Environmental Policy

The following was written in November 2013 as a response to the questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican Party).

Here is the link to the original questionnaire:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw

This is my answer to Question #11.

11. None of the above

   (The federal government should engage in neither standardizing claims related to clean air and water, purchasing additional land for National Parks, protecting endangered species, nor participating in - nor pressuring other nations to participate in - the Kyoto Protocol)

   There is no constitutionally enumerated authority for the federal government to regulate the environment; therefore there is no constitutional authority for the Environmental Protection Agency, for the federal government to (A) standardize claims related to clean air and water, (B) purchase additional land for National Parks, or (C) protect endangered species.

   Several years ago, actions by the E.P.A. actually served to lowerclean air standards, when a third of the states were prevented from raising their motor vehicle fuel efficiency standards. I would vote to support the abolition of the E.P.A. because it is unconstitutional, it standardizes mediocrity, and the states have the authority and the will to implement high (A) standards for clean air and water themselves, as well as to set examples for the nation in that area.

   It is not a proper role of the federal government to (D) participate in and pressure other nations to participate in the Kyoto Protocol. The United States should not be a member of the United Nations as it is, because it subverts our sovereignty (the co-equal sovereignty of our states' and national governments) by positioning international law as supreme above national law.

   I believe that the Congress should make treaties and engage diplomatically with foreign national governments, but it should primarily be done bilaterally and multilaterally instead of with all recognized worldwide sovereigns at once. This style of decision-making gives undue advantages and disadvantages for countries large and small, rich and poor, and weak and powerful alike.

   In summary, I would leave the responsibility to (B) protect and own land now owned by the national government – and the responsibility to protect endangered species – up to the states and the localities, rather than to the federal government. I would support legislation providing for federal regulation of the environment provided that such legislation were to go through the amendment process and become part of the Constitution.

For more entries on environment and climate change, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-china-global-warming-and-population.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/cap-and-trade-legislation.html