Ron Paul v. Obama

I've been following the Paul campaign with great interest, if nothing else because he's such a perfect case study of classic Republicanism with a genuine libertarian leaning... an individual rights guy to the core.

As a free-market, small government man, Ron Paul believes that private property rights are the key to sound environmental policy. He is not for centralized federal regulation, but says that polluters and over-consumers are intruding on the rights of property owners. In Ron Paul's ideal policy plan, afflicted parties would be able to sue polluters, driving their costs up and making irresponsible resource use and polluting economically inviable. This approach makes Paul a straightforward Market-Liberal.

Obama, on the other hand, has a blend of free-market and regulatory ideas to bring environmental harm under control. Perhaps the most interesting is the carbon cap-and-trade system, which would impose a regulatory cap on national emissions but then allow corporations to divy up allowed emissions on an open market. This would encourage innovation and punish backwardness, but not as harshly as some other measures.

Aside from this, Obama is a classic scientific stimulus/regulation environmentalist. He aims to invest massive dollars into energy science while mandating consumption standards such as CAFE. All the while, he promises to involve the nation more completely in international regulation.

Such a broad approach is more difficult to pigeonhole. Cap-and-trade is a touch of market-liberalism, international involvement is typical institutionalism, and all that scientific investment sounds like bio-environmentalism.

Who's talking more sense? Even though I'm a free market guy by default, I think it doesn't work with the environment. Even staunch deregulatory free marketeer F.A. Hayek conceded that environmental issues are thorny because the costs can be displaced instead of felt directly by the problematic party.

I like Obama's plan because it focuses so much on technology, but wish he had more lifestyle statements to make, even if that isn't the direct role of the President. Maybe if he set a sound example himself, he could use his station to demonstrate how it's WE that need to change, not just our science.