Republican Congressman Ron Paul has been a member of the US House sporadically since 1976. He served terms of 1976 to 1977, 1979 to 1985, and 1997 to present, always serving different Congressional districts of Texas. Paul is a licensed physician and practiced for a number of years before entering politics. He is married, and he and his wife, Carol Wells, have 5 children. Paul ran for President once before, as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. Interestingly, he ran as the Libertarian nominee while registered as a Republican.

Paul has not visited New Hampshire very often. In fact, only Fred Thompson, who entered the presidential race a month ago in September, has visited NH less often than Ron Paul. That may explain why Congressman Paul is mired at 3% in the most recent NH poll.

Paul visited WMUR-TV, Channel 9, and appeared on their popular Conversations with a Candidate program in February. I had the opportunity to ask Congressman Paul if he believed that global warming was a serious problem. His response, "I don’t think that the jury has fully come in on global warming. There is still a lot of debate on that subject."

Given that context, I followed up by asking Paul if he felt that we need to embrace clean energy. Paul’s response: "I am a Free Trader and I think that if Clean Energy were a viable option, it would be more economical in the marketplace."

My final question centered on how Paul felt we should deal with making America energy independent. Paul stated, "We should look at more domestic drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and we should look at nuclear power as well as a short-term solution."

Paul’s positions, regrettably, are fairly predictable for this self-avowed free trader. Paul supports and believes as follows:

• He doesn’t believe that climate change is an important issue to voters. He has stated that some global warming may be occurring naturally and may not be caused by human beings.
• In a speech before the US House in 2006, Paul stated that "environmentalists go back and forth warning about a coming ice age to then arguing about the dangers of global warming. Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people."
• Paul has voted in favor of offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. He has also voted for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
• Paul would end all subsidies of any kind to all energy companies, including oil companies.
• Paul would suspend the federal gasoline tax when retail gasoline prices hit $3 a gallon.
• Paul co-sponsored legislation that would fast track the federal approval process for oil refinery construction or expansion.
• Paul voted in 2001 against raising CAFÉ standards to 27.5 mpg for 2005 and 2006 cars and trucks.
• Paul supports expanding the use of domestic coal as a fuel source. "Technology is improving all the time and by using coal this might be something that can help the US become more energy independent."
  
• Paul opposes domestic subsidies for the corn industry to support ethanol.
• Paul opposes offering any federal subsidies to the energy technology sector, much like oil, gas and coal have received for many years. As a free market trader, Paul believes that the market will only support the best product at the best price. All subsidies should be stopped.
• Paul opposes a carbon tax. Paul believes that the carbon tax is like legalizing pollution.
• According to Paul, energy independence does not mean that the US has to produce every single ounce of energy used. Paul believes that independence means having no government-mandated policy. If you need oil or energy, you can simply buy it.
• Paul thinks nuclear is a great source of power for the future. Paul believes "…it’s the safest form of energy we have." (Seriously, he actually believes that!)

Paul’s positions are predictable for a free trader and Libertarian at heart, and so will be his finish in the New Hampshire Republican primary. It is highly unlikely that his views will garner double-digit support in the Granite State.

Stay tuned to see if NH voters have the common sense for which I am giving them credit.

Next week: Former Senator Mike Gravel, Democrat from Alaska

SmartPower — the national, non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy independence

Ron Paul for President Campaign

NH Republican Presidential Poll

Image Credit on Flickr

Also on GO:

Mike Garofalo’s Previous ‘Power to the People’ Columns

Last week, House Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas who is also running for president in 2008, was joined by 9 Democratic co-sponsors in introducing House Resolution 1009, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007. The bill would "remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp." Paul gave his reasons for sponsoring the bill:

It is indefensible that the United States government prevents American farmers from growing this crop. The prohibition subsidizes farmers in countries from Canada to Romania by eliminating American competition and encourages jobs in industries such as food, auto parts and clothing that utilize industrial hemp to be located overseas instead of in the United States. [...] By passing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act the House of Representatives can help American farmers and reduce the trade deficit — all without spending a single taxpayer dollar.

Currently, industrial hemp is illegal because the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) doesn't distinguish between different varieties of Cannabis sativa. The variety used for recreation and medicine contains large amounts of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, while industrial hemp contains almost none. The requirement in Canada, where industrial hemp farming is legal, is that the leaves and flowering parts of the plant contain 0.3% or less THC.

Long story short: Smoking industrial hemp is about as psychoactive as smoking organic arugula. (To my knowledge, no research has been done on the effects of smoking non-organic, chemical-laden and pesticide-laced arugula. It's probably not a very good idea.)

The major concern from the DEA's perspective seems to be that farmers can or will grow other, more lucrative varieties of Cannabis hidden among the industrial plants. If your answer to that is, "So what?", well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. VoteHemp.com's more articulate answer is threefold: Industrial hemp is grown differently, needs to be harvested at a different time, and cross-pollination between the different varieties would reduce the THC potency of the marijuana plants, making it a poor business decision to try it in the first place.

Why is hemp an environmentally friendly crop? There are three main areas where hemp is an attractive alternative to the current status quo: clothing, paper, and energy. Hemp is often discussed as a replacement for cotton in clothing and other products. In the United States, more than 25% of all pesticides are sprayed on cotton fields. Hemp grows well without pesticides and herbicides. Hemp also yields three times more fiber per acre than cotton.

For paper production, an acre of hemp yields more pulp per acre than forests. Unlike trees, hemp can also be harvested each year, leaving what's left of the earth's forests to work their carbon sequestration magic.

Finally, hemp seeds contain about 30% oil. That hemp oil, aside from being edible, can be used for biofuel production.

More industrial hemp resources:

North American Industrial Hemp Council
Vote Hemp
Andy Kerr on Industrial Hemp