My new hero in international politics is Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who has been carrying on a one-man crusade against the global warming "consensus" that has overwhelmed Europe. In his latest salvo—an op-ed in the Financial Times—he expands on a theme he has hinted at before: environmentalism as the successor to communism as a dogma used to justify massive government controls and global central planning.
"What Is at Risk Is Not the Climate, But Freedom," Vaclav Klaus, Financial Times, June 14 In the past year, Al Gore's so-called "documentary" film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain's—more or less Tony Blair's—Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together, and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.
The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: "the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda". I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the "established" truth, although a lot of people—including top-class scientists—see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.
The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists….
The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature….
Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.