Some of those ideas arguably have environmental merit. Paul is known for his zealous opposition to the Iraq war, which he duly notes causes pollution and the “burning of fuel for no good purpose.” He wants to yank all subsidies and R&D funding from the energy sector, which many believe would benefit the growth of renewables. A cyclist himself, he has cosponsored bills that would offer tax breaks to Americans who commute by bicycle and use public transportation. Still, his libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn’t do diddly about global warming because, Paul reasons, “we’re not going to be very good at regulating the weather.”

I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.

For more info on his platform and record, check out this Paul fact sheet.

What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?

On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn’t be directing research and development because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol and it turns out that it’s not economically feasible. So, my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don’t have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they’re much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor’s private property — water, air, or land. It is very strict.

But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can’t be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private parcels?

The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don’t have a right to pollute my air — that can be properly defined by property rights. Water: if you’re on a river you certainly can define it, if you’re on a lake you certainly can define it. Even oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.

Can you elaborate on when government intervention is and isn’t appropriate?

Certainly, any time there’s injury to another person, another person’s land, or another person’s environment, there’s [legal] recourse with the government.

What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?

You wouldn’t need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as “prior restraint” in a newspaper. Newspapers can’t print anything that’s a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don’t invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it’s a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

Would you dissolve the EPA?

It’s not high on my agenda. I’m trying to stop the war, and bring back a sound economy, and solve the financial crises, and balance the budget.

Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous materials, like lead in children’s toys?

If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they’re liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can’t inspect every single toy that comes into the country.

So you see it as the legal system that brings about environmental protection?

Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the country because it was a steel town. You couldn’t even see the sun on a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up — not by the EPA, by local authorities that said you don’t have a right to pollute — and the government cleaned it up and the city’s a beautiful city. You don’t need this huge bureaucracy that’s remote from the problem. Pittsburgh dealt with it in a local fashion and it worked out quite well.

What if you’re part of a community that’s getting dumped on, but you don’t have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?

Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular trash service, were taking their household trash to the next town over and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town. Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except that, for a good number of years, legislatures and courts have failed to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has persisted since the industrial revolution when, in the name of so-called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically popular entity.

When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are — a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another — concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.

You mentioned that you don’t support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?

Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that’s what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment.

If we’re running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much — something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly.

Today, the government decides, and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there’s nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create diesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It’s the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.

But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?

Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of “market” that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the “cheapest energy sources,” as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

What’s your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that’s human-caused?

I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don’t think there’s a conclusion yet. There’s a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we’ve had a lot of climate changes. We’ve had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we’re not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there’s a fear that we’re going to have this global warming and that we’re going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that’s extreme. I don’t buy into that. Yet, I think it’s a worthy discussion.

So you don’t consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?

No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus — those are immediate threats. We’re about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that’s going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.

What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?

They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don’t emit poisons and contribute to it.

And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can’t use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.

You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?

It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don’t think that would work.

You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global warming?

I think they’re more capable of it than politicians.

What’s your position on a carbon tax?

I don’t like that. That’s sort of legalizing pollution. If it’s wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It’s wrong to do it. It shouldn’t be allowed.

Do you think it should be illegal to emit harmful pollutants?

You should be held responsible in a court of law, and you should be able to be closed down if you’re damaging your neighbor’s property in any way whatsoever.

Who would set the law about what pollutants could and couldn’t be emitted? Congress?

Not under my presidency — the Congress wouldn’t do it. The people who claim damage would have to say, look, I’m sitting here, and these poisons are coming over, and I can prove it, and I want it stopped, and I want compensation.

You’ve described your opposition to wars for oil as an example of your support for eco-friendly policies. Can you elaborate?

Generally speaking, war causes pollution — uranium, burning of fuel for no good purpose. The Pentagon burns more fuel than the whole country of Sweden.

Do you support the goal of energy independence in the U.S.?

Sure. But independence does not mean to me that we produce everything. I don’t believe governments have to provide every single ounce of energy. I see independence as having no government-mandated policy: If you need oil or energy, you can buy it.

What about being independent from the Middle East, so we’re not buying oil from hostile countries?

I think it’s irrelevant. We wouldn’t be buying it directly, we would be buying it on the world market. I don’t think the goal has to be that we produce alternative fuel so that we never buy oil from the Middle East. The goal should be to provide all useful services and goods through a market mechanism instead of central economic planning or world planning. That system doesn’t work.

What role do you think coal should play in America’s energy future?

Coal is a source of energy and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we’re smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we’ve bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people’s property.

But coal technology has been proven to harm people — with poisons like mercury and asthma-causing particulates — so should old-style coal plants be allowed to continue operating?

Use of the technology I mentioned to prevent harm to people, even if it costs more for the coal producer, is another example of how costs must be internalized to the energy source. To the extent coal can be efficiently produced in a way that does not pollute another’s property or another’s physical body, it will be chosen as a viable energy source. Certainly no producer of energy or anything else has a right to pollute or harm another’s property or person.

If coal is not competitively priced when all costs to keep production safe are internalized to the producer, then coal will not be purchased or produced. I do not happen to believe this will be the case, but it is for the market to sort out, not politicians in Washington. It may be that, from time to time, as other energy sources become scarce, “safe coal” will be viable even if it is not at some other point in time.

What’s your take on nuclear?

I think nuclear is great. I think it’s the safest form of energy we have.

Ethanol?

I don’t think anything’s wrong with ethanol — it’s just not economically competitive. It’s only competitive now because those who produce it get subsidies.

What environmental achievement are you most proud of?

Nothing really special, other than trying to explain to people that you don’t need government expenditures and special-interest politics to promote safe, environmental types of energy. That comes about through a free-market system and a lot less government, and I think that’s the most important thing I can contribute.

If you could spend a week in a park or natural area in the United States, where would it be?

There’s probably hundreds of places. I probably have gone to Colorado more than any place, around Telluride and Ouray.

Can you describe your connection to the natural world? Have you had any memorable outdoor or wilderness adventures?

My favorite thing is riding bicycles, and at home my hobby is raising tomatoes. I live on the San Bernard River in Texas, and I belong to an environmental group that works very, very hard to protect the natural aspects of that river.

Can you elaborate on what you’ve done personally to reduce your energy and environmental impact?

Well, no, other than the fact that I’m just always aware of doing anything damaging to the environment. I don’t think I do anything that damages it at all. I don’t ride my bike because I think I’m destroying the environment by driving my car; I ride it because it’s a great way to be outdoors and enjoy the environment.

A conservative Republican and devout Christian, Huckabee believes he has a biblical responsibility to protect God’s planet from climate change, even though he’s not convinced that climate change is largely human-caused. But mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions make him squeamish.

I called Huckabee up in Iowa to find out how his ideas are playing on the campaign trail.

For more info on his platform and record, check out this Huckabee fact sheet.

What makes you the strongest Republican candidate on the issues of energy and the environment?

For one thing, I’m one of the few people who’s actually talked about the fact that as Republicans we have done a lousy job of presenting the case for conservation. We ought to be the leaders, but unfortunately we’ve been the last people speaking out on conservation.

Not only as a Republican, but as a Christian it’s important to me to say to my fellow believers, “Look, if anybody ought to be leading on this issue, it ought to be us.” We can’t justify destroying a planet that doesn’t belong to us, and if we believe that God did create this world for our pleasure and wants us to enjoy it, then all the more reason that we should take care of it.

You’ve vowed in your presidential platform to achieve energy independence by your second term. What inspired this stand?

A country is not free if it can’t produce three things for itself — its own food, its own fuel, and its own fighting apparatus. If we depend on someone else for those things, then we are at the mercy of those producing states. That’s why energy independence is not only an environmental and economic concern, but an urgent national-security priority. If we didn’t have any dependence on oil from the Middle East or even from Venezuela or Russia, we would not be nearly so worried about what’s happening in those countries. We’re desperately tied up in making sure that their stability is, in essence, our stability.

How would you achieve energy independence by your second term?

The key is to create the kind of unbridled marketplace that turns innovators loose to find the solutions. I don’t think we’re going to find one big answer. I think it’s going to be a combination of many that will include hydrogen, solar, wind, nuclear, domestically produced fossil fuels — at least for the short term. Our goal is to be nondependent upon fossil fuels, but there will be an interim period in which we’ll need to utilize all the domestic oil that we can generate by ourselves, whether it’s from ANWR or the continental shelf.

What role will coal technologies play, including liquefied coal?

I think there’s a place for it, and I think we need to insist that it’s clean coal. What we don’t need is another generation of coal that has serious polluting consequences.

Agricultural-based fuels are very important to me because they’re renewable and help create some stability in the agriculture economy of the United States.

Hydrogen has great potential. I recently visited a hydrogen plant in Iowa — they derive hydrogen-based fuel from ammonia. The technology is still somewhat challenging to make affordable, but it’s a relatively simple process. We could accelerate our ability to make it more cost-efficient.

Do you think we need to expand the role of nuclear power in the U.S.?

Absolutely. France is almost completely nuclear, and it’s not like they’re a nation given to risky behaviors. There’s been a real bias against nuclear energy in the United States, going all the way back to Three Mile Island in 1979, but I think most of it is unfounded. I mean, we’ve been running nuclear submarines for 60 years without accidents.

What would you do about the problem of storing nuclear waste?

I recognize that’s the sticky part. Everybody wants the benefits of nuclear energy, but nobody wants the storage of the nuclear material in their own backyard. Part of it is you have to make it economically viable for somebody to actually receive it. But a lot of it is changing attitudes, educating the public that nuclear byproducts can be disposed of safely, because the first reaction people have is, “Our kids are going to glow in the dark if we put that stuff in our state.” That’s not the case.

You mentioned your support for ethanol and other biofuels. Do you think we’ll need to transition from corn-derived ethanol to the more energy-efficient varieties, like cellulosic?

I think that makes sense. I think there’s still going to be a place for corn to be a part of it. What we need to be doing is — and I don’t think we’re all that far from it — is developing a technology that would take virtually any kind of biomass, and be able to then burn it, so that it doesn’t have to necessarily be corn-specific or rice-hull-specific. There would be different ways of processing it, and what you’re really doing is generating the energy from the biomass itself.

How would you encourage a shift toward renewable and clean industries? Would it be incentive-based? Would you have a renewable portfolio standard that requires utilities to produce a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources?

Some of both. I think that there ought to be some government grants and subsidies for those who accelerate ways to produce the energy. And I’d simply say, we’re not going to tax you for coming up with these ideas. I would eliminate all tax on productivity and replace it with a simple consumption tax.

I would also want to assemble some of the best minds in the country to make sure that we set goals that really challenge us. I think the problem is we’ve not set challenging goals. We’ve got a lot of leaders who only want to take on issues that they can solve in their own first term so they can get reelected. We need to be looking at things in the same way John F. Kennedy looked at the space program and said, “We’ll put a man on the moon within a decade.”

Do you think we need to increase auto fuel-economy standards to help achieve your energy-independence goal?

I’m not opposed to it, but I don’t honestly know what the standards should be. That’s where I’d want to get some scientific advice on what we can achieve. You don’t want to do something that’s going to completely wreck the current economy. But I also think we need to do some serious pushing. We need to get to the place so that within a decade we can tell the Saudi royal family that we’re no longer going to continue to make them obscenely wealthy with our purchase of their oil. Frankly, much of that wealth ends up coming back to finance terrorism.

You often invoke your faith when talking about environmental stewardship. How are these two issues connected for you?

This world doesn’t belong to me. I’m a guest here. I don’t have a right to abuse it, any more than I have a right to abuse someone else’s property if they were to let me stay in their apartment for a weekend. It’s a sin against future generations for me to act as if there are no future generations that should enjoy the world as I do.

I love the outdoors. We have a beautiful, magnificent world: rivers and streams and mountains. I find myself overwhelmed when I look at it. I want my great-great-great-grandchildren to one day go out and smell the same fresh air, fish in wonderful streams, and be able to see the same mountains I see. I sure don’t want them to have it in worse shape and wonder why I didn’t do a better job of handing it down to them.

Do you believe that human beings are the primary drivers of climate change?

The honest answer is I don’t know. And for me, that’s not the issue. Instead of being wrapped into this political discussion of “Is there global warming, and who caused it?” what we need to be saying is, “Look, let’s agree that we all have responsibility to present a better planet to the next generation.” Whether or not you want to believe that it’s caused by driving to work, let’s agree that we need to take better care of the planet. Being a conservationist is the proper way to live, whether there is human-based global warming or not.

How would you go about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions?

I think there’s several things we can do — for example, replace light bulbs with the fluorescent types. We need to shoot for less fossil fuel, go to more energy-efficient and certainly non-carbon-producing methods of energy.

Do you think that voluntary efforts are enough, or do we need to impose mandatory emissions reductions?

Hopefully it can be a combination. I’m always concerned when someone mentions mandatory, because I think that there’s going to be a government-imposed restriction on a lot of our lifestyle choices. What really ought to happen is, when we start developing a different kind of energy economy, it will evolve rather quickly.

What role should the U.S. play in crafting a new international climate-change agreement?

I think the best role that we can play is by the example we set and by many of the market changes that we can make. When people start making a lot of money off alternative fuels and fuel-efficient vehicles and energy sources, you can rest assured that people are going to gravitate toward it. That’s got to be our goal, and it’s got to be an urgent one.

The U.S. consumes far more energy per capita than other countries. Do you believe that we have a moral obligation to take the global lead in curbing our energy use and CO2 emissions?

I certainly think we ought to be mindful, but I have to be careful here because I don’t think the government needs to start telling people we’re going to limit how many hours a day you can run your fan, or whether or not you can plug in your television set. I’d like to believe that people would start thinking that it’s their responsibility to do it. But I don’t know that I want the government telling me, “I’m sorry, you can’t drive that kind of car.” I have a flex-fuel vehicle right now; I very well may buy a hybrid, but I don’t want the government telling me I have to.

What about the government saying, “Hey, electricity industry: You need to find a way to create that same energy with lower emissions?”

I’m open to that, and I think that’s a worthy kind of goal. Maybe it’s an incentive, where they have lower tax burdens if they find ways to cut the cost of production.

What do you think is the most pressing environmental issue facing the nation, if not climate change?

I think the issue of pollution of the water, air and soil, because that affects everything in our overall eco-structure, whether it’s our streams or our soil to produce our food. Everything that we truly treasure is better when we take care of it, and it’s truly harmed when we pollute it, when we act as if we are a one-time generation and we don’t have any obligation for the future.

What environmental achievement are you proudest of?

I campaigned for Amendment 75 of the Arkansas constitution that dedicates an eighth of a percent of sales tax for everything purchased in the state for conservation. And we’ve used that money to completely rebuild our state parks system, fight pollution, purchase thousands of acres that are now set aside to remain natural, and create friendly and affordable places for families to enjoy the outdoors. We have the responsibility to make sure that the poorest family in the state can enjoy a day in the outdoors, whether it’s hunting, fishing, hiking or camping.

Could you share a memorable outdoor adventure or natural experience?

I’ll tell you one that almost got me killed. A group of my staff and Cabinet members went on a float trip on the Buffalo River, up in north Arkansas, which is one of the most absolutely beautiful places on earth. We pulled over to have lunch, and there was this group of guys in their 20s to early 30s, and they had some elastic-type straps and they were using them as a slingshot and shooting beer cans across the river, slamming them against this huge rock wall. I just couldn’t believe this. I was appalled, because we’re very protective of the Buffalo River in Arkansas.

Before I could even think about it, I went over to those guys, who were twice my size, and I said, “Do you have any idea what the fine is for littering?” I said, “This is not just a state treasure, it’s a national river. Do you have any idea what it is?” And I said, “I’ve already taken the number of your canoe. I can find out who you are.” And they just looked at me and their eyes went like, “Who are you?” I didn’t even bother to tell them. I just said, “It’s $1,000 per incident. I’ve just seen you knock three cans against it. You’ve got two choices: You either go over there and pick up those cans, or I’m going to make sure that you get the full extent of the law.”

And finally my troopers came over, and one of the guys I was talking to said, “Well, we’ll go get them.” I was walking away, and someone asked, “Who is that guy?” And another guy said, “He’s the governor of the state.”

If you could spend a week in one park or natural area, where would it be?

Lake Greeson in Arkansas. It’s a lake my wife and I grew up on as kids and it has special meaning to us.

You’re known to be a strong fitness advocate, having lost more than 100 pounds in recent years. As president, how would you advocate better fitness nationally?

There are two basic elements to health: good nutrition and activity. We’ve got to help this country to start realizing that whole, natural foods are critical to health. I often tell people a couple of basic rules of nutrition: One is, if it wasn’t a food 100 years ago, it probably isn’t a food today. Secondly, if it comes through the car window, it isn’t food. So much of what people eat today is a chemical product that has been processed, and when you really look at what it is and read the label, you’d be better off eating the box and throwing the contents away, because the box would at least give you some fiber.

Is there a way of promoting healthier lifestyles from a federal level?

One thing is that the marketplace is moving. Every food company with whom I’ve spoken has told me that the growth of their marketplace is in the healthier food choices.

We’re not going to solve it all overnight, but we can start making a genuine transition to healthier, more whole-food products, doing more to subsidize fruits and vegetables, rather than just the processed food, and creating the appetites in children by exposing them more to fruits and vegetables at the marketplace, and the schools, and their homes and neighborhoods.

On a personal level, what have you done to lighten your environmental footprint?

We have a flex-fuel vehicle. We are changing all of the lights in our house to fluorescent. We just replaced our heating and air-conditioning systems with the highest-level SEER-rated models, so that they would run on 60 percent less energy than what we had been using. I run and enjoy the outdoors and I often ride my bicycle to the store. My kids laugh at me and call me an old geezer, but I love it. Several years ago, I would have driven.

This article is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.