Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCzech President Vaclav Klaus: 'Environmentalism As Bad As Communism'
BUDAPEST - Czech President Vaclav Klaus has offered fresh warnings that environmentalism and measures to curb climate change are a threat to human freedom.
The President's most recent and controversial statements came when replying to questions sent to him by members of the U.S. House of Representatives energy and commerce committee which had requested his views on climate change.Klaus is known for calling climate change "a false myth" or a "nonsensical fiction", and he opposes the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
Vaclav Klaus was one of the leading political figures of post-communist Czechoslovakia and was prime minister of the Czech Republic between 1993 and 1997, leading the newly independent country in its economic transformation. The old Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia Jan. 1, 1993.
An enthusiastic supporter of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's policies, Klaus was founder of the Civic Democrats (ODS), a neo-liberal party now in government.
The U.S. congressmen were asking how humans contribute to climate change and how these changes should be dealt with in legislation.
Another high-ranking figure whose views were heard was former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, one of the leading voices calling for changes in human behavior to avert an environmental catastrophe.
Conversely, the Czech President asked the congressmen not to yield to pressure from environmentalists and abandon the principles of free society: "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism."
"This ideology," Klaus said, "wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world."
The Czech President is strongly opposed to environmentalism, which he calls a "religion based on political ambitions rather than science," and accuses environmentalists of using "sophisticated methods of media manipulation" to spread "fear and panic".
Klaus also reminded environmentalists, in a text charged with economic jargon, that "policymakers should protect taxpayers' money and avoid wasting it on doubtful projects," and that each measure "must be based on a cost-benefit analysis."
Klaus fears environmentalist policies could set "artificial limits" and have "devastating" effects on national economies, harming growth rates and "the competitiveness of firms on international markets."
In the opinion of the Czech President, climate change is an unavoidable and natural consequence of "exogenous and endogenous natural processes," and that "no government action can stop the world and nature from changing."
While most Czechs are by now familiar with Klaus's radical pro-market views, he managed to surprise many when claiming that "while some deserts may get larger and some ocean shores flooded, enormous parts of the earth" could become "fertile areas able to accommodate millions of people."
Vojtech Kotecky from Friends of the Earth replied by asking Klaus whether he thought "people from flooded Bangladesh or dried up Africa should move to Siberia only to allow obsolete industrial forms to continue emitting pollutants."
Environment minister and chairman of the Green Party Martin Bursik said that the President had ridiculed himself and the country.
"The congressmen gave Klaus the opportunity to express his favorite clichés and ideas," Jan Drahokoupil, analyst at the Czech Economy and Society Trust told IPS.
"He has been active trying to prove climate change is a myth, organizing conferences and even helping fund translations of books supporting this view. He draws resources and funding from like-minded American foundations," Drahokoupil said.
The President's text was criticised for being simply ideological and lacking any evidence, examples or statistics, but several scientists and other Czech personalities were especially enraged by Klaus's comparison of environmentalism to communism.
"He relies on the anti-communist card because anti-communist sentiments are very strong in the Czech Republic," Drahokoupil told IPS. "It's a very powerful tool in politics and media to compare something to communism; Klaus uses it against anything he doesn't like."
Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, a member of Klaus's ODS, initially refused to comment on the President's views, but later said he had the right to his opinion and that some of his ideas were close to him.
But Topolanek has had to accommodate some environmentalist views as he was forced to include the Greens in the cabinet he formed last January. In spite of their belonging to the same party, Klaus was unhappy about Topolanek's choice of coalition partners and did not make an effort to conceal his criticism.
Many in the ODS are unhappy with the Green Party pushing through its energy policies, which ODS first deputy chairman Pavel Bem considers as being "way off mark". Bem also warned that disputes within the governing coalition were likely to escalate.
Nonetheless, the Prime Minister, who considers climate change "a big business," called on the right to start acting before "the Socialists" take the initiative and "start allocating very valuable public resources in a wrong way."
On Mar. 9 Topolanek agreed with other EU member states to curb climate change by partially harmonizing the organization's energy policy with the goal of reaching a one-fifth share of renewable energy production by 2020.
The Czech Republic, presently not ranking among the most renewables-friendly EU states, was part of the small group of countries that found the goal to be unrealistic. A compromise was eventually found allowing member states to reach different shares.
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service.
17 Comments so far
Show AllI'm always amazed at the staying power of stale and disproved "progressive" ideas fueled by Marxist ideologues. President Vaclav Klaus speaks the truth. Radical environmentalism will lead to the same kind of holocausts and purges that other Leftist ideas like communism and eugenics spawned. Progressives are good-hearted people, but their fundamental life premises based on secular humanism and utopian Marxism do not equip them with the mental tools required to solve the problems that they attempt to solve.
Exhibit A: Look at the environmentalist's biofuel initiative! It's a disaster for the world. The world's poor are being harmed by the very folk who purport to help them.
Exhibit B: Look at environmentalist's success at curbing the development of nuclear power in many industrialized countries. What a disaster for the world's environment.
Let us remember that global warming scenarios exist that entail the end of most or all life on earth. The consensus is that the probabllity of these scenaros is low, but probably not as improbable as the earthquakes or storms that dams and buildings must be designed for even if only a handful of lives are threatened.
So, this man is willing to risk all life on possibly the only planet in the galaxy with sentience, in defense of his extremist ideology of greed. If this isn't madness, what is?
It's HARD to believe at this day in age, some people still believe that the World is FLAT!
I believe it's generally accepted that once externalized and social costs are brought into the picture, the indirect subsidy to the US car owner amounts to somewhere between $5-$15 per gallon of gas burned.
What could possibly be more anti-socialist and pro-market place than removing a subsidy? And what could possibly be more anti-democratic than outsourcing essential functions to the likes of Enron, Blackwater and Halliburton through no-bid contracts?
well a guy's gotta say something. denying the holocaust doesn't rally the troops like it used to.
I wonder if when "some deserts... get larger and some ocean shores flooded, enormous parts of the earth..." become "fertile areas able to accommodate millions of people," who President Klaus thinks will be left in his country to be president of. (forgive the bad syntax.)
His comment is reminiscent of our own President's glib response to similar concerns when asked about our not participating in the Kyoto agreement..."We'll adapt."
Capitalism and the free market do not equal freedom. Are people in the socialist Scandinavian countries less free than those in America? Well, in a way yes, they do not have the freedom to be without health care, adequate schools, and enough to eat; freedoms the U.S. is full of.
History proves one incontrovertible fact, unrestrained free market capitalism leads to excessive concentration of wealth, which leads to concentration of power, which leads to fascism.
He's another damn Economist. What else would you expect him to say?
If the environmentalists are wrong, we will have shifted much of the world's economy into more humane, sustainable businesses and moderated our cancerous behavior. If the neocon Reaganite/Thatcherites are wrong, we will have spewed toxins into our biosphere, created more short term profits, widened the already huge income gap, created more water shortages and famine, and killed off many more species.
If we are to err, which is worse?
Oh, one other thing...isn't it time to start keeping track of those who would destroy our habitable world? We may want to show them just how displeased we are with them.
Don't forget that the Czech Republic is chumming up to the US for a component of the "anti missile" shield.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/28/139/
Can we say conclusively that humans are altering the climate? No.
Have there ever been 6 billion humans living on this planet before? No.
Have there ever been this many industrial corporations, automobiles, or livestock animals before? No.
When were most artificial chemicals and known pollutants developed? Since the Industrial Revolution.
Lake Erie, Chesapeake Bay, Brooktrout Lake, all nearly dead and now coming back because people fought for, and won, restrictions on pollutants.
We were capable of destroying the Aral Sea. What else are we capable of?
We may not be able to prove that certain gases, chemicals, or pollutants produce specific changes. But we can envision less damaging systems. And, if done prudently, we can implement less damaging systems without jeopardizing the economy.
PJD,
Yes, I have thought the same thing. Generally, "power" or "control over" can be substituted for "freedom" and increase the substance, information value, and accuracy of the statement. However, more accuracy and information in their communications is the last thing most politicians in the US are striving for.
Mr. Klaus is obviously more concerned with the market economy and $$prosperity. Human sickness from air, water and food pollutants will only increase prosperity for Big Pharma, Health Insurers and the Medical Profession. Makes you wonder where he has his money invested.
Climate change seems to be a "false myth" to anyone who isn't willing to sacrifice anything today for the security of future generations. Let's continue dumping more pollutants into our environment, it's great for your health and the health of the planet.......and Wall Street will generously reward you with mega-profits. Besides, letting people die from pollution-causing diseases is a far more simple solution to controlling over-population and needless to say, far more "cost-effective".
Yup, it's all about money!
kivals,
So true! Actually, I occurred to me some time ago that most of the time "freedom" is used in political rhetoric, they really mean "power". In fact, most of the time when "freeedom" is used in an English sentence, it can be be improved by substituting the word "power".
Which is clearer,
1. "The brave soldiers in Iraq are defending our freedom".
or...
"The brave soldiers in Iraq are defending our power".
Also, to most people "freedom" is really just the "feeling" of power...
2. "I have the freedom to take a 2 week vaction anywhere I want to go this summer.
Or,
I have the power (i.e money, bargaining position with my employer) to take a 2 week vacation to anywhere I want to go this summer."
In Western and northern Europe, workers have enough "power" to get 4 weeks off - guaranteed by law, among other powers - and I suspect they feel considerably more "free" most of the time, than and average working-class USAn.
Under capitalism, the currency of power/freedom is also known as "money". It is true that both a homeless person and Bill Gates both enjoy the freedom of sleeping under a freeway ramp in subzero weather, but somehow, I suspect the homeless person feels somewhat less "free" most of the time.
So, the "freedom" the Czech Prez. is talking about is actually "power" - the power of the wealthy to obtain even more wealth, while they subjugate the worker and the planet.
kivals, I'll bet your preparations have never been wasted effort. The last thing these social parasites want for their chattel is freedom.
does klaus provide any evidence to support his views?
it's one thing to believe climate change is a myth.
but the myth is backed up by scientific facts.
can klaus refute those facts?
how come the last few years have been the hottest of the past few centuries?
how come ice sheets are collapsing?
why are glaciers receding?
is he able to explain how the emission of millions of tons of CO2, and the deforestation of millions of hectares per year will have no effect whatsoever on the global climate?
Mr. Klaus provides further reason why the concept of "human freedom" is nonsensical and has come to be predominantly used by demagogues to fool the ill-informed into acting against their own interests. He appears to argue that the freedom to pollute and otherwise damage the environment is a fundamental freedom, while ignoring that it limits the freedom of others to live in a pollution-free environment, which the great majority would most likely say is a much more fundamental freedom.
Whenever I hear a politician begin to talk about "freedom," I prepare myself to be inundated with verbal manure.