Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Yes. The three top Democrats are for Cap 'n Trade. That means the big polluters pay more the more they pollute.

I think that's ridiculous.

Ron Paul has made me come around to his thinking about the environment and that it's rooted in property rights. If a big polluter is causing harm in an area, people ought to be able to take that company down altogether through the legal process.

It's all patchwork and half-measures with the Democrats. Let the companies pollute, but tax them more for it. They can already afford it, so how does that clean up the environment? Under Paul's plan, if you pollute, you get shut down, which means other sources of energy that are clean will be disproportionately in the advantage and allowed to thrive because of it.

I would go even further and offer huge incentives to corporations and buildings to have solar panels and I would take away the huge corporate subsidies to the oil lobby and put some of that in wind and other power.

I love that Paul went to Iowa and told them that ethanol isn't the way to go and then gets 10% of the vote when he was polling at 5-6% the whole time.

There is no candidate, yet again, who has made the environment a spotlight issue. Right now it's the economy, immigration, and "CHANGE" "CHANGE" "CHANGE" without any further explanation.