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.

[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?

[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...

[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

[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!

[PBI]

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

Here we go again.

Actually, the way it works is this:
Socialism; let's heavily regulate industry and the economy!
Greens; Let's heavily regulate industry and the economy...for the trees!
Communism; let's heavily regulate industry and the economy, and also severely restrict freedom of speech and of the press, and imprison or execute anyone who questions us!

The repulsive thing about the Communist governments of of Eastern Europe was that they were authoritarian dictatorships with appalling human rights records. The fact that they also happened to be socialists (at least in terms of economic policy) is entirely incidental.

The fact that so many on the right seem unable to tell the difference is frankly quite scary. Perhaps it goes some way to explaining "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation"? After all, these aren't socialist human rights abuses, so they must be OK, right?

The link being made between environmentalism and human rights abuse is both spurious and opportunistic. Badly-thought-out policy is enacted all the time. If some of it happens to be environmental policy, the problem still lies with the policy itself, not environmentalism as a whole. If someone happens to enact a stupid economic policy, does it follow that economics itself is stupid?

You want to debate the validity or otherwise of climate change? Go ahead. Just please try to do so without making absurd links to human rights abuses, all it achieves is to cheapen the message of those who think human rights are an important issue in and of themselves.

[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...

[Fragony]

Ya who put applejuice in these glaciers.