Här kommer presidenten i Tjeckien Václav Klaus anförande inför the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change den 4 mars.
Som vanligt ett mycket intressant tal. Där han framför att det största hotet mot vår frihet, demokrati, vår ekonomi och vårt välstånd kommer från alla dessa miljöfundamentalister och hysterin kring Global Warming.
Som vill ersätta den fria utvecklingen av mänskligheten med en centralstyrd (Global) planering och reglering. Och de enorma kostnader som detta medför för alla människor. Och hur hela hysterin kring Global Warming har blivit ett typexempel på propaganda ontra sanning.
Det är bara att hålla med. Så läs och begrunda detta tal av en person som har levt under ett centralstyrt och centralplanerat samhälle och VET vad det innebär i praktiken.
Någon som tror att en svensk politiker av idag skulle kunna hålla ett sådant tal? Nä, tror inte det. Tänk om våra svenska s.k. politiker skulle besitta bara en promille av Vaclav Klaus intellektuella resning och överblick. Nej här i Sverige så ägnar man sig i stället åt att med kraft hänga med den senaste PK karusellen – bl.a. Global Warming hysterin.
Någon som t.ex. läst, hört eller sett en svensk politiker ta ordet frihet i sin mun på sistone? Och om hur viktigt det är att försvara den?
(Se mina tidigare inlägg : Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välstånd, Miljöhysterin ett hot mot vår frihet, demokratin, ekonomin och vårt välstånd -2)
Några citat från anförandet:
”Future dangers will not come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its essence will, nevertheless, be identical – the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality.” What I had in mind was, of course, environmentalism and its currently strongest version, climate alarmism.”
”What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” My answer is clear and resolute: ”it is our freedom.” I may also add ”and our prosperity.”
What frustrates me is the feeling that everything has already been said and published, that all rational arguments have been used, yet it still does not help. Global warming alarmism is marching on.”
”The insurmountable problem as I see it lies in the political populism of its exponents and in their unwillingness to listen to arguments. They – in spite of their public roles - maximize their own private utility function where utility is not any public good but their own private good – power, prestige, carrier, income, etc.”
”People tend to blindly believe in the IPCC’s conclusions (especially in the easier to understand formulations presented in the ”Summaries for Policymakers”) despite the fact that from the very beginning, the IPCC has been a political rather than a scientific undertaking.
Many politicians, media commentators, public intellectuals, bureaucrats in more and more influential international organizations not only accept them but use them without qualifications which exist even in the IPCC documents.”
”What this relationship tells is simple: If we really want to decrease ECO2 (which most of us assembled here today probably do not consider necessary), we have to either stop the economic growth and thus block further rise in the standard of living, or stop the population growth, or make miracles with the emissions intensity.”
”I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries
I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian tenets and in their own megalomaniac ambitions, want to regulate and constrain the demographic development, which is something only the totalitarian regimes have until now dared to think about or experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the slippery ”road to serfdom.”
”I recently looked at the European CO2 emissions data covering the period 1990-2005, which means the Kyoto Protocol era. My conclusion is that in spite of many opposite statements the very robust relationship between CO2 emissions and the rate of economic growth can’t be disputed, at least in a relevant and meaningful time horizon. You don’t need huge computer models to very easily distinguish three different types of countries in Europe:
- the EU less developed countries – Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain – which during this very period tried to catch up with the economic performance of the more developed EU countries. Their rapid economic growth led to the increase of their CO2 emissions in 15 years (in which they signed Kyoto) by 53%;
- the European post-communist countries which after the fall of communism went through a fundamental, voluntarily unorganizable transformation shake-out and an inevitable radical economic restructuring with the heavy industry disappearing (not stagnating or retreating) practically over night. Their GDP drastically declined. These countries decreased their CO2 emissions in the same period by 32%;
- the ”normal” EU, slow-growing if not stagnating countries (excluding Germany where it’s difficult to eliminate the impact of the fact that the East German economy almost ceased to exist in that period) increased their CO2 emissions by 4%.
The huge differences in these three figures – +53%, -32% and +4% – are almost fascinating. And yet, there is a dream among European politicians to reduce CO2 emissions for the entire EU by 30 per cent in the next 13 years (compared to the 1990 level).
What does it mean? Do they assume that all countries would undergo a similar economic shock as was experienced by the Central and Eastern European countries after the fall of communism? Now in the whole of Europe? Do they assume that European economically weaker countries would stop their catching-up process? Or do they intend to organize a decrease in the number of people living in Europe? Or do they expect a miracle in the development of the emissions/GDP ratio, which would require a technological revolution of unheard-of proportions? With the help of a – from Brussels organized – scientific and technological revolution?
What I see in Europe (and in the U.S. and other countries as well) is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of cynical approach of those who themselves are sufficiently well-off, together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project.
This brings me to politics. As a politician who personally experienced communist central planning of all kinds of human activities, I feel obliged to bring back the already almost forgotten arguments used in the famous plan-versus-market debate in the 1930s in economic theory (between Mises and Hayek on the one side and Lange and Lerner on the other), the arguments we had been using for decades – till the moment of the fall of communism. Then they were quickly forgotten. The innocence with which climate alarmists and their fellow-travelers in politics and media now present and justify their ambitions to mastermind human society belongs to the same ”fatal conceit.” To my great despair, this is not sufficiently challenged neither in the field of social sciences, nor in the field of climatology. Especially the social sciences are suspiciously silent.
The climate alarmists believe in their own omnipotency, in knowing better than millions of rationally behaving men and women what is right or wrong, in their own ability to assembly all relevant data into their Central Climate Change Regulatory Office (CCCRO) equipped with huge supercomputers, in the possibility to give adequate instructions to hundreds of millions of individuals and institutions and in the non-existence of an incentive problem (and the resulting compliance or non-compliance of those who are supposed to follow these instructions).
We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussion about socialism (or communism) and to learn the uncompromising lesson from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom. This should be the main message of our conference. ”
Som sagt, frihet är ett ord som våra svenska politiker inte har använt på mycket länge. Frågan är snarare om de ens förstår innebörden i begreppet längre med tanke på den utveckling som sker. Där de beredvilligt är beredda att offra än den ena än den andra friheten och rättigheten för att ”bekämpa” den senaste PK frågan som för tillfället råkar vara ”populär” hos massmedia och politiker.
Man kan INTE OFFRA friheten hur mycket som helst utan att det får förödande konsekvenser.
”Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
”We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than only freedom can make security more secure.”
”Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.”
Anförandet följer här:
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>