve been in today, except it was far more quiet. What happened? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQ4cEr5Wao

 

2] Back in the 1930s a device was created which would have allowed hemp to have become a major competetor in the energy sector as well as others.  Hemp was then made illegal, even though there is no reason to do so unless you want to kill it as competition.  Why?

 

That are only two of the most obvious examples.  Very important markets, no? 

 

Did you watch that first link up there to the very end?  The one on the electric car?  Watch the last minute or so please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQ4cEr5Wao  

 

We can build electric cars here in the states, American garage inventors are tinkering even now with blueprints in cluttered rooms, but guess who is suppressing any free market initiatives with such heresies? 

You need to mention that President … Rep. Paul.  Americans need to stop thinking like herd animals, start sifting for the truth via the internet, and then make some informed decisions.

 

Should people be required by law to buy an electic car eventually?   You can see Cali doing that one day can’t you.    No.  No.  No.  Because even though electric cars will probably find their niche from Cali through Arizona and who knows how far into Texas, [in symbiosis with SolaRoofing!!!!]  vehicles which run on hemp might be more popular in the interior or everywhere else for that matter.

 

In fact, Rep Paul, when the issue of catastrophic warming comes up, I’d like to hear you say something like this,

 

“Well,  the idea of an agency which monitors almost every molecule we emit sends shivers down my [Libetarian] spine.  Right now we have the EPA and it’s not ensuring clean water, soil and air for many Americans because the system is simply too centralized and corrupt.”

“As for cutting our nation’s carbon emissions, by freeing up America’s homegrown markets, we can probably reduce them literally in half within two or more years. 

“I’m serious, …….. we can reduce Ameirca’s carbon emissions by a unbelievable margin simply by legalizing hemp. 

“You have to understand that biologically we can absorb huge quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere simply by planting fast growing species of plants from sea to shining sea, and hemp, … from everything I have read, is the crown jewel of all known species.  Hemp can simply be turned over and used to fertize the soil. 

“By simply freeing the market place for hemp will allow farmers to absorb enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and used it to revitalize our nation’s soils.

“It gets even better, … except for the oil companies or course …. but you can literally make most packaging out of hemp and this then can be ground up in your backyard or taken to a farmer or whoever wants it and allowed to decompose biologically back into soil, unlike all the plastics [petroleum derived] you see being used today and cluttering our landfills needlessly.

“[Can you see the light?]  A simple act such as legalizing hemp will allow us to absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and use it to renew our soils and at the same time create biologically sane packaging which will eventually do the same thing.  We might be able to plant enough of this, in a free market, to fuel a large percentage of our vehicles. 

And demand for it will not stop there.  All paper sh/could be made from hemp for the same reason as much packaging.  

Freeing the market for hemp sh/could cause the price of lumber to drop since most paper now comes from trees, and less demand should translate into lower lumber prices. and that might be beneficial to the new housing market since it cuts one input cost.

So we can see the cascading reactions caused simply from freeing the market for the world’s fastest growing plant. 

 

Now freeing up markets also means freeing up the marketplace of ideas.  That’s what’s so important about the internet.  The truth isn’t going to be spoon fed to you, you have to sift through it yourself and come to your own conclusions.  That’s what science is all about. 

 

[Why does Lew Rockwell furbish links to scientific [second or third source] articles in every field but the climate sciences? 

To be honest, I am tired of your links to articles remaining sceptical of our planet’s continued warming.  That sceptism remains as to whether our planet is warming shows something of the size of the campaign to dicredit the few who have toiled in the climate sciences over the last decade. 

If you are to link to any article on something such as global warming, please do so with a scientific journal.  I would very much appreciate that.] 

 

Take a look at the satellite photos of the north pole.  You can close your eyes towards the ice core samples, the computer models [I don’t care for Computer Models as of yet.  A mathmateical representaion of our world will one day approach accuarcy, but clearly anyone in the know realizes we need more data before models of our entire world can be taken seriously]   the melting snows of Kilimanjaro etc. but it’s hard to take a look at the data coming in from the poles and not say, “Holy _____, Batman.”

The fact remains, it appears our world’s ocean has absorbed who knows how much heat and CO2 over the last century.   

 

Ten years ago there was scientific debate as to whether our world was warming.  [Please stick with Science when you begin reading these debates.]  When it became almost crystal clear from practically every study coming in that our homeworld is indeed warming, the argument shifted to whether this warming was being caused by human civilization.

 

I would like to side step that argument.  It doesn’t matter whether this warming is caused by the sun, the moon, or too many humans, rice paddies and bovines  contributing to the methane cycle.  We as a species have the ability to cool our world easily if Ron Paul only had a science officer with a bit more Vulcan. [I’d like to apply for such a position when or if it opens by the way.]

Water vapor contribues ~60%+ of the green house effect.  Carbon dioxide  ~25%, and the rest is caused by trace green house gases such as methane, CFCs, etc.  This is why dropping the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is so important.  It’s only at a third of a percent of the total atmosphere, yet contributes ~25% of the greenhouse effect.

We can drop the percentage of carbon dioxde in the atmosphere from the ~380 ppm it currently is climbing past, easily.  It was at ~240, two hundred years ago and I personally believe we should try to stabilize sea level at a slightly lower level by lowering the carbon count. 

 

Yes Virginia, the CO2 count is 50+% higher than it was two hundred years ago. 

Remember, wealthy individuals who control not only the boards of many an energy conglomerate, but our government for all intensive purposes as well,  have been able to maintain the status quo for almost a century.  We as a species have the ability to cool this planet and it is somewhat prudent we do so, since it actually quite simple and the uncertainty is such that catastrophic scenarios should be avoided at all costs.   

 

Do you really want to risk sea levels rising? 

 

I am advocating Ron Paul in ’08 as someone who believes we need to act gobally as one species and not just to simply avert any possible catastrophic warming scenarios, but to create a RealCiv, … … something worthy of a Heinlein novel

 

There isn’t a majik bullet, but there is a damn close analogy.

1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth.