Environmentalism--especially of the Global Warming variety--is a religion. It has all the trappings of statism and reduction of personal liberties that Communism had. This according to a man who defied and witnessed the overthrow of Communism, Czech President Vaclav Klaus.Update 4/19/2007 Senator Barbara Boxer says global warming deals with the "spiritual and moral".
Vaclav Klaus was born in 1941 in the midst of Czechoslovakian Communism. He saw all of its deficiencies when compared with republican democracy, and he joined the fight to see it overthrown. He sees in environmentalism many of the same problems that were traits Communism. He is now President of the Czech Republic.
Intellectuals he said, quoting economist Friedrich von Hayek
(we would probably say public intellectuals nowadays) [are] the professional second-hand dealers in ideas. They look for ideas, which enhance the role of the state because the state is usually their main employer, sponsor or donator.
(It is interesting, in light of this observation, that Global Warming advocates, who in nearly every case are being paid by government to do their research, charge that Global Warming opponents are conflicted in their interests because they are paid by free market organizations to do theirs. It's probably much more productive to call that argument a draw, and debate Global Warming on its merits.)
In a speech to the Cato Institute, Klaus recently identified
Fashionable and trendy "isms" like environmentalism [that] seek to "radically re-organize human society" in a way that is detrimental to the freedoms that were secured just 17 years ago when Soviet communism fell...Update 4/19/2007 - CNSNews reports that Barbara Boxer equated global warming advocacy with spirituality.
Proponents of the environmental ideology were attempting to sell the public on "catastrophic scenarios" that could be used to justify the restoration of statist practices, he said.
"The hypothesis of global warming, and the role of man, is the most powerful embodiment of environmental ideology," Klaus observed. Although the environmental movement invokes science as a way of advancing policy goals, the arguments in favor of catastrophe rest on "ill-founded assumptions," he said.
"Environmentalism is a religion. It does not belong in the natural sciences and is more connected with social science."
Klaus said very few politicians and journalists understand that environmentalism is a political ideology masquerading as a natural science.
Boxer said addressing global warming is a "spiritual and moral obligation" and chastised the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for not setting national pollutant standards for cars and for not allowing states such as California to implement their own standards.
Science may yet prove that global warming is reality, that it is human-caused, and that this significantly threatens human life. But even if this is the case, why should we think that increasing government power is the solution? Why do the most rabid global warming folks constantly beat the drum for more governmental involvement?
ReplyDelete1) Irrational belief, as you have noted. 2) Follow the money.
What is so interesting as I read and debate this is that deep down, nearly every Global Warming scientist and other types of advocates admit that they aren't sure--'but we can't take any chances', they say.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure global warming opponents exaggerate, but not nearly to the extent as the advocates.
Opponents are occasionally funded by private enterprise, but advocates are generally ALWAYS funded by government.
RU,
ReplyDeleteI don't know why, but I have never thought of it that way. How is giving the government more power going to help? When has it helped? There are very recent examples (Walter Reed) where the beaucracy of the government will do nothing except make it worse. Even if (big 'if') they do find that it is human caused.
Vaclav Klaus is saying that it is essentially the same (kind of) people that have always wanted big government.
ReplyDelete