Alleges
green lobby bigger threat to freedom and democracy than communism.
21.3.2007 - ENGLISH PAGES
Answers to questions from
the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, on the issue of mankind’s contribution to global warming and climate
change
Concerning mankind’s
contribution to climate change and in keeping with obligations towards the
welfare of our citizens: what, in your view, should policymakers consider when
addressing climate change?
The – so
called – climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of
the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public
policies in the whole world.
My ambition is not to bring additional arguments to the scientific
climatological debate about this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that up to
now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough and has not
provided sufficient basis for the policymakers’ reaction. What I am really
concerned about is the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain
political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free
society. It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing
a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom.
As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say
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
variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.
This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their
protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and
spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of
the whole world.
The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable
truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to
exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is
based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to
be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing
policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations,
prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people
subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. To use the words of
Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it
by their own, very doubtful human design.
The environmentalist paradigm of thinking is absolutely static. They 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 as regards natural
conditions, climate, distribution of species on earth, etc. They neglect the
fact that the climate has been changing fundamentally throughout the existence
of our planet and that there are proofs of substantial climate fluctuations even
in known and documented history. Their reasoning is based on historically short
and incomplete observations and data series which cannot justify the
catastrophic conclusions they draw. They neglect the complexity of factors that
determine the evolution of the climate and blame contemporary mankind and the
whole industrial civilization for being the decisive factors responsible for
climate change and other environmental risks.
By concentrating on the human contribution to the climate change the
environmentalists ask for immediate political action based on limiting economic
growth, consumption, or human behavior they consider hazardous. They do not
believe in the future economic expansion of the society, they ignore the
technological progress the future generations will enjoy, and they ignore the
proven fact that the higher the wealth of society is, the higher is the quality
of the environment.
The policymakers are pushed to follow this media-driven hysteria based on
speculative and hard evidence lacking theories, and to adopt enormously costly
programs which would waste scarce resources in order to stop the probably
unstoppable climate changes, caused not by human behavior but by various
exogenous and endogenous natural processes (such as fluctuating solar activity).
My answer to your first question, i.e. what should policymakers consider when
addressing climate change, is that policymakers should under all circumstances
stick to the principles free society is based on, that they should not transfer
the right to choose and decide from the people to any advocacy group claiming
that it knows better than the rest of the people what is good for them.
Policymakers should protect taxpayers’ money and avoid wasting it on doubtful
projects which cannot bring positive results.
How should policies address the rate and consequences of climate change and
to what extent should regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases be a focus of
any such policies?
Policies should realistically evaluate the potential our civilization has,
as compared with the power of natural forces influencing climate. It is an
evident waste of society’s resources to try to combat an increase of solar
activity or the movement of ocean currents. No government action can stop the
world and nature from changing. Therefore, I disagree with plans such as the
Kyoto Protocol or similar initiatives, which set arbitrary targets requiring
enormous costs without realistic prospects for the success of these measures.
If we accept global warming as a real phenomenon, I believe we should address it
in an absolutely different way. Instead of hopeless attempts to fight it, we
should prepare ourselves for its consequences. If the atmosphere warms up, the
effects do not have to be predominantly negative. While some deserts may get
larger and some ocean shores flooded, enormous parts of the earth – up until now
empty because of their severe, cold climate – may become fertile areas able to
accommodate millions of people. It is also important to realize that no
planetary change comes overnight.
Therefore, I warn against adopting regulations based on the so- called
precautionary principle which the environmentalists use to justify their
recommendations, the clear benefit of which they are not able to prove.
Responsible politics should take into account the opportunity costs of such
proposals and be aware of the fact that the wasteful environmentalist policies
are adopted to the detriment of other policies, thus neglecting many other
important needs of millions of people all over the world. Each policy measure
must be based on a cost- benefit analysis.
Mankind has already accumulated tragic experience with one very proud
intellectual stream that claimed that it knew how to manage society better that
spontaneous market forces. It was communism and it failed, leaving behind
millions of victims. Now, a new -ism has emerged that claims to be able to
manage even nature and, through it, people. This excessive human pride – just as
the previous attempts – cannot but fail. The world is a complex and complicated
system that cannot be organized according to an environmentalist human design,
without repeating the tragic experience of wasting resources, suppressing
people’s freedom, and destroying the prosperity of the whole human society.
My recommendation, therefore, is to pay attention to the thousands of small
things that negatively influence the quality of the environment. And to protect
and foster fundamental systemic factors without which the economy and society
cannot operate efficiently – i.e. to guarantee human freedom and basic economic
principles such as the free market, a functioning price system and clearly
defined ownership rights. They motivate economic agents to behave rationally.
Without them, no policies can protect either the citizens or the environment.
Policymakers should resist environmentalist calls for new policies because there
are too many uncertainties in scientific debates on climate change. It is
impossible to control natural factors causing climate change. The negative
impact of the proposed regulation on economic growth is to the detriment of all
other possible risks, including the environmental ones.
What will be the effect on national economies, consumer well-being, job
creation, and future innovation under various climate change policy scenarios
that have come to your attention?
If the policymakers accept the maximalistic environmental demands, the
effects on national economies will be devastating. It would stimulate some, very
small parts of the economy while leaving a bigger part of it choked by
artificial limits, regulations, and restrictions. The rate of growth would
decline and the competitiveness of the firms on international markets would be
seriously affected. It would have a negative impact on employment and job
creation. Only rational policies, making spontaneous adjustments possible, can
justify government intervention.
What impact and effectiveness will so-called cap-and-trade policies have upon
the reduction of climate change threats and our ability to address these threats
in the future?
Cap-and-trade policies are a technical tool to achieve pollution reduction
goals by more market compatible means. They can help if the general idea behind
the scheme is rational. I do not believe the whole idea to combat climate change
by emission limits is rational and I, therefore, consider the technicalities of
its eventual implementation to be of secondary importance.
What is the moral obligation of developed countries to the developing
countries of the world? Should developed countries embark on large emissions
reduction schemes while developing countries are allowed to continue to increase
emissions unabated?
The moral obligation of developed countries to the developing countries is
to create such an environment which guarantees free exchange of goods, services,
and capital flows, enables utilization of comparative advantages of individual
countries and thus stimulates economic development of the less developed
countries. Artificial administrative barriers, limits and regulations imposed by
developed countries discriminate the developing world, affect its economic
growth, and prolong poverty and underdevelopment. The environmentalist proposals
are an exact example of such illiberal policies that are so harmful for the
developing countries. They will not be able to cope with the limits and
standards imposed on the world by irrational environmental policies, they will
not be able to absorb new technological standards required by the
anti-greenhouse religion, their products will have difficult access to the
developed markets, and as a result the gap between them and the developed world
will widen.
It is an illusion to believe that severe anti-climate change policies could be
limited to developed countries only. If the policies of the environmentalists
are adopted by developed countries, sooner or later their ambitions to control
and manage the whole planet will spread the emissions reduction requirements
worldwide. The developing countries will be forced to accept irrational targets
and limitations because “earth is first” and their needs are secondary. The
environmentalist argumentation gives ammunition to protectionists of all colors
who try to eliminate competition coming from newly industrialized countries.
Therefore, the moral obligation of the developed countries is not to introduce
large emissions reduction schemes.
