Czech-mate!

[Marshal Murat]

The great environmental titans of our age, Al "I Love Earth" Gore and Vaclav "I Love Freedom" Klaus have finally come to...a disagreement over environmentalism. Actually, all Vaclav wants to do is debate Al Gore about environmentalism and it's threat to human rights and freedoms.

The Great Game (with NO RECOUNTS)

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.

So, is Klaus correct? Is environmental alarmism threating basic human rights?

[PBI]

I'm a little unclear as to how exactly environmentalism threatens human rights. As I understand it most proposed solutions to climate change are along the lines of economic incentives, e.g. carbon trading, higher taxes on high emission vehicles etc. People still have the right to pick their kids up from school in an SUV, they will just have to pay more in order to cover the true costs of doing so.

If a measure were proposed to solve the problem by confiscating high-emission cars by force or imprisoning those who drive them, for example, then it would breach human rights. But it would be that policy in and of itself that would do so, not the environmentalist movement as a whole. Besides, if he is truly concerned about human rights, what on Earth is he doing meeting with Dick Cheney, a man who has done a great deal to harm the credibility of the Western world in trying to oppose human rights abuses worldwide? ("enhanced interrogation", anyone?)

I also find it a bit rich that he calls environmentalists "alarmists" and in the same article goes on to compare them to a authoritarian dictatorship.

[Fragony]

In the nineties we had the acid-rain hoax, now the global warming hoax. It's limiting our freedom of choice and freedom of choice is a human right, only a tiny amount of tax revenue goes to enviroment anyway, most goes directly to the treassury; nothing but a robbery.

[PBI]

But it is still simply taxation policy, which I'm not convinced has any bearing on human rights no matter how insane it is. And is freedom of choice really a human right? If it is, I can't think of any government which upholds it. Nobody has the right to choose to steal or commit murder.

[LittleGrizzly]

Yeah we want to watch out for those damn enviromentalists, bunch of nazis that they are, looking for a 90 day detention period for potential carbon terrorists, sending us off to foriegn countrys without rules and regulations to interogate us about our carbon terrorism, these enviromentalists are crazy we need a sane human rights respecting people like the anti-terrorist people, never has one group had sooo much respect for human rights...

Edit little sarcastic ramble there, my point obviously is enviromentalism is not a threat to human rights, hell enviromentalism is barely a threat to CO2 emissions at the moment, the very little legislation we have here just encourages recycling and using your car less (basically by saving money) i don't really see how enviromentalism could be a potential future threat, maybe this guy should be concentrating on anti terror legislation around the world if he is really worried about freedom....

[Kekvit Irae]

Damn. I clicked this thread hoping to find good advice and discussions on European dating and/or human trafficking. What a disappointment.

[LittleGrizzly]

I clicked this thread hoping to find good advice and discussions on European dating and/or human trafficking.

A bird in hand is better than two in the bush...

[Fragony]

But it is still simply taxation policy, which I'm not convinced has any bearing on human rights no matter how insane it is. And is freedom of choice really a human right? If it is, I can't think of any government which upholds it. Nobody has the right to choose to steal or commit murder.

Technically it's a violation of human rights to raise taxes without providing a service, nothing is actually being done with that extra tax on the SUV, the enviromental tax isn't spend on the eniroment. Called stealing.

[PBI]

It's almost unheard of for revenue from a given tax to be spent exclusively on the thing it is raised from. Is all customs tax spent on border patrols? Is all money raised from corporation tax spent on business regulation? Besides being a beauracratic nightmare, such a system would have the problem that unless by some freak chance the required spending exactly matched the revenue raised, every department would end up with either a huge surplus or deficit every year.

Instead we put all the money into a single pool and allocate spending based upon where it is needed. So even if the environmental tax is not spent on the environment, it is still spent on something. How is this so different from any other form of tax as to qualify as a human rights abuse? And even if that is the case, how is it so much worse than all the other human rights abuses going on that we must single it out for specific attention?

[Fragony]

I said technically.

But food is one, and right now mucho people are dying from hunger because of the enviromentalists who succesfully lobbied for biofuel.

[PBI]

Surely that has something to do with Bush seizing upon biofuels as a quick fix solution? Many environmentalists are opposed to biofuels.

Badly thought out policies are enacted all the time. What is so particularly bad about environmental ones?

[Fragony]

Surely that has something to do with Bush seizing upon biofuels as a quick fix solution?

hmmmmmno.

And I am all in favour of cleaner industry but global warming is controversial at best. But all the taxes go up regardless.

[Andres]

I'm with Fragony on this one.

Governments don't care about our environment, they just want our money and global warming is just as good as any other silly excuse.

[PBI]

If you say so. I don't have any particular interest in getting into a debate about climate change itself, if you aren't convinced by the science then you aren't going to be convinced by me.

My argument is with the claim, "environmentalism causes human rights abuses". I would argue that what causes humans rights abuses is unscrupulous governments trying to make a quick buck or political capital by screwing their people. That has nothing to do with environmentalism; it may be used as a pretext, but that is not the same as saying it causes the abuse.

If people are truly interested in human rights standards, they should be condemning abuses across the board, not specifically singling out those which might happen to have climate change as a pretext. Whether an abuse is rationalized as preventing terrorism or as preventing climate change makes no difference.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

/mumbles something about banning DDT and the return of malaria

[Viking]

In the nineties we had the acid-rain hoax, now the global warming hoax. It's limiting our freedom of choice and freedom of choice is a human right, only a tiny amount of tax revenue goes to enviroment anyway, most goes directly to the treassury; nothing but a robbery.

Acid rain isn't a hoax

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

/mumbles something about banning DDT and the return of malaria

Yes because DDT is the only possible way ever to get rid of malaria.

[Fragony]

Acid rain isn't a hoax.

Where is it now. That hype got replaced by global warming. What you see there has to do with lower groundwater by the way.

[Viking]

Where is it now. That hype got replaced by global warming.

Where you'd expect it to be: still in the working. Though, not as bad as what it used to be, because something was actually done with it.

What you see there has to do with lower groundwater by the way.

Not according to the photographer: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Im...ain_woods1.JPG

[Fragony]

edit; better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

[Viking]

edit; better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

Yeah, that's a good example. Scientists discover that something is harmful, and the general public ignore it because they know better; or in reality, nothing at all that is useful in the context; which is just what your link tells us. "Everything works just great, nothing could be wrong".

Who are the loudest speakers against global warming? It's politicians and the man in the street, not scientists.

[Fragony]

Politicians because they want money and the man on the street because it's his money they want. Scientists have yet to present evidence that global warming happens because of us, heck they can't even prove global warming exists in the first place. Screw these watermelons, green on the outside red within.

[Viking]

Politicians because they want money and the man on the street because it's his money they want. Scientists have yet to present evidence that global warming happens because of us, heck they can't even prove global warming exists in the first place. Screw these watermelons, green on the outside red within.

The temperatures are rising; globally and for over a century; thus it could not be an anomaly, but a trend (where it'll end is a another matter). CO2 is a well known green house gas, that is not disputed. Cars, industry etc. releases CO2 in great amounts.

Two plus two gives four; how can anyone make it five?

You could argue that there are additional forces acting here, even that CO2 plays a minor role in the larger picture; but that there is no atmospheric heating caused by human CO2 emissions, I don't see how anyone can claim. (yes, now we have stepped down from the man causes "doom" to himself thought)

And please no, this isn't really off-topic.

[PBI]

And please no, this isn't really off-topic.

Fair enough, but as I have said, it would be nice if we could be quite clear that we are now discussing climate change itself, not human rights. The two are not connected, at least not in the simplistic manner suggested by the guy in the article.

[Fragony]

Allignment of planets affecting earths orbit and solar activity are the most likely candidates. CO2 probably don't help, but most of all it helps the eco-nostra

[CrossLOPER]

*cheeky*

itt Fragony once again chooses to boost his post-count by trolling.

[Fragony]

itt Fragony once again chooses to boost his post-count by trolling.

ok kinda guilty but the biojugend deserves it these guys believe everything they hear.

+1

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yes because DDT is the only possible way ever to get rid of malaria.

Then why aren't the alternatives being used? Or if they are, why aren't they working?

I'd rather save human lives now and work on developing an alternative later than what we have now.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes because DDT is the only possible way ever to get rid of malaria.

It is probably the best way, but because of environmental hysteria being blown out of proportion, it was banned in a knee jerk reaction. People died because of environmentalists being alarmists, because the best anti-malaria weapon was taken away.

As to the OP - the Czech Pres is right.

Socialism; let's heavily regulate industry and the economy!
Greens; Let's heavily regulate industry and the economy...for the trees!

IIRC, there are connections between some green and socialist groups.

CR

[Fragony]

Socialism; let's heavily regulate industry and the economy!
Greens; Let's heavily regulate industry and the economy...for the trees!

[HoreTore]

In the nineties we had the acid-rain hoax

Acid rain hoax....?

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the acid level of our rivers are rising while the fish living there is dying...