Q & A on Global Warming with Vaclav Klaus
A few days ago we featured an article in the Financial Times by Czech President Vaclav Klaus, one of the few politicians who has not been swept up in the tsunami of climate change hysteria to “do something.”
In that article, Mr. Klaus offered to respond to questions submitted by readers. He did so in a wide ranging session in today’s Financial Times.
A couple of samples:
Mr. Klaus, I believe, has asked the wrong question, and in doing so, is in danger of under-cutting his main point, which is the danger to personal freedom of a top-down, single-government approach to managing the problem of global warming. Instead of trying to ask, is global warming a REAL problem?, Mr Klaus should ask - and then provide his answer - the question: Assuming global warming is a REAL, global issue, how can we manage this problem on a global scale while also expanding personal freedom and economic welfare? I would be very interested in hearing his response to this question.
Robert Bruegel, Denver, ColoradoVaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let’s put them in the proper sequence:
• Is global warming a reality?
• If it is a reality, is it man-made?
• If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say “globally”, better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?
• If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything – within the range of current proposals – to be done just now?
Surprisingly, we can say yes – with some degree of probability – only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.
Why do you disbelieve the science when every serious national scientific establishment appears to support it? And why do you suppose it to be a threat to freedom when both EU and UK essentially support market mechanisms as the primary policy instrument to deal with it?
John Rhys, UK
Vaclav Klaus: I do not disbelieve the science, but I see a big difference between science and “national scientific establishments”. To believe in scientific establishment is impossible, this is just another powerful rent-seeking group. Seeking rent for themselves, not for the mankind.You suggest that both the EU and the UK support market mechanisms as the primary policy instrument to deal with climate change. We probably live on a different planet. I don’t see it happening.
At a somewhat deeper methodological level, I have to say that market mechanism is nobody’s policy instrument. It reminds me of the old communist days again. The issue was: market or central planning. The central planners, however, wanted to have the market – in their hands – as a policy instrument. Do we have to live under communism to understand that?
Why view conservation of energy as an attack on freedom? Do you believe wasting energy strengthens freedom? The US, with only 6 per cent of world population, produces 25 per cent of world CO2 emissions because of government programs encouraging high energy use. Excessive tax subsidies for road building and oil production push energy waste, not the free market. The US political process is dominated by road building and oil interests. I pray that doesn’t happen to the Czech Republic.
John Norquist, Chicago, USVaclav Klaus: Let’s be fair. Attacking environmentalism and its mythology is not attacking nature, the environment we live in, the conservation of energy. It’s a classical spin to do it.
To save energy (as anything else) is the only rational behaviour. The more we save, the better. The economy of energy consumption is a must, not to save energy is irrational. The problem is who should make the decision about energy saving or conservation? Free individuals or omnipotent governments? That is the only problem. Free individuals in a free market climate (and only this “climate” is crucial) behave much more rationally than their governments.
To say that government programs encourage high energy use in the US is ridiculous. To say that “the US political process is dominated by road building and oil interests” is ridiculous as well. High energy use in the US is caused not by the US government but by the enormous wealth of US citizens … The other, abundance-approaching countries will do the same. Wealth is … a solution. The so-called Environmental Kuznets Curves demonstrate that quite clearly and convincingly.
Too much to hope that one of the current U.S. presidential candidates exhibits the same level of rigorous thinking as Mr. Klaus?
I thought so.
global warming, climate change, Vaclav Klaus, presidential candidates, wealth, communism, capitalism
June 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
“To believe in scientific establishment is impossible”
Does this “rigorous thinking” mean the Earth isa flat after all?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
I seem to recall a certain “scientific establishment” clinging to exactly that flat earth assumption until Galileo showed up.
But I’m guessing that wasn’t the analogy you were going for.
Science is supposed to be about evidence, not advocacy. Unfortunately, this is a point that has been largely ignored by parties on both sides of the issue.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Mark,
I’m not sure “scientific” is the best word to describe the 16-17th century “establishment” you refer to — perhaps “religious establishment” would be more apt.
Anyway, you didn’t answer my question — the statement by Klaus I quoted is 100% definitive, leaving no room for caveats. So, according to my own brand of “rigorous thinking” (which I take much pride in), it necessarily follows from Klaus’ statement that the Earth if flat or cubic or cylindrical or whatever but NOT round, since this is the unanimous “belief” about its shape professed by today’s “scientific establishment”.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Z,
I agree that the term “religious establishment” is more appropriate to describe the 16-17th century establishment. Unfortunately, that religious establishment also was what passed for the “scientific establishment” at the time. I was being a bit flip about blurring those lines to make a point.
I have less of a problem with Mr. Klaus’ statement about the scientific establishment than you do, at least in part due to our respective interpretations.
I don’t believe it “necessarily follows” from Klaus’ statement that by saying he doesn’t believe in the scientific establishment that he then has to believe the opposite of whatever the scientific establishment holds in every instance.
He is merely stating (the way I read it) that he doesn’t believe what the scientific establishment says just because it was the scientific establishment that said it.
In the same way if I say, “I don’t believe anything Al Gore says.” That doesn’t mean that if he says the sky is blue that you can say I have to then believe it’s a different color. It just means that I’m going to use another method of judgment (other evidence, my own observation, etc.) to judge the validity of the statement that Gore made.
I’ll take it one step further. I think both you and Mr. Klaus can be rigorous thinkers and disagree on this issue.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Mark,
Thanks for your reply.
He is merely stating (the way I read it) that he doesn’t believe what the scientific establishment says just because it was the scientific establishment that said it.
I completely agree with that. But it’s quite a stretch, and dishonest IMHO, to jump to the conclusion, as Mr. Klaus does, that the scientific establishment is willfully deceiving us. Since I’m just a layperson, I can’t base my opinion on the merits of what the scientists say, so my question is— why would they be fooling us? Mr. Klaus explanation — they’re just a “powerful rent-seeking group” — seems to be a pretty lame argument for someone such as me who’s strongly suspicious of conspiracy theories. The question begging to be asked here is: are we supposed to believe climatologists the only scientific “rent-seeking group”, or, say, particle physicists and evolutionary biologists, may be fooling us too to fatten their bank accounts?
Anyway, the facts are precisely the opposite of Mr. Klaus’ insinuations, for the alarmist IPPC reports were actually toned down by political pressures.
Getting a little personal, I’ll tell you more: you can believe me if I tell you that my dearest wish was that AGW wasn’t real, but unfortunately the more I get informed about the subject the more I’m forced to put my money on the scientific establishment view of things.
In a word, for me I’ll stick with Occan’s Razor: it’s a much simpler explanation that, to the best of their knowledge, the scientists are telling the truth than to believe in the completely absurd notion that somehow Al Gore and the Evil Environmentalists managed to hijack namely the Academies of Sciences of the US, Canada, Russia, Italy, France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, China, Brazil, South Africa, India and Mexico into frightening us all to death with AGW.