I just read on the Financial Times a frank Q&A with Czech Pres Vaclam Klaus on climate change.
Klaus sees the environmentalist movement for what it is - one of social and political change, not one based on scientific merit.
His criticism is based on living a half-century of living under communist rule, which gives him an insight no one can match.
It's interesting - and I agree - that the modern environmentalism movement is treated basically as a religion and the form of government it would bring in would be socialist in nature. And it's in socialist/communist nations where the environment was most damaged.
Here's a couple of my favorites:
Years ago I heard people talking about how environmentalism would be used as the lever to usher in global (socialistic) government, because the environment affects everyone. Do you think this is what we are now seeing with the climate issue?
Mark, Lake Charles, USVaclav Klaus: Environmentalism is indeed a vehicle for bringing us socialist government at the global level. Again, my life in communism makes me oversensitive in this respect. The argumentation of various environmentalists is very similar to what we used to know in the past.
<hr>All that environmentalists demand is responsibility. Responsibility of those who cause damage to others to pay for that damage, and to do their utmost to stop inflicting it. I had the impression that responsibility was supposed to be a conservative virtue, and a necessary complement to the great freedom we have in our open market economies. But more and more I see the supporters of capitalism demand that they be free to dump their waste on their neighbours lawns without consequence. What happened?
Nanne ZwagermanVaclav Klaus: Environmentalists do not demand responsibility. Responsibility is not their idea, it is a basic, elementary aspect of human behaviour – on condition government policies do not give wrong incentives. The idea of responsibility for damage done to others is not the environmentalists’ copyright. It is a standard of human behaviour. Environmentalists – especially in the case of global warming – artificially created “a damage” (higher temperature) and made all of us responsible for it. I don’t believe in this “damage” and I am not ready to pay for it. The role of men in slightly higher global temperature (0.6°C in the last century) is only marginal, if any.
To say that “the supporters of capitalism demand that they are free to dump their waste on their neighbours lawns without consequence” has the beauty of communist propaganda I had a chance to “enjoy” during the first 48 years of my life.


Comments: 6
I recognize there are people using "global warming" hysteria as just another tool to get people to sit still for one-world government. This does NOT mean that I don't care about the environment. Just that I do not accept resorting to world socialism as a mechanism to stop a theory that is by no means accepted scientific fact.
The pronouncements of the U.N. climate change panel doesn't count.