We
are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough
– irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century
the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the
environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to
do something about the weather, and to do it right now.
Is climate
change just propaganda? Vaclav Klaus will answer your questions
in an online Q&A. Post a query now
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 scientists
should help us and take into consideration the political effects of
their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their
political and value assumptions and how much they have affected
their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.
Does it make any
sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the
context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of
years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations,
about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle
Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time
temperature changes occur (in both directions).
Due to advances in
technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of
institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves,
the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It
will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences
of mild climate changes.
I agree with
Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused
amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into
hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a
few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of
highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible
chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the
industrial age”.
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.
As a witness to
today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the
following:
■Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive
measures
■Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
■Instead of organising people from above, let us allow
everyone to live as he wants
■Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the
term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a
loud minority, never by a silent majority
■Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be
attentive to it in our personal behaviour
■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution
of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow
it down or divert it in any direction
■Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or
use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human
lives.
The writer is
President of the Czech Republic
Copyright
The Financial Times Limited 2007
