What A Different President Thinks
(It is maybe a bad sign that this is my fourth post today. Who knows? But I feel so strongly about what I buried in Post #2 that I cut and pasted it here. It's that important.)
Perhaps you have heard or read what the Czech President Vaclav Klaus has said in the past few days. President Klaus is ringing a different alarm. According to the Prague Daily Monitor, Klaus has written to the US Congress warning that "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer forms." The biggest threat is "ambitious environmentalism." Klaus wrote:
"[I am] really concerned about the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. …While discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom. …the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world."
But I need to quote even more of this fine article for our purposes here:
"[Klaus] noted that this ideology wants to replace 'the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world.'
"Its followers, Klaus added, consider 'their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth' and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation to exert pressure on politicians to achieve their goals.
"Klaus claimed that the environmentalists' argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic, and in this atmosphere they continue pushing politicians to adopt 'illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making.'
"Klaus also said that environmentalists 'neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change,' that there is and has been no ideal state of the world, and they ignore the future economic and technological progress."
I find all of this philosophically fascinating. I wonder if you do too.Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Important links relevant to this discussion: The Wizard, fkap (interesting story!); The Reference Frame (Klaus transcript!); Randall Sherman (hysterical!) [Nice job all!]
Posts
6 comments:
The full text of Klaus' testimony here (click).
Thank you, Lumo.
Blessings to you - always!
BG
Nice round up.
I found this illuminating:
A portion of those revenues should be and must be earmarked for the lower income groups to help them make this shift.
He admits, albeit obliquely, that what he proposes will disproportionately affect the poor.
That is, the increased tax burden will be passed onto all consumers equally. Even if the CO2 tax is "progressive" it will be a "flat tax" when ultimately paid in the form of higher cost per unit of the end product. Alternatively, the cost of compliance to obtain a lower tax bill, will be passed on.
And, by the way, that would be all products.
Then, we redistribute wealth to these unfortunate poor to make up the difference, I suppose. Accept the poor are no better off. They're merely paying higher prices for the same thing.
I'll end here, but the ripple effects of such a proposal are staggering in their implication. Know that a government would feel compelled to address each unintended consequence, thereby, increase its interference and leading to the "central planned economy" feared by President Klaus, which was proven incapable of alleviating human suffering 20 years ago.
No its being trotted out again, not as a response to the perceived "unfairness" of capitalism, but rather as a response to a purported "imminent" environmental threat.
How people could be so blind, is not clear to me.
Cheers.
R. Sherman,
Yes, it is all very disconcerting.
Mr. Gore apparently said at the end of his testimony at this afternoon's SENATE hearing (Part 2 of Gore's day) that his Tennessee mansion was essentially "carbon-neutral" because he had heavily invested in carbon off-sets, or carbon credits. These gimmicky justifications for Gore's massive "carbon footprint", monetary investments in renewable energy and other green resources, is a privilege of the wealthy. The poor will not be able to justify their footprints -- and stop polluting the earth without compunction -- like Mr. Gore is able to as I write this; the poor cannot afford to be hypocrites. Gore can buy his way out of conservation; it is the poor who will have to conserve, ultimately, so the rich to keep on partying.
The rich can flee cities, they can flee public schools, they can purchase healthcare to address their diseases, they can escape winter's harshness by traveling to warmer climes. The poor cannot do this; the leftism of the earth promises to destroy such inequity, yet it is that very leftism that is promoting this sick agenda. It is not just inequity, but iniquity.
Peace.
Gnade
Bill, Be sure to read my entry today about Gore and his appearance before Congress: Al Gore - Profile in Arrogance.
But what will be of real interest to you there is the Guest Editorial I've quoted from the Wall Street Journal by famed Danish journalist Flemming Rose and environment expert Bjorn Lomborg. Gore backed out of an interview with them (and virtually any other real discussion of the issues).
the Wizard......
Bill, the interesting about "Carbon Offsets" is that Gore has set up a company to trade in same. He buys the offsets from himself. I have the link on my blog.
(Sorry for the self-plug.)
I've been sitting on an webjournal entry on faux concern for the poor for awhile now. Maybe, it's time to post it.
Cheers.
Post a Comment