Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity. Libertarians would make government as responsible for its actions as everyone else is expected to be. Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity. The environment would benefit immensely from the elimination of sovereign immunity coupled with the privatization of “land and beast.”

-Libertarian Solutions; Mary Ruwart on LP Web site Nov 7, 2000

It is our responsibility to protect America's extraordinary natural resources. The health of our families and the strength of our economy depend on our stewardship of the environment. A cleaner environment means a stronger economy.

The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help. The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

I support the federal, local, state, and tribal responsibilities for environmental protection. I believe the government's main role should be to provide market-based incentives to innovate and develop the new technologies for Americans to meet — and exceed — environmental standards. In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right.

After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.

Despite much press that many experts consider politically motivated, the existence of man-made global warming is still contested– significant evidence indicates that if it does exist, is is nothing more than a normal cycle that can be impacted by humans in only a negligible manner. Environmental regulations, such as those proposed by global warming proponents, should be based upon the best science, peer-reviewed, and available for public consideration. Environmental policy should focus on achieving results — cleaner air, water, and lands — not crafting bureaucratic processes. Even if we are not responsible for environmental damage, we should take steps to avoid making it worse or to remedy the situation. Scare tactics for political gain undermines support for environmental causes and, what is worse, can discredit actual threats to health and safety.

New technologies that protect the environment will create new high-paying jobs. I support realistic efforts to preserve the environment and reduce pollution - air, water, and land. I reject, however, the argument that this objective ought to be pursued by costly governmental interference, accompanied by multitudes of regulations and the heavy hand of arrogant bureaucrats spurred on by irresponsible pressure groups.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution limits the federal power of eminent domain solely to the purchase of private property with just compensation for public use, such as military reservations and government office buildings - not for public ownership, such as urban renewal, environmental protection, or historic preservation. Under no circumstances may the federal government take private property, by means of rules and regulations which preclude or substantially reduce the productive use of the property, even with just compensation.

On the Issues:

• I support a return to the states and to the people all lands which are held by the federal government without authorization by the Constitution.
• I oppose any attempt to designate private or public property as United Nations World Heritage sites or Biosphere reserves.
• I support domestic oil and gas exploration and development. The majority of related pollution results from transporting oil from overseas, rather than from oil wells themselves. By making use of domestic petroleum sources, we can reduce the amount of pollution and benefit our domestic economy as well. 
• I oppose environmental treaties and conventions such as the Biodiversity Treaty, the Convention on Climate Control, and Agenda 21, which destroy our sovereignty and right to private property.
• I support the construction of dams to produce smog-free hydro-electric power, as well as to provide flood control, water supply systems, irrigation and recreation.
• I support transferring of all intrastate water projects to the host state.
• I support the limitation of Federal authority to regulate water rights matters which have traditionally been the concern and prerogative of the states.
• I support pricing of water from Federal projects to provide the lowest reasonable rates to agricultural users.
• I support expanded experimentation programs in the field of salt water conversion, including the use of nuclear energy, in an effort to reduce the cost of such processes.
• I oppose using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
• I support relaxed logging restrictions on federal lands.
• I support relaxed standards on federal lands to allow increased recreational usage.
• I oppose the Kyoto Protocol to limit global warming which favors many foreign nations at the expense of the U.S.
• I oppose international mandatory emission targets to limit global warming.
• I support requiring states to compensate citizens when regulations limit uses of privately-owned land.
• I support allowing state and local governments to regulate emission levels on gasoline and diesel-powered engines, including cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles.
• I support letting the free market drive fuel efficiency standards on all gasoline and diesel-powered engines, including cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles.
• I oppose subsidizing projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.
• I oppose the establishment of a Federal Land Use Policy and additional Federal acquisition of state lands.
• Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.
• I am strongly opposed to the misuse of the power of eminent domain to take private property from its owner for the use or benefit of another private person or entity.
• I believe that pollution is a violation of property rights and should be treated as such. Creators of pollution including toxic and radioactive waste should be held fully responsible for the disposal of their own by-products and any damage they cause. The role of the government is to enforce these property rights so as to justly compensate those damaged and to discourage future offenses by polluters.
• I would repeal the 1872 Mining Act - a relic of efforts to settle the West. It allows mining companies to claim federal lands for $5 an acre and then take gold, silver, lead, or other hard-rock minerals with no royalty payments to the federal treasury. Thanks to the 1872 Mining Act, mining companies-including foreign companies-extract billions of dollars worth of minerals a year from federal lands, royalty-free.
• I support an end to United States participation in UN programs such as UNESCO, Man and the Biosphere, and the UN Council on Sustainable Development.