Jan Lopatka of Reuters reported on comments by Czech President Vaclav Klaus, in which he equated the “religion” of Global Warming alarmism with the ideology of communism. Somehow I don’t see these comments getting wider airplay in American mainstream media (MSM), not with all the gushing over the Prophet Gore (or the Goracle, ala the wags at National Review). (An aside: when do we get to call Gore an old gas-bag?)

Of course, President Klaus’ comments are framed in the context of describing Klaus as a “right-wing president,” although I appreciate him also described as a “free-market champion.” (Another aside, doesn’t the application of the latter necessitate the label of the former, for MSM like Reuters?)

'Communism has been replaced by the threat of an ambitious environmentalism,' Klaus wrote in response to questions from the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Why is the House Energy and Commerce Committee sending the Czech President questions on potential policy response to climate change? Or did Klaus take the initiative at sharing his insight with US Representatives?

However his testimonial arrived, it proves timely. In various suggested frameworks for global control of CO2 emissions, such as those imagined by Al Gore, Klaus sees the familiar model upon which such dreams are based: old style communist central planning. Worse, he sees clearly the potential for severe economic harm such fantasies pose for the developing world:

Klaus said poor nations would also be hurt by efforts to impose limits and standards on emissions of gases believed to cause global warming.

'They will not be able to absorb new technological standards required by the anti-greenhouse religion, their products will have difficulty accessing the developed markets, and as a result the gap between them and the developed world will widen,' he wrote.

'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,' he added.

For Klaus, there’s an essential bottom line for these policy deliberations:

'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,' he said.

Just like old style Communism and Socialism (and current style, judging by China and Cuba) couldn’t legislate or control human nature, so too attempts to “policy fix” perceived “dangerous” variations in even more complex natural systems and processes will fail as well. And at enormous cost, even if followed in a modest and half-hearted way. Those, whose political philosophies make them sympathetic and susceptible to the former, make them all the more vulnerable to the pseudoscience of current hysterics.

(Via Memeorandum)