For your reading pleasure, and just to prove idiotic climate change denialism isn’t unique to the Anglosphere, this piece of idiocy from the president of the Czech republic, Vaclav Klaus, published in the Financial Times.
Quoting from both Michael Crichton and Richard Lindzen, President Klaus goes on to compare proponents of environmental regulation to communism (good piece of local colour there), and makes the following bizarre claim:
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.
At one level he has a debatable point. John Quiggin has (amongst many others) argued that high and rising living standards do tend to correlate with looking after the environment better. But even accepting that premise, Klaus surely misunderstands why this is the case. The real reason why rich countries have cleaner environments is that their citizens are prepared to stomach – more than that, actively demand – legislation to protect the environment, even if it imposes economic costs.
More, almost daily Czech climate denial can be found on my blog:
http://motls.blogspot.com/search/label/climate
Thanks.
The real reason why rich countries have cleaner environments is that their citizens are prepared to stomach – more than that, actively demand – legislation to protect the environment, even if it imposes economic costs.
You seem quite certain about this. Where is your evidence? Counter arguments could easily be made: that the real reason rich countries have cleaner environments is because of the rise of the tourism industry, where business owners have a clear incentive to protect the environment they make a dollar out of. Or that as people in rich countries acquire more property and land they have a greater wish to protect the property and land that they own.
TimT seems rather confused.
His counter arguments are exactly why increasing prosperity asks for greater standards.
Tim, what Fred said.
The point is that the environment’s better condition doesn’t just happen spontaneously . Most of the time, collective action through regulation makes it happen.
The empirical evidence from the OECD, and in studies such as Eban Goodstein’s The Trade-Off Myth, is that environmental regulation has actually resulted in a slight net economic and employment gain. I had more to say about this issue last year.
The other thing which Klaus overlooks is that economic growth tends not to be promoted by ruining the biophysical and ecological basis of economic activity.
And since Klaus kicks the commo can, let us not forget that when the Berlin Wall came down it was because East Germans clearly preferred to live in a society with Greens in state and federal parliaments, very strong environmental NGOs and (at the time) the strongest greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in the developed world, rather than the old GDR of Trabants, no Greens in parliament, no legal environmental NGOs and (at that time) the highest per capita GHG emissions in the world.
Most of the time, collective action through regulation makes it happen.
Again I ask: where is your evidence? Are you completely prepared to discount the voluntary actions of interested individuals? Greenpeace might have a few things to say about that!
Tim,
The history of the Clean Air Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act and earlier legislation about the cleaning up of rivers and water supplies makes it pretty clear that when people live in polluted environments and are being harmed by the pollution they demand action, including legislation-mandated action to clean up the pollution. The UK’s Clean Air Act 1956 was a response to the Great Smog of 1952 not a sudden surge in post-war tourism.
Likewise Victoria’s Parliament instituted the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works to secure a clean water supply and a sewerage system to improve public health for a city which had, for the want of both, the nickname “Smellbourne” in the late 19th century and not in anticipation of a tourist boom. Of course there would have been economic benefits as well, such as reduced public health costs of treating air-borne and water-borne diseases, the increased productivity of a healthy workforce and the attractions of a secure water supply for industry (certainly a boon to breweries).
I’m not sure that your argument about people in rich countries acquiring more property and land as being an incentive for environmental regulation is sound. Europe is no larger in area than it was one hundred or two hundred years ago. What has changed is the ownership of land as the previously poor have got richer and land utilisation has moved from agriculture to urbanisation with increased populations and their expectations about the size and amenity of the properties they live in. However their needs for clean air and clean water just to live healthy lives will precede their property acquisition and any environmental concerns they have about property values.
“let us not forget that when the Berlin Wall came down it was because East Germans clearly preferred to live in a society with Greens in state and federal parliaments, very strong environmental NGOs and (at the time) the strongest greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in the developed world”
Well, that and a couple of other things, maybe…..
“Well, that and a couple of other things, maybe…..
No doubt, but don’t forget that one of the most vocal (and most suppressed) protest groups in East Germany were the people protesting about all the industrial pollution, which was much worse than in West Germany. The same was true throughout all of east Europe. If the Soviet bloc communists had deliberately set out to systematically destroy their natural environments, they wouldn’t have done anything any differently. They left the place filthy and poisoned.
Since he lived through all of this, it can’t have been easy for Klaus to equate environmentalism with communism. But we must give the man credit — his ability of tick all the right wing boxes all the time, albeit in a competely reflexive fashion, is a wonder to behold. And for the true believers (and that clearly excludes sell outs like John Howard), global warming denialism is a tenet of faith.
There is actually a more serious point to be made in response to Klaus’s comparison between “ambitious environmentalism” and communism, and which I will now make.
Klaus’s column clearly shows his strong Hayekian convictions, particularly regarding the importance of individual liberty and the natural evolution of human society free of central state direction. It appears that one of his main concerns, and perhaps the main concern, is that acceptance of the reality of global warming and of the need for strong action to address it could lead to political and policy consequences which Klaus would deplore from a Hayekian/libertarian/classical liberal perspective. It is also fairly clear that similar concerns underpin the greenhouse scepticism of many others on the right.
A more constructive and astute approach is taken by those on the pro-market right who are attempting to convince their fellow citizens on that side of the room that the right will only succeed in marginalising itself if it continues to deny global warming or dispute its seriousness as a problem, and that the sensible course of action would be for the pro-market right to accept that there is a problem and to engage in the debate about solutions with a view to ensuring that economically liberal policy responses are in the ring.
One East German was quoted as saying he thought the wall coming down and unification with West Germany was good because of “he would be happy and could drive a BMW”.
Vaclav’s views are actually shared by the likes of John Howard and John Stone (ex Reserve Bank), in line with the Liberal ethos of the “trickle down effect”. It goes like: “Everyone needs to be wealthy so we can afford to save the enviromwent, and wealth will trickle down from the rich to the poor. We musn’t do anything that will compromise wealth generation (such as stopping coal exports, increasing demand for and consumption of power, or stopping logging old growth forests). And for every problem we encounter along the way, technology (such as nuclear, GMOs, CCS etc) will fix it.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that this belief is flawed as climate change gallops on and scientific estimates for maximum negative effects (such as CO2 emissions, reductions in rainfall and extreme weather aberrations) are exceeded. It would be interesting to tally up all the real economic costs of floods, hurricanes, droughts and sea level rises. This is the real cost of climate change, interestingly absent from the “political debate”.
And what Spiros said. I once read a lovely quote from Pope John Paul II in support of Polish environmentalists who were campaigning on local environmental problems in the early 1980s under the Solidarnosc umbrella.
And there’s always a chuckle to be had from the sight of a Hayekian channelling Marx and Engels, who pioneered the anti-Malthusian arguments which are part of the intellectual toolkit of contemporary rightists (and a few on the left who are recognisable by their habit of denouncing TEH PSEUDO-LEFT) whenever they seek to argue against the existence of ecological limits to the physical scale of human economic activity.
NB: To argue that there are ecological limits to the physical scale of human economic activity is not nececssarily to argue that there are ecological limits to economic growth.
Dear me Robert, this is tame stuff by denialist standards. You should spend some time over at Bolt’s blog where greens are regularly compared to Nazis, and climate change is describe as a giant leftist conspiracy … even wikipedia is in on the scam (apparently). Bolt quotes Vaclav Klaus often, as well as that LuboÅ¡ Motl nutbar who posted the first comment.
Fortunately Bolt is away until late July. Lets hope Rupe has a serious talk to him about the new corporate policy on climate change while he’s away.
In no way seeking to be labelled a denialist, but haven’t rich countries out-sourced their environmental depredations to other countries more willing to destroy their environments to make a fast buck?
Malaysia, the Phillipines and Indonesia for timber, China and India for manufacturing, smelting and refining, Nigeria for oil…I’m sure there are other examples.
I think that is a very important point, zebbidies spring. Ignoring our complicity in those destructive practices in the third world parallels our ignorance of the global division of labour, and the way that it benefits socialised labour here. The two are interrelated, I suspect.
Zebbidies spring: to some extent, but not as much as you’d think.
The amount of stuff we manufacture in Australia continues to increase.
I think I’ve made this point before – it’s a bit of a myth that we don’t have a manufacturing industry in Australia any more.
I wouldn’t assume that we have outsourced ‘necessary’ environmental destruction – ie that we would of necessity be doing that if these countries did not – so much as that we are in a structural position of complicity with these practices, and that the factors involved, like poverty and non-democratic governments, are in part related to a world system that we benefit from.
That’s right, Kim. About a million people go off to work every day in this non-activity. I believe that it accounts for a greater proportion of GDP than mining or agriculture.
Good points, Adam.
If you come back to greenhouse gases rather than the environment in general the Stern Review found that economies become more GHG intensive as they industrialise. As their economies mature they become less GHG intensive with growth, but they do continue to increase emissions nevertheless. That’s internal, quite apart from the destruction they cause indirectly elsewhere.
Manufacturing accounts for a greater proportion of GDP than mining?
Has to be a statistician involved in that outcome.
Manufacturing isn’t drawing people back from overseas for the high pay for mind numbing menial jobs.
“let us not forget that when the Berlin Wall came down it was because East Germans clearly preferred to live in a society with Greens in state and federal parliaments, very strong environmental NGOs and (at the time) the strongest greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in the developed world�
This is a joke? Right?
SATP: Lesson for the day – Exports and GDP are not the same thing.
For bonus points, go to the ABS website and download the latest GDP figures, and have a look at the breakdowns by sector.
SATP, the joke is the absurd hyperbole engaged in by commentators who equate environmental concern with the twentieth century totalitarian evils of communism and fascism.
There, I’ve given my own side a token spray to prove my inherent fairness and decency as a commentator, now I can settle back into my comfort zone and bag the left in what remains of this Federal election year.
Robert, have you ever considered the possibility that SATP is actually referring to the GDP of Woop Woop?
Now all the discussion needs is for someone from The Last Superpower to join in and declare that real communists don’t believe in global warming
Yeah… I’m a bit suss on that as well. Most wanted the Wall to come down for higher living standards, and also getting the Stasi off their back. I don’t think CO2 levels and NGOs really factored into the thinking of the average Josef living in Karl Marx Stadt at the time.
Still, Spiros was on the money with this:
Amazingly so. I think one of the SU’s main legacies is to create Lake Karachay – the “most polluted place” in the world. (Yes, even more than the area around Chernobyl.) Dump radioactive waste in the water, let a drought occur, and you have a place where you can get a lethal dose of radiation in an hour.
This is why Vaclav Klaus is an idiot. He should know damned better.
My reference to the fall of the Berlin Wall was not meant to be taken too seriously as historical analysis of that and related events. It was a riposte to the cliched absurdity of Klaus comparing environmentalist concern about global warming (a concern shared by, amongst others, Pope Benedict XVI) with Eastern Bloc communism.
Meanwhile, the Catallaxy mob are far too embarrassed to defend their fellow Hayekian’s nescience on global warming and are reduced to snarking based on quoting me out of context.
And if Joe Cambria at Catallaxy continues to disregard my teachings on global warming, there could be consequences for his place in the Church
Wow, I didn’t realise until now how much of Catallaxy was just talking about what went on over here.
From where I stand, Paul, your statement was always a riposte rather than a complete historical thesis on that period in German history. All fun aside, there are some rhetorical techniques that don’t seem to be read as such by the literalists. Catallaxy seems to be full of them (after about 5 minutes investigation, admittedly), but there are a couple here and there on LP.
Yeah. Not cricket and I said as much.
It’s an interesting issue really, and maybe for another thread, but I wonder if some rhetorical nuance is lost on us due to the medium. Normally I’m happy to read for nuance and context, but given the immediacy of comments threads, perhaps it’s a context where poor reading practices are always threatening to emerge.
Thanks Adrien. Nonetheless, if the worst trial I have to endure in life is Jason Soon’s intermittent kicking of rusty commo cans in my direction, and the blithering idiots who are permitted to dominate Catallaxy comments threads under Jason’s well-meaning but misguided ultra-liberal comments policy, I’ll live with it.
Also Joe Cambria’s opinions about other people’s capacity to generate or to recognise humour should be read in the light of the fact that a certain Catallaxy habitue once ran a campaign to have John Quiggin sacked from UQ because of a joke on his blog about the procedure for appointing the Pope.