What's wrong with Libertarian environmental policy?

Gale Norton: Secretary of the Interior under Bush and former Libertarian party member get thumbs up from Libertarian party:

Confirming former Libertarian Party member Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior would be “one giant leap” towards more sensible federal environmental and land-use policies, the Libertarian Party said today. “The nomination of former Libertarian Gale Norton is one small step for the Republican Party, but one giant leap for Libertarian-style environmental policies,” said the party’s national director, Steve Dasbach. “Norton is a refreshing change of pace from the typical knee-jerk, anti-capitalism, tree-worshipping environmentalist -- and that makes her the best possible choice for Secretary of the Interior. She seems to support a sensible free-market environmentalism that balances the need for a healthy planet with the importance of liberty, property rights, and limited government. Norton, who served as attorney general of Colorado from 1991 to 1998, had an extensive history as a Libertarian Party activist before joining the Republican Party.
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Libe...nvironment.htm

Gale Norton: A Libertarian in action:

Norton opposes federal laws requiring the removal of asbestos from schools and is a lobbyist for a chemical company charged with poisoning children with lead paint She has argued that pollution is a right, not a crime. She submitted legal briefs supporting a lawsuit by the oil industry to strike down a federal oil tax. Within minutes of being nominated for Secretary of Interior she endorsed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

As Attorney General of Colorado Norton refused to defend a state law guaranteeing minorities access to highway construction jobs. She opposed implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, federal civil rights statutes, the Violence Against Women Act, and asserted that southern state's rights were trampled upon by the civil war.

Norton is fellow at the Political Economy Research Center which is funded by Amoco, ARCO, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Conoco, Eli Lilly and Co., Pfizer, and Coors. It favors auctioning off all federal land to the highest bidder. This includes the National Parks, National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, BLM land and historic Civil War battlefields that Norton would be trusted with protecting as Secretary of Interior.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is currently considering a lawsuit brought by the foundation aimed at overturning the $5 billion punitive damages against Exxon Corp. in the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the Alaska coast, the largest punitive damage award in the nation's history.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/stop-norton/

[quote=thisbytes] We're better off not having a Libertarian run any part of our government.
Ralph Nader would be miles better than any Libertarian.

[quote=thisbytes] I think you are partially correct. Some people are afraid of change. I think in light of Ross Perot its equally fair to say its entirely possible to start a third party. It is entirely possible to attract voters to new ideas. Equally likely is that bad ideas and poor candidates drive voters away in droves.

If libs want to say 'its just resistance to change' fine. Thats just burying your head in the sand. If they'd provide more of the how its going to get done, not just the aims and the what's going to happen, maybe they'd be perceived as more real. Until then, its radical change without much reason to support it.

Aww, Ross Perot. I was ready to jump on his bandwagan, then he flipped out.

Instead I wound up on Bill Clinton's Sexpress to victory!!.

"Norton, who served as attorney general of Colorado from 1991 to 1998, had an extensive history as a Libertarian Party activist before joining the Republican Party."

When joining a party, it's best to act like one of them.

And how exactly, vegy, does a nuclear bomb fair on the environment? Since Clinton readily handed over secrets to a communist country.

Wouldn't suprise me to see a nuclear winter sometime down the line over that. Hope it was worth the campaign contributions.

But the Libertarian party liked her selection for Interior Secretary.

"Chinese nuclear forces today look remarkably like they have for decades. The picture of the Chinese nuclear arsenal that emerges from U.S. intelligence assessments suggests a country that--at least in the nuclear field--is deploying a smaller, less ready arsenal than is within its capabilities. That reflects a choice to rely on a minimum deterrent that sacrifices offensive capability in exchange for maximizing political control and minimizing economic cost--a decision that seems eminently sensible. The great mystery is not that Beijing chose such an arsenal, but that the Bush administration would be eager to change it."
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.p..._ofn=mj05lewis

[quote=vegyrex] Vegy, the fact that BOTH parties have been exchanging power and we still have the environmental issues we do, says alot.

How about we shrink government (instead of Dem's overbloating) and, god forbid, actually direct money where these issues WILL get solved - science.

There won't be any forthcoming solutions from Capitol Hill. This is the whole point: Having government decide everything when they don't know shit about any of the subjects. Are any of these politicians teachers, doctors or geologists? NO.

Should they have the biggest say, even over, people who DO know about these subjects? NO. Let the private sector handle it. That sector that DOES have the people knowledgable.

It took the fucking Indy Racing League to present ethanol to Bush. They will be running 100% ethanol in next year's series.
Is ethanol the be all ,end all? Far from it. But it is a step in the right direction.
Hell, Adolph Diesel DESIGNED his engine to run on freaking peanut oil. The environment crisis HAS BEEN solved for a long time. No trophies to hand out to politicians, sorry.



Thanks Clinton AND Bush!

Nope. Under Bush environmental laws have been weaken. Clinton might have been a disappointment, but he's nothing compared to Bush.

The Libertarians, like the Republicans, will do nothing to solve our energy or environmental needs. Both are lackeys of big oil, mining, & logging. Gale Norton gives a glimpse of how a Libertarian run government would ruin, er, I mean run things.

You mean the oil, mining, chemical and logging industries.

No thanks.

Ethanol is a terrible solution. We can't make it from corn efficiently. What the heck happened to the electric car?

As that article hinted at. Under Clinton things haven't changed much. Under Bush, that might not be the case anymore.

[quote=vegyrex]
The technology is improving. There's another, newer type of ethanol you can make from the waste. (corn stalks) And this newer type can be used in gas pipelines whereas regular ethanol has a condensation/water problem. So it has to be hauled around via tanker trucks and trains.
The question is: Is it actually going to reduce CO2 emissions or be just as bad?

Brazil is already using it full-steam with sugarcane and have announced they are independant of foreign oil. It's a trend that's going to be catching on fast.

Compact car sales in this country are on fire right now and with some pretty good offerings out there. Alot better than the econo-boxes of the 70's/80's.
Every manufacturer going is jumping on the bandwagon.
Honda Fit, Chevy Aveo, etc.
Canada is producing cars that run on either ethanol or gas.

BP (the oil company) and DuPont are setting up an ethanol system in the U.K. The momentum is building.

You think the mideast is pissed now, wait til their economy dries up.

They don't have to worry with the hydrogen car of 2000-whatever, ethanol is happening right now.



Tesla got fed up with dumbasses trying to say he was working with some kind of black magic connection in his inventions so the contents and configuration of his "black box" electric car died with him along with many, many other ideas. Thanks society.

Although the government happily confiscated what remaining papers he had left around after his death and now denies they have any.

There is an electric car company that uses the name "Tesla." Although they work with large lithium battery packs. I'm not sure if you've ever seen a small CR123 battery "vent" but it isn't pretty.

Riding around with a several pound lithium pack in the dashboard is not something I'd be too keen on doing, myself.
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

Here's a Lipo battery being overcharged to show the effects:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3690260570423705609&q=lithium+batt ery&hl=en


I liked Tesla's summary on nuclear as a whole: "It's a perversion of nature."

I saw a CBS news report on Tesla Motors. The first person I thought of was you

Haha I shouldn't have been the first. Have you SEEN the prices on those things?

USA Today say it cost about $100,000

Ouch, that hurts. Oh well, its still fossil fuel for me.

Thats just the point-- if a credible 3rd party appears, great. More people than anyone suspect'd be all over it. Perot was an almost.. then blew it. Its easier for libs to play the "but we lose because of the rules" card than it is to face up to the fact their best ideas are incomplete and the worst make most people pretty uncomfortable. If they'd at least flesh out the ideas they'd be more realistic, and have a better shot at winning a few seats in congress.

Jesse Ventura is an excellent example of a third party guy to win on the state level. He stunned the Dems and the Repubs to win the governorship.

I would have voted for him if I had lived in Minnesota.

does it even matter? after the movement gets momentum, and the paperwork starts, and the house votes and the senate votes, his term will probably be over or near over.

but i guess that's not the point. i think alot of those who want to impeach bush want to erase what he's done (what we've done.. we voted for him), and impeachment won't do that.

__________________