Global Warming Alarmism is a Grave Threat to our Liberty - Václav Klaus
Eric Gisin
English Pages, 5. 3. 2010
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you for giving me the chance to address this distinguished audience and for asking me to
speak on one of the issues I consider absolutely crucial. I am convinced that the ideology of
environmentalism, particularly its extreme variant, the global warming alarmism, and its widespread
acceptance by politicians, journalists and all kinds of leftist intellectuals is the main threat to
freedom and prosperity we are facing today.
I feel very strongly about this issue and keep warning against it by writing and speaking - in my
own country, the Czech Republic, in Europe, in America and elsewhere. My last speech devoted to
this topic was in Cairo, Egypt, less than a month ago. Three years ago, I put my arguments into a
book with the title "Blue Planet in Green Shackles", which is now available in 15 languages,
including English but also for example Arabic or Japanese. My experience tells me that making
speeches, lecturing, writing articles and books, giving interviews and participating in media
discussions is helpful but not sufficient. These efforts have to be supplemented by political
activity and if I understand the ambitions of the Club of Growth and of this conference correctly
it is an attempt in this direction. That is most commendable. This is the reason why I accepted the
invitation to come all the way from Prague to Palm Beach. An additional positive effect is that the
temperature here is much warmer than in Prague just now. You are "locally" warmed and I will
confirm back in Prague that you survive such a dangerously warm climate without major
inconveniencies.
To criticize environmentalism is for me not a new, suddenly discovered, fashionable or trendy
activity. At the beginning of the 1970s I came across the first publications of the infamous Club
of Rome, which tried to scare us by predicting an imminent exhaustion of natural resources and by
asking for a radical change in our behavior. Its supporters had been arguing already then very
dramatically that we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels but - and we should not forget
it - for different reasons than now. As an economist, I knew it was a wrong argumentation and the
subsequent four decades proved it quite convincingly. Today, we have more proven deposits of basic
raw materials and energy resources than 40 years ago. I felt already then that this was an
arrogant, elitist and dirigistic doctrine attempting to stop economic growth, the overall social
development and human progress.
At that time, I myself lived under a very oppressive, destructive and totally irrational, and
therefore unproductive, communist regime and was not able to participate in the worldwide polemics
with these views. People like me were not allowed to travel to the West, or even to dream about
having a chance to publish articles or make speeches abroad. Yet, I was very frustrated and could
not understand how it was possible that such an irrational doctrine was not easily and convincingly
refuted and rejected in the free western world.
In 1989, communism collapsed and we were finally free. To my great surprise, the environmentalist
doctrine was still alive and even flourishing in its new incarnation called global warming
doctrine. In 1992, the Rio Earth Summit endorsed the doctrine of global warming and climate change
as a leading ideology of our times. I expected that the ideology of the free world would be based
on freedom, parliamentary democracy and market economy - concepts that were absolutely crucial for
us in the former communist countries in the moment of our radical and revolutionary transition from
communism to free society. Life under communism made us extremely sensitive, if not oversensitive
to all possible symptoms of violation and erosion of our freedom. That is the reason why I feel
endangered now. The subtitle of the above mentioned book asks "What is endangered: Climate or
Freedom?" My answer is resolute: climate is ok, what is under threat is freedom.
The reason is that environmentalism and its most extreme version, global warming alarmism, asks for
an almost unprecedented expansion of government intrusion and intervention into our lives and of
government control over us. We are forced to accept rules about how to live, what to do, how to
behave, what to consume, what to eat, how to travel and many other things. Some of us had
experienced similar examples of such manipulation with ourselves in the communist era and feel
obliged to do everything we can to avoid similar developments in the future.
It is, however, not only about freedom. Environmentalism also wants to suppress economic growth,
reduce prosperity and hinder human progress. When I was recently in Egypt on the occasion of the
launching of the Arabic version of my book, it became obvious to me that the people there care more
about the continuation of their economic development than about freedom as we understand it. Some
of us know that freedom and prosperity cannot be separated but it is evident that
environmentalism - as the recent Copenhagen conference demonstrated - wants to impair prosperity
and stop human progress especially in the developing world. And that is unacceptable.
The environmentalists ask for substantial reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. When it happens -
with our current technologies - it will substantially increase the costs of energy for everyone
because it would imply restrictions on the use of oil and coal, which are no doubt much cheaper
than all alternative energy sources. Cheap energy is the source of much of our life-style and our
prosperity. When energy prices go up, the costs of nearly all other goods and services go up as
well. All carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and wind and solar power subsidies are steps in the
wrong direction, leading to a severe and protracted economic hardship for little or no benefit.
My lifelong experience tells me that I have to start protesting very loudly when someone tells me:
"Don't trust the market, trust me and us." This is what I had been hearing for 40 years of my life
under communism and I am not ready to accept it now. The belief in the possibility of controlling
the Earth's climate by reducing the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, I call it the theory
of climate control, is as irrational, arrogant and pretentious as the communist planning that
people like me were objects of for so many years.
As I said, politicians bought into this doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, fell in love with
it and started organizing a whole set of economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.
They came to the conclusion that playing the global warming game is an easy, politically correct
and from the point of potential election gains very profitable card to play (especially when it is
obvious that they themselves will not carry the costs of the measures they are implementing and
will not be responsible for their consequences).
There are plenty of arguments suggesting that the real threat for human society is not global
warming itself. The real threat comes when politicians start manipulating the climate and all of
us.
In my views, I am not being influenced by the recent scandals connected with the work of the IPCC
and some of its leading exponents. All of that has been known for years to everyone who was
interested. The same is true about all the relevant arguments used in today's debate. They are
available and it is difficult to add anything fundamentally new to them. It is necessary to keep
stressing several basic facts and arguments that are well-known, but unfortunately largely ignored.
First, the statistically well-documented increase in global temperature has been until now very
small and not bigger than the temperature fluctuations in the last centuries and millennia.
Throughout the whole 20th century, with all the problematic data collection and adjustments - it
was only 0.74 �C. I am surprised again and again that - because of the power of the
environmentalist propaganda - people suppose it was much more.
Second, it is undisputed that there has been no statistically significant net global warming in the
last twelve to fourteen years. I know that this is not a proof of the impossibility of long-term
climate changes but it is a relevant piece of information which should not be ignored or
downplayed. New data and new theories are emerging every day and some of them suggest the
probability of future cooling, not warming.
Third, the scientific dispute about the causes of the undergoing climate changes is not over, it
continues. Despite contrary assertions, there is no scientific consensus about it. What is more
and more evident is that CO2 is losing the position of the main culprit and that its potential
impact has already been more or less "consumed." Simple, monocasual theory of functional
relationship between CO2 and temperature is evidently untenable. There is absolutely no linearity
between CO2 emissions and temperature.
Fourth, the idea of a static, unchanging climate is, no doubt, foreign to the history of the Earth.
The climate has always been changing and will always be.
I am convinced that the impact of the small climate changes we have experienced (and may experience
in the foreseeable future) upon human beings and all kinds of their activities is - because of
their size - practically negligible. In its model simulations, the IPCC suggests that - because of
higher temperatures - the world GDP in the year 2100 will be 2.9% lower than without any warming. I
repeat, only 2.9% if we do nothing and let the warming - predicted by the IPCC - continue. The same
models suggest that the GDP per capita in the developed countries will be eight times higher than
now and in the developing countries about five times higher than that of the developed world today.
These figures are not mine, these are the figures of the leading exponents of the global warming
doctrine. The question must be therefore raised: should we drastically limit CO2 emissions today by
20, 30, 50, or 80% and, thereby, abandon our way of life for the sake of such a small effect
considering that the future generations will be far better off than we are today? My answer is that
2.9% of the future GDP is a minor loss. A loss generated by a completely useless fight against
global warming, planned by the contemporary global warming alarmists, would be far greater.
Politicians, their bureaucrats as well as many well-meaning individuals who accept the alarmist
view of anthropogenic climate change probably hope that - by doing so - they are displaying
intelligence, virtue and altruism. Some of them even believe they are saving the Earth. We should
tell them that they are merely passive players in the hands of lobbyists, of producers of green
technologies, of agrobusiness firms producing ethanol, of trading firms dealing in carbon emission
rights, etc., who hope to make billions at our costs. There is no altruism there. It is a political
and business cold-hearted calculation.
Before concluding, I have to repeat my question: "What is endangered?" My answer is: "our freedom,
and our prosperity." *
V�clav Klaus, 2010 Club for Growth Economic Winter Conference, Palm Beach, Florida, March 5, 2010
* One last comment. I very often see that people confuse two different things - a necessary
protection of the environment (necessary because there is no doubt that we have to take care of the
rivers, lakes, seas, forests and air) and an irrational attempt to fight or to protect the climate.
I am very much in favor of rational efforts when it comes to environmental protection, but I
resolutely reject any attempts to change or - as I frequently hear - to combat climate.
Giga2
>
> * One last comment. I very often see that people confuse two different things - a necessary
> protection of the environment (necessary because there is no doubt that we have to take care of the
> rivers, lakes, seas, forests and air) and an irrational attempt to fight or to protect the climate.
> I am very much in favor of rational efforts when it comes to environmental protection, but I
> resolutely reject any attempts to change or - as I frequently hear - to combat climate.
Fantastic! I think this is the best summary of the basic sceptic's
claims I have ever read The only thing I would add is to do with 2100.
The IPCC predicts 2.9% GDP loss by then but without the faintest idea
of the technological progress that ought to be made in the next 90
years! I would predict that by mid century solar power, hydrogen
fueled cars, fusion power and many other advances will be well
established and in dominant use around the world, simply because of
relative cost. So emissions could well fix themselves, even if there
is a problem with co2, which I also very much doubt.