| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Václav Klaus: 'Largest tax increase in world... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Eric Gisin... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/05/v-225-clav-klaus-largest-tax-increase-in-world-history.aspx
November 5, 2009, 16:25:00 | NP Editor
Despite huge spending, it has not been proved that the human effect on the climate is significant
By Václav Klaus
Many thanks for the invitation and for the courage to organize such an important gathering in the
moment when political correctness tells you not to do it.
We are meeting one month before the Climate Change Copenhagen Summit and several weeks before the
U.S. Senate hearing regarding the cap-and-trade scheme. For these reasons, today's meeting can't be
an academic conference, even though the topic still needs academic discussion. There is no
consensus - neither in science, nor in economic analysis or politics.
I have already been at a UN Summit in Copenhagen before. It was in 1995 at the so-called Social
Summit. At that time, the Summit was attended by then U.S. Vice President Al Gore who - so it
seems - will be there again this year. I did also attend, as Prime Minister of the Czech Republic,
but I don't plan to go there now. I don't see any chance to influence the results or to be listened
to.
In 1995, there were huge demonstrations organized by all kinds of anti-establishment groupings -
from socialists and greens to anarchists and anti-globalizationists. I have never seen such clashes
between demonstrators and police and army forces before. The difference is that I don't expect any
demonstrations in Copenhagen now. The anti-establishment people have in the meantime become
insiders and will be sitting in the main hall. This is a shift with far-reaching consequences.
My views on the doctrine of global warming and especially on the role of man in it are relatively
known. My book with the title Blue Planet in Green Shackles has been already published in 12
languages and, two and a half years after its original publication, I don't have any urgent need to
rewrite it.
We should not forget how the doctrine of global warming came into being. In a normal case,
everything starts with an empirical observation, with the discovery of evident trends or
tendencies. Then follow scientific hypotheses and their testing. When they are not refuted, they
begin to influence politicians. The whole process finally leads to some policy measures. None of
this was the case with the global warming doctrine.
It started differently. The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of
the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and
who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive
argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas -
population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes - that all
very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming. Their
doctrine was formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of scientifically
proven theories, before their comprehensive testing based on today's level of statistical methods.
Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and - without waiting for its
confirmation - started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering
measures.
Why did they do that? They understood that playing the global warming game is an easy, politically
correct and politically profitable card to play (especially when it is obvious that they themselves
won't carry the costs of the measures they implement and will not be responsible for their
consequences).
I don't see any problem with the climate now, or in the foreseeable future, and for that reason I
am not sufficiently motivated to discuss the technicalities of the cap-and-trade scheme. I only
protest against calling it a "market solution." It reminds me of the communist planners who
similarly talked about "using market instruments" when they finally came to the conclusion that
"planning instruments" did not work. Markets can't be used by anybody.
We should not deceive ourselves. A cap-and-trade scheme is a government intervention par
excellence, not a "market solution." How much "to cap" is the decision of the government (and the
European failure several years ago - when too many carbon permits were issued - is I hope well
known here). The size of the cap defines the price of carbon and this price is nothing else than a
tax imposed upon citizens of the country. I agree with Lord Monckton that the cap-and-trade bill
"is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted on a population in the history of the world." How
is it possible that such arguments are not used? Why does nobody argue that to tax energy means
that the costs of anti-global warming policy will disproportionally fall onto the poor people? What
bothers me is that to "trade" the artificial "good" - the permits - means that a new group of
rent-seekers will arise who will make profits at our expense. Why doesn't anybody say that the
carbon permits have no intrinsic value other than by government decree? I could continue along
these lines.
But we should return to the beginning. Despite huge scientific efforts and spending, it has not
been proved that the human effect on the climate is statistically significant. Once again Lord
Monckton: "the correct policy to address a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."
This country, my country, as well as the rest of the world face many real issues. We do not need to
solve non-existing problems. I don't think the real issue is temperature and/or CO2, but a new
utopian vision of the world. We have only two ways out: salvation through carbon capping or
prosperity through freedom, unhampered human activity, productivity and hard work. I vote for the
second option.
* Václav Klaus is the President of the Czech Republic. On Nov. 4, the Washington Times hosted a
briefing, "Advancing the Global Debate over Climate Change Policy" at the Willard Hotel in
Washington, D.C. These remarks were given at the last panel of that event. Photo: Václav Klaus
(Reuters) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| KAOS... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:05 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi... at (no spam) uniserve.com> wrote:
[quote]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/...
[/quote]
A failed newspaper that no one reads.
[quote]* Václav Klaus is the President of the Czech Republic. On Nov. 4, the Washington Times hosted a
briefing, "Advancing the Global Debate over Climate Change Policy" at the Willard Hotel in
Washington, D.C. These remarks were given at the last panel of that event.. Photo: Václav Klaus
(Reuters)
[/quote]
Moonie Times and Klaus, an economist.
You get your science from some pretty non-scientific sources. You
probably get your medical advice from a stock broker.
You must be a socialist , a fringe kook. Definitely some kind of
fool who embraces fantasy and fears the truth.
Judging by your sources, your agenda is not about the science.
Get back to work, socialist. You have nothing to contribute. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fran... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 12:05 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi... at (no spam) uniserve.com> wrote:
[quote]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/...
November 5, 2009, 16:25:00 | NP Editor
Despite huge spending, it has not been proved that the human effect on the climate is significant
By Václav Klaus
Many thanks for the invitation and for the courage to organize such an important gathering in the
moment when political correctness tells you not to do it.
[/quote]
Hmmm
Great work from the Center for Public Integrity
||||
Key Findings
November 04, 2009
Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of Investigative
Journalists fielded an eight-country team of reporters to uncover the
special interests attempting to influence negotiations on a global
climate change treaty. Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying
and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on-
the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced
together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil
fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing
progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands
of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear
tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that
scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental
calamity, the investigation found.
The project fielded reporters in eight of the major economies deemed
essential to a successful treaty: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China,
India, Japan, and the United States, as well as the European Union.
Among our findings:
• Both developed and developing countries are under heavy pressure by
fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive businesses to slow
progress on negotiations and weaken government commitments. The clash
cannot simply be framed as one between richer and poorer nations.
• China’s moves to hasten development of renewable energy, Brazil’s
pledges to curb Amazon deforestation, and other steps to address
climate change in the developing world have prompted a strong pushback
from domestic in-country interests determined to maintain the status
quo.
• Instead of a broad frontal assault on the climate science that
marked the pre-Kyoto battles, lobbyists seeking to dilute the
Copenhagen treaty have changed strategy, acknowledging there is a
problem while focusing on slowing or easing national commitments.
• The intensity of the lobbying can be seen most clearly in developed
countries, where official registers reveal that thousands of industry
representatives have attempted to influence climate legislation. In
the United States, there are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists — five
lobbyists for every member of Congress — a 400 percent jump from six
years earlier. And in Australia, Canada, and the European Union,
hundreds more lobbyists are at work attempting to block or water down
strict limits on carbon emissions.
• Powerful corporations are fielding multinational efforts to
influence the debate, such as Peabody Coal, the world’s largest coal
company, in Australia and the United States; and oil giant Exxon Mobil
in Canada, the European Union, and the United States. Although largely
operating at a national level, opponents of a strong climate change
treaty are employing similar fear tactics worldwide, including threats
of massive blackouts and job losses.
• The voices of scores of business advocates for stronger climate
change policy, including alternative energy companies and would-be
players in the carbon market, can barely be heard above the clamor of
the older, well-capitalized, and deeply entrenched industries that
have been lobbying on climate change for more than 20 years.
• As a result of the forces arrayed against stricter emissions limits,
no developed nation has made a firm pledge for the kind of emissions
cut scientists say will be needed within the next decade to stave off
catastrophic climate change.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/global_climate_change_lobby/key-findings
|||
Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global cooling" or
how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a Blair, think on the
filth merchant sources they are channelling.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ouroboros Rex... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eric Gisin wrote:
[quote]http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/05/v-225-clav-klaus-largest-tax-increase-in-world-history.aspx
November 5, 2009, 16:25:00 | NP Editor
Despite huge spending, it has not been proved that the human effect
on the climate is significant By Václav Klaus
Many thanks for the invitation and for the courage to organize such
an important gathering in the moment when political correctness tells
you not to do it.
We are meeting one month before the Climate Change Copenhagen Summit
and several weeks before the U.S. Senate hearing regarding the
cap-and-trade scheme. For these reasons, today's meeting can't be an
academic conference, even though the topic still needs academic
discussion. There is no consensus - neither in science, nor in
economic analysis or politics.
I have already been at a UN Summit in Copenhagen before. It was in
1995 at the so-called Social Summit. At that time, the Summit was
attended by then U.S. Vice President Al Gore who - so it seems - will
be there again this year. I did also attend, as Prime Minister of the
Czech Republic, but I don't plan to go there now. I don't see any
chance to influence the results or to be listened to.
In 1995, there were huge demonstrations organized by all kinds of
anti-establishment groupings - from socialists and greens to
anarchists and anti-globalizationists. I have never seen such clashes
between demonstrators and police and army forces before. The
difference is that I don't expect any demonstrations in Copenhagen
now. The anti-establishment people have in the meantime become
insiders and will be sitting in the main hall. This is a shift with
far-reaching consequences.
My views on the doctrine of global warming and especially on the role
of man in it are relatively known. My book with the title Blue Planet
in Green Shackles has been already published in 12 languages and, two
and a half years after its original publication, I don't have any
urgent need to rewrite it.
We should not forget how the doctrine of global warming came into
being. In a normal case, everything starts with an empirical
observation, with the discovery of evident trends or tendencies. Then
follow scientific hypotheses and their testing. When they are not
refuted, they begin to influence politicians. The whole process
finally leads to some policy measures. None of this was the case with
the global warming doctrine.
It started differently. The people who had never believed in human
freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human
interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had
always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been
searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these
ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas -
population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid
rains, ozone holes - that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent,
they came up with the idea of global warming. Their doctrine was
formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of
scientifically proven theories, before their comprehensive testing
based on today's level of statistical methods. Politicians accepted
that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and - without waiting
for its confirmation - started to prepare and introduce economically
damaging and freedom endangering measures.
Why did they do that? They understood that playing the global warming
game is an easy, politically correct and politically profitable card
to play (especially when it is obvious that they themselves won't
carry the costs of the measures they implement and will not be
responsible for their consequences).
I don't see any problem with the climate now, or in the foreseeable
future, and for that reason I am not sufficiently motivated to
discuss the technicalities of the cap-and-trade scheme. I only
protest against calling it a "market solution." It reminds me of the
communist planners who similarly talked about "using market
instruments" when they finally came to the conclusion that "planning
instruments" did not work. Markets can't be used by anybody.
We should not deceive ourselves. A cap-and-trade scheme is a
government intervention par excellence, not a "market solution." How
much "to cap" is the decision of the government (and the European
failure several years ago - when too many carbon permits were issued
- is I hope well known here). The size of the cap defines the price
of carbon and this price is nothing else than a tax imposed upon
citizens of the country. I agree with Lord Monckton that the
cap-and-trade bill "is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted
on a population in the history of the world." How is it possible that
such arguments are not used? Why does nobody argue that to tax energy
means that the costs of anti-global warming policy will
disproportionally fall onto the poor people? What bothers me is that
to "trade" the artificial "good" - the permits - means that a new
group of rent-seekers will arise who will make profits at our
expense. Why doesn't anybody say that the carbon permits have no
intrinsic value other than by government decree? I could continue
along these lines.
But we should return to the beginning. Despite huge scientific
efforts and spending, it has not been proved that the human effect on
the climate is statistically significant. Once again Lord Monckton:
"the correct policy to address a non-problem is to have the courage
to do nothing."
This country, my country, as well as the rest of the world face many
real issues. We do not need to solve non-existing problems. I don't
think the real issue is temperature and/or CO2, but a new utopian
vision of the world. We have only two ways out: salvation through
carbon capping or prosperity through freedom, unhampered human
activity, productivity and hard work. I vote for the second option.
* Václav Klaus is the President of the Czech Republic. On Nov. 4, the
Washington Times hosted a briefing, "Advancing the Global Debate over
Climate Change Policy" at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. These
remarks were given at the last panel of that event. Photo: Václav
Klaus (Reuters)
[/quote]
The more helpless people Greasin can kill, the better he likes it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:18 am
|
|