The American Spectator....

has an interview with Václav Klaus.
He is perhaps the most free-market oriented head of state in Europe, and perhaps in the world. He is one proud to use the word "liberal" in its most classic function, and to label himself as such.
As usual with his interviews with foreign (non-Czech) press, this one focuses on the relationship between global-warming-inspired environmentalism and state intervention, without regard to the limitations on individual freedom it would pose. It also has some unusual views on the Russian election.

Conservatives should be willing to engage the public on global warming. Right now, we are losing (if we haven't already lost) the opportunity to frame the terms of the debate. This is a profound mistake on the part of freedom-oriented individuals.  It may be that the reason President Klaus has emerged as the chief spokesman for a limited-government approach to climate change is that he is inundated with climate change drumbeating in a way we Americans can barely imagine.  He has to fight back, while American classical-liberals have the luxury of sidestepping the topic more often.  Unfortunately, it has made us lazy.

There are five stages to the global warming debate:
Assertion #1. The world is warming.
This is debatable, but likely.

Assertion #2. The warming world is humanity's fault.
This is more controversial, but possible.

Assertion #3. It can thus be reversed or mitigated by changing our lifestyles.
In this stage we start to get into the role of the state and human freedom. From this point on, conservatives and classically-liberal oriented people can start to make a stand.

Assertion #4. National governments should be the chief arbiter of organizing this lifestyle change mandatory for human survival.
This and Assertion #5 are where the debate is now. At this time, the people interested in this issue, generally left-of-center and interventionist by default, see "government" as the solution as a general rule, regardless of what the problem is. This is partly the fault of conservatives; they have ignored a what economists call a "free-rider" problem, and leftists have swooped down on it like buzzards on carrion.  Their "damn-the-consequences" attitude have left business in the lurch; the costs to human freedom are cheap compared to some arbitrary need for change which will have a negligible effect on the climate, but devastating results for personal lifestyles.  Conservatives should thus engage the Left on this topic. Concede that the climate is changing, maybe even that man is responsible. But hit back when it comes to solutions.  This is something that conservatives need to do at the national and international level.  As Klaus points out, people secretly agree with him; but it's political suicide to even argue the basics. This needs to end.

Assertion #5. Multilateral institutions are an even better method of solving this problem, since the problem knows no borders.
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified by the US Senate on October 15, 1992, set the Kyoto Protocol up some years later. Many who ride the climate-change bandwagon are the same folks who see the UN as the savior to most world problems (in spite of its awful record) because they perceive the UN as it should be, rather than what it is -- a corrupt, unaccountable organization, with minimal transparency, a reflexively anti-American bureaucracy, and lowest-common-denominator diplomacy.  They shrug their shoulders at genocide in Darfur, Iranian nuclear ambitions, and Chinese persecution of religious minorities.  But problems in the atmosphere can supposedly be solved by this same organization.  Fortunately, the US Senate voted 98-0 against the Kyoto Protocol. But Klaus makes an important point: the problem is not just the science of climate change; it is the centralization and bureaucratization of these policies that are truly fearsome. 

It is not enough to talk about the politics of the environment; those of us associated with the "individualist" Right must also change the environment of politics.  To do this, conservatives need to concede some ground on climate change, while exposing the plans of the Left for what they always are -- the submission of the individual to the so-called "common good." If this problem is to be solved, the power of innovation, propelled by market demand and private investment -- in research, product development, and an eye to the bottom line -- is the best way to solve it. It will not be solved by the same tired condescending mantras of the Left, explaining that "government is doing this to you for your own good."

If you really want the climate to change, give someone a chance to profit from it.