By Vaclav Klaus

From Hawaii Reporter, October 1, 2008

Many thanks for the invitation and for the opportunity to be here with all of you. I have visited the U.S. many times since the fall of communism in November 1989 when – after almost half a century – traveling to the free world became for people like me possible again, but I’ve never been to this beautiful city and to the state of Oregon before. Once again, thank you very much.I am expected to talk here about global warming today (even though I don’t really feel it, especially not in this room) and my address will be devoted mostly to this issue.

As you may expect Oregon is – for me – in this respect connected with the well-known Oregon petition which warned and keeps warning against the irrationality and one-sidedness of the global warming campaign. Rational people know that the warming we experience is well within the range of what seems to have been a natural fluctuation over the last ten thousand years. We should keep saying this very loudly.

Read the rest of the article, click below link

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ff0796e1-e571-4b15-9d0a-1d53dff2a6bc

It was a nice experience to be about 15 meters [probably a little closer] away from them.

How refreshing then that the not-so-callipygian Czech President - Vaclav Klaus - refused to toe the US-EU line on the South Ossetia issue.

Yesterday, Klaus said Georgia was to blame for its conflict with Russia. This man is my hero.

He pointed out that Tblisi was the first to attack in South Ossetia. Portraying Russia as the villian would be a "tragic mistake" and divide the world, Klaus said, adding that Russia is not the former Soviet Union.

The icing on the cake. He said Russia's recognition of Georgian breakaway provinces Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent would not have happened without the West's recognition of Kosovo.

Klaus - you've made my morning. The clouds are a bit fluffier, the birds a bit more chirpy and the sky a little more rosy-tinted.

Not only did the Soviet troops cause physical and psychological damage to many Czechs and Slovaks, they also contaminated almost all of the locations in which they operated. As Pavel Baroch stated in his article 1968 Soviet Invasion: Environmental Damage Still Seen: "The Red Army is still present in a way." Underground water in zones of Red Army operations is still full of heavy metals and other toxics. The most recent places being cleaned are Frenstat pod Radhostem, Hradcany, Kurivody, Lustenice, Milovice - Bozi Dar, and Milovice - Tabor. The cleanup will probably last until 2012 and will cost about 2 billion crowns.

On the other hand, the cost to affected Czechoslovakians can't be easily measured. Many Czech and Slovak people don't even want to revisit their memories of occupation. Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, mentioned in his speech that we should not blame the Russian people but the communist regime that killed millions of Czechoslovakians, citizens of other countries, and also Russians.

Other good articles:

http://www.expats.cz/prague/article/weekly-czech-news/in-the-news-25-8-08/

***

Uplynulo jiz 40 let od ruske okupace Ceskoslovenska (posledni rusky vojak odesel v cervnu 1991), ktera zacala 20-tiletou represi. Hlavnim tercem utoku byla Praha, protoze byla centrem politickeho deni. Dne 21. srpna 1968 zhruba 160.000 vojaku vstoupilo na nase uzemi v 6.300 tancich. Okolo 80 lidi zemrelo behem prvnich dni okupace a stovky byly zraneny. Skoda nasi zemi je stale zretelna.

Ruske vojsko zpusobilo fyzicke a psychicke skody mnoha Cechum a Slovakum a take znecistili skoro vsechny oblasti v kterych prebyvali. Pavel Baroch se zminuje ve svem clanku 1968 Soviet Invasion: Environmental Damage Still Seen: "Ruska armada je vice mene stale zde". Podzemni vody v oblastech operaci ruske armady je plna tezkych kovu a jinych toxickych latek. Mista, ktere se ted cisti jsou Frenstat pod Radhostem, Hradcany, Kurivody, Lustenice, Milovice - Bozi Dar, and Milovice - Tabor. Dekontimace bude pravdepodobne pokracovat do roku 2012 a bude stat okolo 2 miliard korun.

Na druhe strane, je tezke zmerit cenu ruske okupace postizenym Cechum a Slovakum. Mnoho z nich nechteji vzpominat na dobu okupace. Cesky president, Vaclav Klaus, se zminil ve svem proslovu, ze bychom nemeli davat vinu Rusum, ale komunistickemu rezimu ktery zabil mnoho Cechu a Slovaku, obcanu jinych zemi, ale take Rusu.

¿Qué está amenazado, el clima o la libertad? Ésta es la interrogante que, en tono provocador, ha formulado al mundo el presidente de la República Checa Václav Klaus. Para responder a ella, Klaus ha publicado en 2007 un libro titulado Modrá, nikoli zelená planeta. Co je ohroženo: klima, nebo svoboda?. En diciembre de ese mismo año, el texto fue traducido al alemán bajo el título Blauer Planet in grünen Fesseln. Was ist bedroht: Klima oder Freiheit? (Planeta azul con cadenas verdes: ¿Qué está amenazado, el clima o la libertad?) y hasta hoy ya circulan, además de la checa, las versiones rusa, holandesa e inglesa.

Mi propósito es presentar, en dos entregas, algunas de mis coincidencias con las inquietudes „políticamente incorrectas“ de Klaus, a propósito de la manera en que la causa ambientalista, al menos en ciertos casos, ha venido traduciendo sus preocupaciones y propuestas en un conjunto de ideas y creencias irrefutables y, por lo tanto, perniciosas. En esta primera parte, postulo que la causa ambientalista, si desea ser útil a la humanidad, debe comprender que existe una inevitable tensión entre la consecución de objetivos de desarrollo económico y la conservación del medio ambiente. Siendo ineludible esta situación y absurdo el intento de frenar el desarrollo, hay dos caminos para enfrentarla: proponer soluciones inteligentes y planes flexibles y ajustables o convertir la causa ambientalista en una suerte de religión política no disponible para el cuestionamiento y la transacción. En este último caso, la libertad de las personas parece correr grave peligro.

-

En muchas compañías, y especialmente en aquellas cuyas actividades implican riesgos para la integridad física de las personas y para el medio ambiente, la relación entre el Departamento de Seguridad Industrial, Higiene y Ambiente (SHA) y el Departamento de Operaciones casi nunca es buena. De hecho, es habitualmente bastante mala y en ocasiones realmente inaguantable. Durante mis años de trabajo en la sección de SHA de una operadora alemana transnacional de exploración y explotación petrolera, pude constatar que la tensión interna entre el objetivo de producción y el de control de calidad de SHA es, no sólo muy fuerte, sino también inevitable. Y así debe ser.

Este mismo conflicto de intereses fundamentales, pero a escala diferente, se da también entre la propia empresa, por una parte, y las autoridades ambientales y la comunidad por la otra. Es decir, se produce otra tensión, esta vez entre los objetivos económicos de la compañía y el respeto a las leyes y a los principios éticos de conservación del medio ambiente.

Ahora bien, es infructuoso intentar escapar de este enredo y, de hecho, las mejores compañías lo enfrentan con gran habilidad. Una transacción exitosa entre ambos propósitos, en apariencia excluyentes, es perfectamente factible con una visión responsable y madura acerca del impacto de la actividad humana sobre su entorno natural y de las formas en que éste puede ser amortiguado, así como reparados los inevitables daños. Algunas ideas clave para poner los pies sobre la tierra respecto de esta cuestión son las siguientes:

• El ser humano tiende a buscar su propio bienestar y el del grupo al cual pertenece, dando así sentido a su existencia. El bienestar humano no es fácilmente medible y su significado depende, tanto del contexto socio - cultural, como de las convicciones, deseos, talentos y proyectos de cada individuo. Pero aún así, el bienestar suele estar asociado, de una u otra manera, al enriquecimiento material y espiritual del hombre, en cuantía y calidad variables.
• El enriquecimiento material y espiritual referido se busca mediante el ordenamiento, la disposición, la organización y el control de recursos y actividades para alcanzar determinados objetivos, que pueden ir desde la satisfacción de las más elementales necesidades biológicas hasta aquellas que están más allá de la mera supervivencia.
• Los recursos disponibles (tiempo, materias primas, fuerza de trabajo, entre otros) deben ser administrados con cautela porque suelen ser – por no decir que siempre son – agotables. Los recursos naturales, en algunos casos abundantes y en otros muy limitados, además de materia prima y energía para la producción de los más variados bienes y servicios, son parte del ambiente que rodea y nutre la vida del hombre.
• Cualquier actividad humana, irremediablemente y en mayor o menor medida, produce efectos positivos y negativos sobre el entorno natural. Estos efectos son evaluados de distinta manera por los afectados, quienes emplean parámetros moldeados por la cultura, las creencias y las ideologías. Pero más allá de ello, la gestión humana para la consecución de los objetivos que se plantean los individuos, las organizaciones y los países incluye, cada vez con mayor frecuencia y éxito, el cuidado de las fuentes proveedoras de recursos.
• Una gestión carente de consideraciones para la preservación de tales fuentes e indiferente ante la salud de las personas es, lisa y llanamente, impresentable. Pero aún la mejor de ellas es incapaz de evitar absolutamente el impacto de las actividades humanas sobre el medio ambiente, por muy básicas e inocentes que éstas sean. Así, los esfuerzos deben estar orientados a tratar de reducir los riesgos y reparar aquellos daños que no han podido ser soslayados.
• Toda gestión humana tiene costos; cuesta el maltrato del medio ambiente y cuesta su cuidado. Y estos costos no son simplemente monetarios. De manera que debe el hombre ocuparse de encontrar un equilibrio inteligente entre cuánto se invierte y cuánto se deja de ganar con el objeto de reducir los riesgos y efectos negativos de la actividad humana, por una parte, y las probabilidades y magnitudes de los eventuales daños, por la otra. De esta forma, aunque nunca es demasiado fácil, es posible obtener beneficios aceptables a un costo aceptable en un proceso susceptible de ajustes y reajustes, posibles gracias a su flexibilidad, a la experiencia ganada y la creatividad humana.

Estas ideas elementales son válidas para los individuos, las empresas, los países, la civilización humana. Así las cosas, tanto la actividad empresarial como la causa por la preservación del medio ambiente deben ser sostenidas y dirigidas con un enorme sentido de la responsabilidad. Ni las improvisaciones ni el fanatismo tienen cabida en esto.

En cuanto a la causa ambientalista, sus promotores deben observar con extrema atención todos y cada uno de los puntos anteriores y asumir con madurez su participación en el debate político, pues cada propuesta y cada acción tendrán consecuencias sobre los espacios públicos y privados; sobre personas y organizaciones con diferentes necesidades, proyectos y creencias. Y por ello las posibles soluciones deben ser planteadas inteligentemente. Las cuestiones ambientales, por su estrecha relación con las ciencias naturales, no pueden quedar a merced del fanatismo ni ser reducidas a eslóganes simples.

En el debate político - ambientalista las convicciones ideológicas tienen bastante menos utilidad que los hechos concretos. En los asuntos ambientales están involucradas las estadísticas, la física, la química, la biología, las matemáticas. Del uso de los datos científicos en el discurso político y de las acciones resultantes dependen decisiones importantes para la sociedad. Y una buena parte de los datos científicos relevantes corresponden a predicciones hechas sobre la base de modelos diversos, cada cual con debilidades y fortalezas y ninguno con garantía de infalibilidad. Este hecho no es trivial, pues la precisión de las predicciones sólo puede comprobarse en el futuro y las decisiones de hoy están sujetas a la probabilidad de ocurrencia de ciertos eventos. Y si la subestimación del impacto de las actividades humanas sobre el medio ambiente es peligrosa, sucede exactamente lo mismo con la sobreestimación. El discurso y el accionar político ambientalista, si es dogmático e irresponsable, si se asume a sí mismo como incuestionable, puede resultar en serias restricciones a la libertad y en un gran estorbo para el desarrollo socio – económico. Esta es una de las preocupaciones de Klaus y es lo que veremos en la próxima parte.

A self-serving book tour naturally!

You didn't know Pelosi had a book out? That's ok, neither does anyone else.

While you and I fork over $4 and more a gallon, cutting back our driving, pinching our pennies -- while Republicans speak by candlelight, sans cameras and microphones, to spectators in the House gallery about the need to bring down gas prices -- Premiere Pelosi is hitting the bookstores, running the talk show circuit, promoting a book she "wrote" for little girls -- presumably teaching them to grow up to be insufferable Stalinist dictators like herself.

The book, Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters, is ranked #782 on Amazon's bestsellers list. For perspective, that makes it approximately 55 times less popular than Tori Spelling's autobiography.

Polls show 75% of Americans support off-shore drilling. But Pelosi can't be bothered with little things like "Democracy" and representing the American people -- she is saving the planet!

Ring a bell?

It ought to. I've pointed out several times the warnings by President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, that environmentalism is the new totalitarianism -- that there is no aspect of your life the State cannot control when "saving the planet" is the goal. He's not kidding. I'm not kidding.

We got a preview of it last Friday with Pelosi's Stalinist tactics.

O Presidente polaco, Lech Kaczynski, afirmou hoje que a Polónia não será "obstáculo à ratificação do Tratado" de Lisboa, em declarações à imprensa após um encontro com o chefe de Estado francês, Nicolas Sarkozy. "O encontro foi muito bom. Disse (a Sarkozy que) naturalmente, a Polónia não vai colocar obstáculos à ratificação do Tratado" de Lisboa, afirmou o Presidente polaco.

No encontro, segundo Kaczynski, os dois chefes de Estado "estabeleceram um plano comum que será divulgado em tempo oportuno".

O Presidente polaco disse ainda, sem adiantar pormenores, que "houve compromissos recíprocos" que está "convencido de que serão realizados".

Questionado sobre se vai promulgar o Tratado, Kaczynski insistiu: "Eu disse claramente que a Polónia não vai colocar obstáculos e nunca foi minha intenção que a Polónia seja um obstáculo à ratificação do Tratado".

Depois da vitória do 'não' no referendo irlandês ao Tratado Reformador da União Europeia, o Presidente polaco afirmou que só ratificaria o Tratado depois de um novo referendo na Irlanda.

Segundo a presidência francesa, Lech Kaczynski disse a Sarkozy que "vai contribuir pessoalmente para a ratificação do Tratado por toda a gente". A presidência francesa aludiu ao Presidente checo, Vaclav Klaus, que anunciou que não ratificará o Tratado e com quem o chefe de Estado polaco tem "relações muito amigáveis e antigas". Lech Kaczynski e Vaclav Klaus deverão reunir-se a 24 de Julho, segundo a mesma fonte.

O Tratado de Lisboa, ou Tratado Reformador da União Europeia (UE), foi assinado a 13 de Dezembro de 2007 na capital portuguesa pelos chefes de Estado e de Governo dos 27.

Para que possa entrar em vigor, o Tratado tem de ser ratificado por todos os Estados-membros, processo que sofreu um revés quando, a 12 de Junho, foi rejeitado em referendo pela Irlanda. Reunidos em cimeira uma semana depois, os líderes dos 27 acordaram prosseguir com o processo de ratificação até que seja encontrada uma solução para a questão irlandesa. >>>

Some people have been attempting to sell President Vaclav Klaus' hip joint in internet auctions. They tried two Czech ones but with no luck. Apparently, in one case due to its definition of an "organ", despite the fact that it can no longer be re-used, and in the other case because Vaclav Klaus is not a saint, so his body parts can not be worshipped like bones and a scull of a saint. To put it simply and on a lighter note...

Either way, anyone who would buy it could well receive a free pass to a mental institution.

The president's spokesman says he totally trusts the hospital in which Klaus got his new artificial joint, that the real one could not have gotten lost or stolen...

TV Nova secretly taped one of the men who claimed to have tried eBay, too, but with no response from eBay people so far...

Unser Bundespräsi will erst die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgericht abwarten, ähnlich wie Vaclav Klaus in der Tschechei. Aber sein wir doch mal ehrlich, so wie er vom Bundestag durchgewunken wurde, so passiert es auch beim BVerfG. Unsere Politiker kennen ja noch nicht mal den Inhalt dieses Diktates, und da er ja auch nicht verhidnert werden kann, betrachten sie alle Referenden nicht, sondern wollen ihn auf Biegen und Brechen durchsetzen. Ich kann persönlich nur hoffen, dass das BVerfG docjh noch die letzte Barriere der Demokratie in Deutschland ist.

Sono giorni in cui il Paese del pallone assorbe la delusione provocata dall’anziana Nazionale agli Europei, per opera di rigore dei vicini spagnoli poi vincitori del torneo conclusosi ieri. Alcuni giorni fa anche l’Eurostat, l’ufficio statistico europeo, ha contribuito al confronto affondando il coltello acquistato da Berlusconi alla televendita e diffondendo stime preoccupanti che evidenziano la posizione dell’Italia tra le ultime della “vecchia Europa” (vale a dire prendendo in considerazione i primi 15 Paesi Ue pre-allargamento) per il valore del prodotto interno lordo pro-capite, che per il 2007 ha visto aumentare il divario dalla Spagna arrivando a 6 punti percentuali, (107 a 101, fatta base 100 la media dell’Ue) lasciandoci alle spalle solo la Grecia e il Portogallo.

Segnali plurimi di arretramento in Europa. Ma le riflessioni che da alcune settimane più si concentrano sulla tematica europea, spesso trascurata nel dibattito pubblico e dei media, riguardano il suo piano istituzionale e politico. A seguito di una nuova frenata, stavolta pervenuta dall’Irlanda, al processo di ratifica del Trattato europeo di Lisbona e dell’impatto sul suo prosieguo. Il celebre motto “uniti nella diversità” sembrerebbe al momento declinabile in “divisi sulle difficoltà”.     

Focalizzare l’attenzione sulle reazioni al no irlandese del 12 giugno, giorno in cui il 53,4% dei votanti il referendum si è espresso contro la ratifica del Trattato di Lisbona, invita inevitabilmente a leggere non solo il tentativo, da parte dei principali leaders istituzionali europei, di minimizzare e considerare l’outcome negativo come un incidente di percorso, circoscritto all’1% della popolazione europea ma anche il rinfocolare di un sentimento, più diffuso di quanto gli alti gradi vogliano lasciar credere, o credere loro stessi, di contrarietà al compimento di un processo costituzionale europeo che vede nell’entrata in vigore della sua Carta fondamentale il momento della sua realizzazione. La seconda lettura ci indica l’esistenza di un respiro più ampio del polmone irlandese e che consiste in dubbi permanenti e sottesi verso il riconoscimento di un Trattato di regole non sufficientemente chiare, quantomeno non pienamente legittimate secondo il senso della partecipazione più democratica. Perplessità rimaste temporaneamente sospese negli ultimi due anni, dopo il doppio no referendario di Francia e Olanda del 2005 e il conseguente periodo di riflessione e che si sono potute riaffacciare alla prima, nuova misurazione del consenso diretto da parte di un popolo e non dunque attraverso la delega dei suoi rappresentanti.

L’esito del referendum irlandese non ha colto di sorpresa gli analisti; è però plausibile pensare che anche le istituzioni europee avessero coscienza di tale possibilità e che a questi timori fondati non sapessero far fronte se non con la scelta di un metodo di ratifica in sordina, per via parlamentare. Difficile seguire altre vie più partecipate e condivise, devono aver pensato, data la priorità all’imponenza dell’impianto giuridico-istituzionale europeo di ben 27 Paesi. Significativa la difficoltà e oggetto di polemica una dichiarazione, resa nei giorni precedenti la consultazione popolare, dal Commissario europeo al mercato interno Charlie McCreevy secondo il quale il testo sarebbe di difficile lettura per il cittadino comune, in ammissione di averlo letto personalmente solo per sommi capi.

Tenuto al confine di un ambito territoriale nazionale (qui una contraddizione dal sapore nazionalistico maggioritario nell’ambito altrimenti ideale comunitario espresso generalmente dall’Unione) il timore, pur coscienzioso, del rigetto di un referendum, di un Paese sui Ventisette, non aveva mosso le alte gerarchie istituzionali all’elaborazione di un piano B forse perché decise nel voler perseguire il piano stabilito ad ogni costo, fino anche al sacrificio, probabile e plausibile, del criterio dell’unanimità della ratifica. Pur comprensibile perché, dopo l’arrendevolezza manifestata nei compromessi al ribasso raggiunti in sede di stesura del documento, come le clausole opt-out rese a Gran Bretagna e Polonia sul valore giuridico altrimenti vincolante della Carta dei diritti fondamentali e i tanti protocolli aggiuntivi tesi a soddisfare i vari interessi nazionali, come ancora per la Polonia il sistema di voto con clausola compromissoria cosiddetta di Ioannina, i rappresentanti europei non ritenevano opportuna l’elaborazione di nuovi ed ulteriori piani alternativi, con il rischio di minare la riuscita e l'immagine dell’impianto complessivo del progetto.

Lecito pensare ora e in tempi meno sospetti, che la modalità di ratifica en passant per via parlamentare sia stata frutto di un ragionamento strategico teso a celare e respingere le sacche di contrarietà che albergano in non pochi Paesi.

Alla luce del no irlandese e del deludente vertice europeo del 19 e 20 giugno, in cui si è deciso di non decidere, le attuali prospettive del Trattato mostrano dunque elementi d’inquietudine. Esercitàti gli obblighi costituzionali dell’Irlanda, importante sarà l’approccio di altri paesi dove l’euro-scetticismo potrebbe riprendere forza nei mesi a venire. Alla Francia, che assumerà la presidenza di turno del Consiglio dell’Ue a partire da domani 1° luglio, toccherà il compito di guidare un’intesa e raccogliere le proposte, anche irlandesi, in occasione del Consiglio europeo del 15 ottobre a cui si è rinviato il problema. La stessa Francia aveva dovuto apportare modifiche qualche mese fa alla propria Costituzione per evitare un nuovo referendum e un possibile secondo échec dopo l’ondata nonista del 2005. Una proposta, per quanto concerne l’Irlanda, c'è già e consiste nella possibilità che le sia data una seconda chance, a ratifica avvenuta per gli altri 26 Paesi. In caso di nuovo insuccesso o, persistendo lo stato attuale, si potrà pensare ad una forma di partenariato. Per l’entrata in vigore del Trattato nei primi mesi del 2009, prima delle elezioni europee di giugno, si potrebbe procedere solo con gli Stati che avranno ratificato. Qualcuno potrebbe vedere tale prospettiva come una forzatura, essendo stato firmato il Trattato da tutti e Ventisette i Paesi. Sono queste però le linee guida illustrate dal Presidente della Commissione europea, Barroso, dal Presidente del Parlamento europeo, Poettering, dal Primo Ministro della Slovenia e Presidente del Consiglio europeo, Janez Jansa e da diversi capi di Stato tra i quali Sarkozy che, approfittando del momento, ha ribadito da par suo la non opportunità di eventuali allargamenti; il suo Primo Ministro invece, Fillon, si era espresso per la morte del Trattato. La proposta di un’Europa a due velocità non sembra incontrare i favori della cancelliera Merkel. Tra i Paesi che lasciano il fiato in sospeso la Gran Bretagna, dove si sta attuando una forzatura a dispetto di una consistente opinione pubblica, ha comunicato nei giorni scorsi di aver risolto e respinto il ricorso di un 73enne presso l’Alta Corte di Londra, presso cui era stato chiesto che si tenesse un referendum. La Repubblica Ceca resta in attesa del giudizio della Corte Costituzionale sulla conformità del Trattato di Lisbona al suo diritto costituzionale allorché il Presidente ceco, Vaclav Klaus, noto anti-europeista, ha dichiarato all’indomani del no irlandese la morte del Trattato che, dice, non potrà comunque entrare in vigore a causa della ormai fallita unanimità della ratifica. Il giudizio è atteso alla fine del 2008, giusto prima dell’inizio della Presidenza ceca dell’Ue. Altri tentennamenti potrebbero venire dalla firma da parte del Presidente della Polonia Lech Kaczynski, altro euro-scettico. Sono 26 gli Stati ad aver scelto la via parlamentare e 20 di questi, ultima la Spagna nei giorni scorsi, hanno proceduto alla ratifica. L’Italia, secondo le dichiarazioni del Governo, dovrebbe farlo entro l’estate. Sempre che i mugugni della Lega Nord e l’ostracismo di Berlusconi verso la Commissione europea e non solo, più in generale il suo anti-europeismo mascherato, a volte, da europeismo di facciata, non finiscano per provocare problemi. C’è da considerare infatti che l’Europa, di cui i media italiani parlano poco e in maniera scarsamente articolata, è considerata nel nostro Paese a fini di consenso nazionale, secondo una mentalità di retrospettiva provincial-nazionalistica. A questo approccio possiamo attribuire la proposta di parti del Governo Berlusconi, in dialogo con parti dell’opposizione, di cambiare la legge elettorale ed innalzare la soglia di sbarramento per le elezioni del Parlamento europeo al 5% e con liste bloccate. Come se l’Europa, come affermato criticamente e giustamente dal Presidente del Pse, Martin Schulz, in occasione del recente meeting del gruppo socialista europeo a Napoli, fosse considerata un’”Italia allargata”.

Il dubbio è che la via parlamentare seguita, ancora oggi per 26 Paesi su 27, rappresenti la miglior soluzione. O l’esserlo solo in considerazione della volontà di raggiungere il traguardo dell’entrata in vigore del Trattato prima delle elezioni europee del giugno 2009. E' difficile pensare a cosa potrebbe succedere se si tenesse un referendum nello stesso giorno in tutti i 27 paesi. In caso di consultazione transnazionale, sembrano essere diversi i popoli che potrebbero esprimere il proprio dissenso, forse perché poco informati, semplicemente poco partecipi di un progetto che solo per i numeri è percepito così grande tale che ognuno vorrebbe sentirsene promotore, da un lato, o obiettore, dall’altro.

Ciò che non si può o non si vuol vedere è la sussistenza di un substrato nazional-popolare che ha visto emettere le stesse conclusioni nelle tre consultazioni tenutesi in tre diversi paesi dell’Ue, facendo ripiombare l’Unione europea nella crisi. Si può assumere forse tale dato come effetto della persistenza di una modalità percettiva secondo la quale l’Europa è considerata come un'entità che s’impone dall’alto delle istituzioni e risulta essere ancora troppo lontana dall’affermazione di una vera cittadinanza europea. In tale ipotesi interpretativa l’Irish outcome costituirebbe lo specchio di una crisi endogena, di un deficit democratico irrisolto, venuto alla luce per rigetto. Che si tratti di questo o di altro ancora bisognerà aver chiara l’idea delle difficoltà di legittimazione e diffusione di un testo poco compreso, redatto nel chiuso di sale di tecnocrati e che assomma al concetto di lontananza, (uno dei termini più associati all’Europa nelle ricerche degli studiosi) quello di “paura”, come espressione di un luogo apparentemente aperto, ma in realtà destinato agli invitati prenotati e che siano tali da non intromettersi nelle questioni familiari (nazionali). Una sorta di loft di rappresentanza.

E’ su queste paure e insufficienti conoscenze che si è giocata la campagna del no irlandese e sono queste che hanno fortificato in questi giorni le credenziali del no, ritenute dai sondaggi post-facto più convincenti e persuasive anche dai votanti il si. Paura di una perdita della propria identità e neutralità; di un intervento esterno che possa modificare il sistema fiscale e il ruolo di tigre economica che negli anni il paese verde è andato conquistando, (2° in Europa per Pil 2007) anche grazie agli ingenti finanziamenti europei di cui è stato uno dei maggiori beneficiari. Sono questi i fattori risultati decisivi per la vittoria del no, individuati dall’ Eurobarometro Flash nel sondaggio Gallup condotto nei giorni successivi al referendum. E sono stati soprattutto i giovani ad essersi espressi contro il Trattato; coloro che hanno visto crescere le possibilità lavorative ed il benessere economico nel proprio Paese, con la considerazione di non dover partire a cercar fortuna in casa dei vicini. E’ plausibile che tra i giovani della Bulgaria o della Romania il pensiero sia diverso.

Una tendenza preoccupante risulta tracciabile. Più l’Europa istituzionale sembra trovare dei limiti in un’affermazione auto-referenziale ed elitaria, lasciando ai cittadini un ruolo minore di osservatori-testimoni, più sembra capace di determinarne una reazione contraria e di chiusura nazionalistica. L’Europa dei cittadini e un modello di sviluppo di un’opinione pubblica europea sembrano ancora lontani dall’Europa del Trattato simil-costituzionale.

La pratica istituzionale rischia di chiudersi nell’auto-legittimazione quando si pone come forzatura di una distanza che non riesce a colmare con il corpo elettorale inteso nel senso più partecipativo, anche di un’assemblea costituente. Anche in Europa, democrazia è partecipazione. La più larga possibile.

Auszüge:

Die vollständige Freiheitsrede des Präsidenten Václav Klaus ist hier zu finden:
http://aristo.excusado.net/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080616-132730

Sie ist gleichfalls zu finden auf der offiziellen Website des Staatspräsidenten Václav Klaus.

_________________

Foto © ETA*

Ó, jak jsi silný, stráži. Ó, jak jsi majestátný, hradní stráži. Ó, jak drze tajemný v své povinnosti nehybně se netvářit. Vždycky jsem chtěl být hradní stráž - předvádět se v uniformě a v zahradách. Však nemám tohle drzý čelo ani odvahu změnit svůj život tak: moc a současně tak málo - stát se jedním z vás.

*) ač se to možná na první pohled nezdá, použitá fotka je z tištěného inzerátu na české klimatizace ETA, a ... mimochodem: reklama se hezky obouvá do Václava Klause. Protože náš prezident se může mýlit.

Fra et interview i Lidove Novín, den 17. juni
Med tak til EU Referendum.

What do you think about the Irish No?
The whole of Europe should thank the Irish people for slowing down current erroneous processes towards more unification, the suppression of nation states, towards a 'Europe of regions', and towards greater centralization from above of which the Lisbon Treaty was the embodiment. Thanks to the Irish referendum this was a perfect example of what the common people think about this development - contrary to the politicians supporting the EU who are motivated entirely differently. I thanked a few Irish people personally.

What does the Irish NO mean for the fate of the Lisbon Treaty in your view? What will be its impact for the entire EU?
I cannot imagine any other development besides recognizing the fact that this is not the way to go. Let's seek a different European model than a supranational state with its seat in Brussels. Let's come back to the community of friendly, effectively cooperating states. Let's keep most of the competencies on the level of states. We should let people living on the European continent be Czechs, Poles, Italians, Danes and not make Europeans of them. That is a wrong project. The difference between a Czech, a Pole, an Italian and a Dane (as random examples) and a European is like the difference between Czech, Polish, Danish and esperanto. "Europeanness" is esperanto; an artificial, dead language.

What follows from the Irish No for the Czech Republic? Should we continue in preparing the ratification under these circumstances, or is it not necessary? E.g. the British declared that they are going to continue in the ratification, despite the results in Ireland...
The ratification cannot be continued, the Treaty can no longer come into force. To continue as though nothing has happened, would be a pure hypocrisy. This would be worse news about the "state of the Union" than the Irish NO. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the Czech Republic ended last Friday. To pretend something else is undignified - at least if we are in a world where one plus one equals two. I think that the British didn't declare anything. It was the Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown who declared something. The British democracy is much more complex.

Does the Irish NO change your attitude towards the option of having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in the Czech Republic? And if so, how?
The referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in our country is not necessary today; there is nothing to vote on. The only possible question would be: "Do you, the Czechs, want the Irish to vote again and differently?". It is not about us today.

Should the European Union attempt to create an entirely new document after the Irish NO, instead of dusting the Treaty off or revising it?
Any document is only the last step. We need a new perception of the European integration process. It is necessary to explicitly repudiate the post-Maastricht development towards an ever closer union. The resulting document is then only a composition exercise, but it must be written on a different basis and by different people.

It cannot be written by a German politician who thinks in federalist terms and has been in the European Parliament for the past 30 years. It can neither be written by a Frenchman for whom "Europeanisation" is a way to increase the greatness and importance of France. It can neither be a representative of a country which wants to solve some of its historical traumas "via Europe".

It requires an unemotional consideration about the right administration of "public goods" - which of them belong at the level of towns, regions and states and which at the level of the continent. And above all, which of them do not belong anywhere, because the issue is not about public goods but about "private goods" which must remain subject to the decision-making of free individuals.

What will be the impact of the Irish decision on the Czech EU Presidency in 2009?
We will have a little more competences than we would, was the Lisbon Treaty valid. The Treaty substantially weakened the states and therefore also the presidency of any one of them. But let us not live in illusions. I know well, that the entire concept of a rotating presidency is to a certain extent just a game pretending to represent a real democracy.

Der tschechische Präsident Václav Klaus hat schon am 13.6.2008 das Totenglöcklein geläutet für den Vertrag von Lissabon, über den NUR die Iren abstimmen durften.

siehe:
http://www.hrad.cz/cms/cz/info_servis/tiskove_zpravy/5463.shtml

http://translate.google.de/translate_t?sl=cs&tl=de

Die englische Qualitätszeitung "The Telegraph" meldet die enorm wichtige Nachricht:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/2128391/EU-referendum-Czech-president-says-Lisbon-Treaty-project-is-over.html

Hat eventuell irgendwer oder irgendwas die deutschsprachigen Massenmedien veranlasst auch das hier zu tragen:
.........

Erzählt man uns nicht bezüglich der Presse etwas von "Vierte Gewalt im Staate"?

........

Vaclav Klaus hämmerte am Freitag schon einen weiteren
......................
in den

des WIEDERGÄNGERS Vertrag von Lissabon.
"Wiedergänger" siehe hier:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiederg%C3%A4nger

Wahrscheinlich müssen wir den Sarg nicht zur Zunageln sondern uns auch noch darauf setzen.
_________________

W ponurych nastrojach już od czwartkowego wieczoru byli wszyscy zwolennicy traktatu lizbońskiego w Irlandii. Kiedy się okazało, że frekwencja w referendum mającym zadecydować o ratyfikacji tego dokumentu nie przekroczyła 50 proc., bardzo prawdopodobne stało się to, iż Irlandczycy powiedzieli stanowcze "nie" unijnemu traktatowi. Wczorajszy ranek tylko pogłębił te nastroje, gdyż pierwsze nieoficjalne wyniki potwierdziły te przypuszczenia. Radość wybuchła za to w obozie eurosceptyków, kiedy we wczesnych godzinach popołudniowych podano oficjalne wyniki z większości okręgów. Ponad 53 proc. Irlandczyków nie chce traktatu reformującego z Lizbony!

Mieszkańcy Irlandii odrzucili zdecydowaną większością głosów w czwartkowym referendum traktat reformujący Unię Europejską. Przeciwko jego przyjęciu opowiedziało się 53,4 proc. głosujących (862 415 osób). Za traktatem lizbońskim głosowało 46,6 proc. (752 451 osób). Frekwencja wyborcza wyniosła 53,13 procent. Do głosowania uprawnionych było 3 051 278 Irlandczyków. Głosów nieważnych oddano 6171. W niektórych okręgach stolicy kraju, Dublina, przewaga głosów na "nie" wyniosła nawet 70 procent.
Jeszcze przed upublicznieniem oficjalnych wyników komentatorzy - opierając się jedynie na wstępnych danych - oceniali, że zwolennicy traktatu ponieśli dotkliwą porażkę, gdyż tak wielka przewaga nie powinna ulec roztrwonieniu. Nawet przedstawiciele partii rządzącej, która prowadziła tak intensywną kampanię na rzecz poparcia traktatu z Lizbony, przyznawali, że referendum nie ułożyło się po ich myśli. - Z tego, co słyszę, nie wygląda to dobrze - powiedział irlandzki minister ds. europejskich Dick Roche. - Jednak wciąż trzymam kciuki, może wyjdzie to na dobre - dodał. Jako pierwszy, jeszcze przed ukazaniem się końcowych rezultatów, "smutną" wieść dla narodu przekazał minister sprawiedliwości Dermot Ahern. - Wiele wskazuje na to, że będzie to głosowanie na "nie" - powiedział, z nieukrywanym żalem, minister. Ahern był jedną z czołowych postaci kampanii nawołującej do popierania unijnego dokumentu.
Zupełnie odmienne nastroje panują w obozie sympatyków akcji "Głosuj - NIE". - Jesteśmy bardzo, bardzo szczęśliwi - powiedziała w rozmowie z "Naszym Dziennikiem" irlandzka europarlamentarzystka Kathy Sinnot. - Myślę, że nasi obywatele także są szczęśliwi. Dla nich był to jak najbardziej proeuropejski wybór, gdyż podkreślający zwycięstwo jednej z największych wartości naszego kontynentu, czyli demokracji - dodała. Europejscy liderzy od początku twierdzili, że nie mają przygotowanego planu "B", jeśli Irlandia opowie się przeciwko dokumentowi. - Jeśli Irlandczycy zdecydują się odrzucić traktat lizboński, zwyczajnie nie będzie czegoś takiego jak traktat lizboński - powiedział premier Francji Fran ois Fillon. Z taką opinią zgadza się także Sinnot. - Wynik głosowania oznacza, że traktat przepadł. Znaczy to także, że jeśli Bruksela chce traktatu, to musi wrócić do początku i napisać dokument od nowa.
Należy stworzyć taką umowę, którą zaakceptują przede wszystkim obywatele. Taką, która będzie dobra dla Irlandii, dla Polski i dla każdego spośród 27 krajów członkowskich - stwierdziła posłanka Sinnot. Zauważyła przy tym, że aby tego typu dokument był naprawdę demokratyczny, obywatele wszystkich krajów muszą mieć możliwość kontrolowania procesu jego legislacji, dopiero wówczas będzie można powiedzieć, że wszystkie kraje Wspólnoty świadomie przystają na taki dokument.
Pomimo stanowczego "nie" Irlandii przewodniczący Komisji Europejskiej José Barroso opowiedział się za kontynuowaniem ratyfikacji traktatu lizbońskiego w kolejnych krajach UE.
- Premier Irlandii Brian Cowen powiedział, że traktat z Lizbony nie jest martwy. Ja wierzę, że jest on żywy - mówił Barroso. Zapowiedział, iż decyzję o dalszym rozwoju sytuacji w związku z wynikami referendum powinni podjąć przywódcy państw UE na przyszłotygodniowym brukselskim szczycie.
- Poproszę irlandzkiego premiera, aby wyjaśnił powody odrzucenia traktatu przez irlandzki naród - powiedział Janez Jansza, premier Słowenii, która sprawuje obecnie przewodnictwo w UE.
W innym duchu wypowiedział się jedynie prezydent Czech Vaclav Klaus, który nie kryje zadowolenia z wyników referendum. - Tylko w jednym jedynym państwie UE politycy umożliwili obywatelom wyrażenie ich poglądu. Wynik jest chyba dla wszystkich jasnym przesłaniem. Jest zwycięstwem wolności i rozumu nad sztucznymi elitarystycznymi projektami i europejską biurokracją - uważa Klaus.
Polski minister obrony narodowej Bogdan Klich powiedział, że jeśli wyniki referendum potwierdzą się, Irlandia powinna powtórzyć głosowanie. - Krytycznie oceniam suwerenną decyzję Irlandii, jeśli się ona potwierdzi - powiedział Klich. Dodał, że należy szybko wypracować takie mechanizmy, które pozwolą przekonać Irlandczyków do traktatu, i szybko przeprowadzić ponowne referendum.
- Ile razy obywatele mają odrzucać ten prawny bubel, by to dotarło do wszystkich jego zwolenników - retorycznie pyta Sinnott. - To już trzeci raz, jak traktat ewidentnie przegrywa w krajowych referendach. Odrzucili go już przecież Francuzi, potem Holendrzy, dziś uczynili to Irlandczycy - przypomina historię konstytucji, dziś zwanej traktatem, irlandzka europoseł. - Już raz powinien wystarczyć, by przemówić do rozsądku, a nie trzy. Kiedy liderzy wreszcie zaczną nas słuchać? - zakończyła.
Z tą opinią zgadza się całkowicie polski europoseł Konrad Szymański. - Traktat musi trafić do kosza, gdyż nie widzę żadnych możliwości, aby go poddawać ponownemu głosowaniu lub też przepychać bocznymi drzwiami - podsumował parlamentarzysta.
- Upada traktat, który zakładał zwiększenie kompetencji Unii wobec państw narodowych bez żadnego realnego zwiększenia solidarności w jej działaniach. Decyzja Irlandii jest dla Polski podwójnie korzystna: potwierdza pozycję naszego kraju w Unii - uważa lider Prawicy Rzeczypospolitej Marek Jurek.
W pamięci pozostają do dziś słowa z debaty w polskim Sejmie, w której premier Donald Tusk - już po podpisaniu traktatu reformującego - przyznał, że nie czytał tego dokumentu. Rodzi się więc pytanie, kto wykazuje się większą odpowiedzialnością, czy ci, którzy czytając traktat, nie zrozumiawszy go, głosują na "nie", czy ci, którzy w ogóle nie czytając dokumentu, całym sercem nawołują do popierania go?
Łukasz Sianożęcki

Domnul V. Klaus este preşedintele Cehiei şi s-ar părea că doreşte să răstoarne toate convingerile noastre legate de schimbările climatice din ultimul timp, argumentând faptul că tot acest "ecologism" reprezintă doar o altă formă de totalitarism.

De fapt d. V.K. nu reuşeste să facă nimic.

În acelaşi articol găsim explicaţia faptului ca d. Vaclav Klaus alege să susţină astfel de idei şi nu numai, ce par să se opună a tot ceea ce este ştiut şi acceptat.  Scopul pare să fie atragerea alegătorilor cehi care sunt îndrăgostiţi de preşedinţi intelectuali şi au bizara impresie că d. V.K. stârneşte adevărate furtuni politice internaţionale. Iar ideile de acest tip sunt alese tocmai pentru că în Cehia oameni nu sunt interesaţi de anumite aspecte discutate de d. V.K:, cum ar fi şi acesta al schimbărilor climatice cauzate de om.

Un exemplu de părere contrară putem găsi în Adevărul Verde (accesând varianta online a ziarului Adevărul) unde este prezentată ultima acţiune ONU, aceea de alcătui un atlas cu pozele Africii din ultimii 35 de ani prin intermediul căruia putem observa extrem de bine consecinţele schimbărilor climatice cauzate de om.

Nu-i nimic...nu face niciun rău demersul domnului preşedinte Vaclav Klaus, adică doar nu este primul om ce preferă să distrugă în propriul folos!

The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles [Link]

I spent most of my life under the communist regime which ignored and brutally violated human freedom, and I remember quite well, wanted to command, not only the people, but also the nature, to command wind and rain is one of the famous slogans I remember since my childhood... In the past, it was in the name of the Marxist or the proletariat, this time in the name of the planet. Structurally, it is very similar... The current danger as I see it is environmentalism and especially its strongest version, climate alarmism.

Klaus, Notes for the Washington, D.C. Presentation of the Book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” [Link]

Related Articles:

"Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs" [Link]

"Green tax revolt: Britons 'will not foot bill to save planet'" [Link]

Related Posts:

Myanmar Gets Condoms
The Green Path To Human Extinction
Al Gore, The Bible, And Global Warming

In the most sweeping global study yet of cooperation, a team of experimental economists tested university students in 15 countries to see how people contribute to joint ventures and what happens to them when they don't. The European research team discovered startling differences in how groups around the world react when punishment is handed out for antisocial behavior.

Among students in the U.S., Switzerland, China and the U.K., those identified as freeloaders most often took their punishment as a spur to contribute more generously. But in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Greece and Russia, the freeloaders more often struck back, retaliating against those who punished them, even against those who had given most to everyone's benefit. It was akin to rapping the knuckles of the helping hand.

In trying to understand the very big differences in the results from the different countries, the researches came to this conclusion.

Such a readiness to retaliate, researchers said, reflected relatively lower levels of trust, civic cooperation and the rule of law as measured by social scientists in the World Values Survey, which periodically assesses basic values and beliefs in more than 80 societies. In countries with democratic market economies, peer pressure goaded people to cooperate. Among authoritarian societies or those dominated more by ties of kinship, freeloaders instead lashed out at those who censured them, the researchers found.

It seems to me that the paranoia of people like Klaus, who experienced totalitarian regimes, may lead them to believe that cooperation around issues of climate change are not possible without state coercion. But this research shows that in most democratic societies, shaming of "freeloaders" like big polluters or drivers of Hummers, actually works.

Earth Times, 5.27.08
Washington - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.

"My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity," he said.

...Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.

Global warming must be a lie because, if it were not, it would take large scale government action to deal with it, and big government and the loss of our freedom is the greatest danger that we all face.

As I have argued elsewhere understanding that bit of nonsense is fundamental to understanding how Climaticide denialists think and why they care so little about science.

I have defined four principle categories of denialists.

1) Plutocrats
2) Shills
3) Literate conservative/libertarian ideologues
4) The right-wing booboisie

Today I propose to illustrate my earlier argument with a selection of denialist quotations from these four categories. You can find these quotes all over the web. For the most part I present the quotations in no particular order. I trust you will have no trouble either identifying the common elements in each of the quotes nor in linking the quote to the appropriate category of denialist.

Still, for what it's worth, I will give you my take on how the categories relate to each other below.

For the plutocrats, ideology is mostly a cover for their greed and a thin salve for whatever conscience they have left. For the shills (scientists and academics paid by the plutocrats to deny global warming), ideology is an indispensable tool, required by their corporate masters, and useful in providing intellectual ammunition to categories 3 and 4 and for bamboozling the uninformed public at large. For information on the relationships between the plutocrats and the shills follow this link and click on MAP EXXON'S NETWORK.

And now for the quotes: [NOTE: All emphases are mine. Other than that, all quotes are unedited. I didn't have the time to place a "sic" after every misspelling.]

From biblebelievers.com

If the Humanists really believed the world was getting warmer, they would be telling us not to be alarmed because "Man will rise to the occasion!" Instead, they huddle in the corner like terrified mice. Why? Because they want Americans to huddle in the corner like terrified mice so they can gain more power over us. Humanists hate America.

I have said it time and time again. The goal of environmentalism and animal rightism is not to "save the earth." Their goal is to destroy the American economy. Why? Because a strong America is a detriment to a One World government! That's why over 160 nations were exempted from the environmental restrictions placed on the U.S. at Kyoto, Japan. The nations with the dirtiest air were exempted while stricter regulations were imposed on America--the nation that has done the most to clean up its environment.

From TennesseeFree.com

At some point the average guy on the street will have to wise up and realize that this is all just a bunch of idiocy, conjured up for the purpose of empowering government and reducing liberty.

In the United States, we even have people on the federal government’s payroll, calling for oil company executives, who are guilty of the crime of engaging in a debate, to be tried and convicted of “high crimes against humanity and nature”.

We live in dangerous times folks. These big government authoritarians want to run every part of your life. They want to control everything you do. People wake up.

From the reader comments at Political Punch (MSNBC.com)

You simple minded fool.The idea that global warming is man made has not been determined beyond a reasonable doubt.It's what is called a theory (look up the definition).You call people who don't believe in this junk science numbskulls.You sir/madam are an idiot and have bought the lie hook line and sinker.I could give you a list as long as your arm of scientist who disagree with the so called prevailing attitude that global warming is man made but I am most confident that you are to blind and ignorant to do any real thinking of your own so I will not waste my time. If you want to be taxed at a higher rate and give up your individual freedoms to the "Almighty Government Bureaucracy" ,who preach this nonsense ,then by all means DO IT. As for me I will not be lead like a sheep down the road of propaganda and lies.And please stop with the nonsense that everyone who disagrees with this lie is somehow a right wing nut.Surely you are more intelligent than that.But then again.......maybe your not.

From syndicated columnist and Fox News Watch panelist Cal Thomas at Real Clear Poltitics

Instead of buying into the claims of global warming alarmists who seek more control over our lives through big government intrusion, McCain should demand a debate on the issue. Global warming cult leaders won't debate. Al Gore has refused every debate challenge, asserting the facts are undeniable and that global warming is real. That's another mark of a cult leader; he will tolerate no doubters.

From Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic on CBSNEWS.COM

Centralized planners with "megalomaniac ambitions" are now working to restrain democratic development and economic activity under the guise of environmentalism, said Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. He spoke Tuesday morning at conference in New York City

From Freedom Advocates

The Big Lie: The notion that global warming is man-made is a big lie.

The science of worldwide climate is complex. That makes the opportunity to take advantage of this lie great:

* Complex science issues are easy to selectively define as a crisis.
* Big government advocates and politicians looking for more power need a crisis to ‘save us from’. Global warming is that.
* Environmental non-government organizations (NGOs) need something to save...global warming lets them save the world.
* Many big business interests join environmentalists and politicians to form PPPs (public-private partnerships). They gain access to power and public funds.
* The current Democrat and Republican presidential candidates buy into man-made global warming crisis as agents of the new world order.

From Frontiers of Freedom (See more at the ExxonSecrets Factsheet)

What these political global warming useful idiots ignore is the earth is actually in a cooling cycle that even government agencies have acknowledged. Furthermore the simple scientific truth is that the earth’s atmosphere contains 0.038% carbon dioxide and water vapor makes up most of the rest. If the earth is warming, and obviously it has not during the last decade, any role played by carbon dioxide is negligible. But of course the politicos and leftists won’t accept that because their entire agenda depends on selling it to a gullible public.

From S. Fred Singer at International Society for Individual Liberty

In the past few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that – should it occur – a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.

From Peter Ferrara at National Review Online

Global warming has nothing to do with climate or science. What it is all about is the great, historic class struggle between working people and the ruling classes.

Global warming is a great excuse for a massive expansion of government power. That, not science, is why the overlords, from the New York Times to the United Nations to Al Gore, so heartily embrace it.

The U.N. thinks global warming is a perfect reason for the U.N. to be transformed into a world government. So how long do you think it took for the world-class bureaucrats at Turtle Bay to conclude that global warming was real and caused by humans?

CORRECTION: June 29, 2008 Thanks to the alert reader who emailed me to point out that shelleytherepublican.com, quoted immediately below, is actually satire. I apologize for not having caught this myself. I do find it interesting that a satirical site like STR, at least at first glance, is nearly indistinguishable from many genuine right-wing sites (witness the other quotations in this diary.) But that's no excuse. I should have checked my facts more carefully. Please accept my apologies. Here's a link to an article about the guy behind shelleytherepublican.com and other similar sites.

From shelleytheRepublican.com

If you check who is believing in the modern big lie that is global warming you will see that it’s almost exclusively liberals. It’s a well known fact that liberalism is a sickness of the mind just like pedophilia and autism. Liberals are unable to live the good life, like normal Americans can. They can not enjoy the freedom, the wealth and justice the homeland offers to all of us. They have to create a climate of fear and mistrust in order to justify their own paranoia. The latest liberal invention is global warming, which is fake of course. There is no such think. The globe is much to big as to be influenced by us humans and God would never allow it to happen.

From Sheldon Richman at the Foundation for Economic Education (Although Richman as a libertarian rejects government action against Cimaticide, his analysis of how fear of government causes conservatives and libertarians to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change is generally dispassionate and thoughtful.)

For advocates of individual liberty it is tempting to believe the skeptics are right because the other side is associated with statist solutions to climate change. Most solutions call for government control over the burning of fossil fuels. No advocate of free markets can be comfortable with a position that entails substantial taxes and subsidies to achieve a political objective -- reduction of carbon emissions -- especially when the solutions promise no more than negligible reductions in temperature.

From Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily (More on Farah here.)

But think about the real absurdity of fighting "climate change" – the new apocalyptic menace.

As a political ax, it can't be beat. Any variation in the weather represents a reason for controlling human behavior by any means necessary and to any extent necessary.

In a few years, it will be evident to one and all they have been hoaxed by the doomsday salesmen about global warming. But there will always be shifts in the weather. And any time we experience those shifts that have occurred from the beginning of the world, there will be justification for draconian actions by government.

From Canadian "property rights" activist Ron Ewart at Climate Change Fraud

To illustrate the brainwashing of our kids, here is a short story. A while back we taught a science lesson to 10-year olds once a week. One of our subjects was the weather. We know quite a bit about the weather because of our experience as a pilot. When we asked the students what four things affect the weather, thinking we would get answers like the Sun, ocean currents, humidity, jet streams and the like, we were taken back when the first suggestion by one of the kids was global warming and the second was man-made pollutants. The term brainwashed instantly came to mind.

The basic premise of these pod invaders is that all humans are a stain on the Earth and must be regulated and taxed to keep them from harming themselves and the planet. They do not deserve freedom, much less property rights. To them, government is best suited to accomplish the task of enforcing the regulations, taxing the people, managing the land and water and saving Mother Earth. And government has grown to mean a small cadre of elite world individuals who control the money, the food, the water, the land and the energy (oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear). The rest of the 6.5 billion people are just pawns in the grand scheme of world domination.

From the Minnesota Free Market Institute

“Climate change” is not something induced by human beings or a “crisis” to be avoided; it is simply the reality of living on earth. To the extent that human activities may contribute to climate variability, the same can be said of termites, trees, and even the slow action of plate tectonics. It’s true, but what’s your point? Literally everything changes the state of the earth, all the time. Fighting change is like fighting gravity; good luck! Call me when you succeed.

The steady drumbeat of fear mongering has nothing to do with a “crisis” of climate change, because climate change is not a crisis. It was reality before human beings existed, and will be long after we are all buried.

However, it has everything to do with promoting the solution to the crisis of climate change: the demotion of individualism and liberty and the promotion of collective solutions and collectivism in general.

From Edwin J. Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation (More on the Heritage Foundation here.)

Few Americans understand what's really going on. Hint: The conservative revolution has robbed liberals of a vehicle for expanding the size and power of government. But a long-term environmental crisis, even one manufactured by alarmists, could change that.

The global-warming scenario provides advocates of big government with an excuse for tapping into the lifeline of the U.S. economy for the foreseeable future. Better yet, the current president will be long gone before most of the belt-tightening begins to pinch.

From
Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

This final quotation, an excerpt from the NYT's, is interesting because it makes so plainly obvious that, for or the plutocrats, ideology is merely a convenient disguise to be slipped into when it is to their advantage and cast off when it is not. Note that in this quotation there is no condemnation of big government and no worries about loss of freedom. All there is is greed and an urgent concern that the plutocrats (in this case, Peabody Energy) get as big a slice of the big-government pie as possible.

From the New York Times

Coal executives say that they need government help primarily because oil prices are so volatile and the upfront construction costs are so high. “We’re not asking for everything. All we’re asking for is something,” said Hunt Ramsbottom, chief executive of Rentech Inc., which is trying to build two plants at mines owned by Peabody Energy.

But coal executives anticipate potentially huge profits. Gregory H. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy, based in St. Louis, which has $5.3 billion in sales, told an industry conference nearly two years ago that the value of Peabody’s coal reserves would skyrocket almost tenfold, to $3.6 trillion, if it sold all its coal in the form of liquid fuels [my link].

Coal industry lobbying has reached a fever pitch. The industry spent $6 million on federal lobbying in 2005 and 2006, three times what it spent each year from 2000 through 2004, according to calculations by Politicalmoneyline.com.

Peabody, which has quadrupled its annual lobbying budget to about $2 million since 2004, recently hired Richard A. Gephardt, the Missouri Democrat who was House majority leader from 1989 to 1995 and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and 2004, to help make its case in Congress.

One of the most vociferous champions of coal-to-liquid fuels is the Southern States Energy Board, a group organized by governors from 16 states. Last year, the group published a study, which cost $500,000, that concluded that coal-to-liquid fuel could and should replace almost one-third of imported oil by 2030.

As it happens, the coal industry supplied much of the financing for the study and subsequent marketing. Peabody Energy contributed about $150,000 and the National Mining Association added $50,000, officials at the Southern States Energy Board said.

The inducements under discussion would not only subsidize up to 10 coal-to-liquid plants, but also guarantee a minimum market through long-term contracts with the Air Force and minimum prices for at least some producers.

“There is financial uncertainty, which is inhibiting the flow of private capital into the construction of coal-to-liquid facilities,” said Mr. Boucher, who supports most of the proposals and is drafting portions of the energy bill.

Deny, lie, deny, lie, deny, lie until the danger is so patent and urgent that it can no longer be denied nor the lie believed, then, express your concern and offer to fix the problem with a solution (clean coal) that is in itself a lie, and, finally, lobby your heart out to make certain that the taxpayer billions go to you instead of to real sustainable energy companies.

Hmm, could this be a crime against humanity?

[Crossposted at Daily Kos]