An Answer in Search of a Question

This afternoon, while talking to to old friends of mine, I realized something about the climate change debate occurring around the world.

It struck me that hyper-educated urbanites, frequently but by no means exclusively European, were the ones leading the charge on global warming "solutions," as opposed to people with less education, or more tied to the land and the environment itself in some form.  It seemed strange to me that the urban lifestyle, with its detachment from the land, is the one that should be so emphatic about global warming.  After all, cities, with their pavement, energy consumption, and lack of green space are rather detached from the environment as such -- cities even cause their own weather.  Yet it was comparatively rare at the outset of the Green movement to see rural people involved.  This is even more striking when we consider that the Club of Rome -- a group of business elites, and hardly a left-wing institution -- is credited with priming the pump for this debate even in the late 1960s. The idea of climate change was almost immediately adopted as a rallying point for Green politicians.

I believe part of this urban-driven debate is partly because most politics naturally begins in capitals, and elites frequently gather there anyway.  However, compared to other environmental concerns, such as saving habitats of certain animals, and deforestation concerns, this was a disproportionately urban and leftist phenomenon. 

I then realized that climate change is a perfect project for the Left.  The solutions it desires are governmental or multilateral, it gives its advocates a way to heap guilt on the West and romanticize poverty and the primitive as something "authentic" and worth emulating, it gives an opportunity to blame the free market economy for the world's ills, and it carries with it an apocalyptic determinism consistent with Marxist philosophy.  Moreover, the promise of changing this Earth exalts collective man, while degrading the individual.

Your correspondent grew up in a paradise the likes of which Washington, Brussels, and Berlin can never hope to have.  I know more than most the value of a clean environment, having lived in the so-called urban jungle with its heat and garbage for many years.  I know the value of clean water, growing up hearing the creek at night on my property. I know the value of clean air; it struck me as sad when my astronomy professor envied me for having the opportunity to actually see the stars on cold clear winter nights.  I know the power of nature, and man's fundamental helplessness in the face of an avalanche, and I know the rhythms of the earth that make the creek run high and fast in late May and early June.  This is humbling knowledge, and I believe it helps us to understand man -- we are far greater than beasts, for our abilities to appreciate these things.  But we are also far from being gods, or even angels.

I refer again to the five stages of debate I wrote about yesterday.  The world very well may be changing, and we may even have a bit to do with it.  But it is supremely arrogant of us to believe that we alone are responsible for this change.  The problem with the climate change debate is that politics is driving the science, rather than science driving the politics.  This situation is extraordinarily irresponsible, and can only lead to bad science (at best).  We have seen before what science in the hands of undemocratic service can do; it is terrifying.

However, what is even worse is what some in the debate would do to describe man.  The debate "ennobles" humanity in all the most dangerous ways. By asserting mastery of our world, and denying our fundamental human frailty, we begin to neglect some of our most sacred principles.  This has always been a very dangerous path.  Man becomes a monster when he forgets he is only human.

Of course, that is not to say that we should just go ahead and live without rules.  We owe it to those left to be born (as we inherit from those that have come before us) to give them a world where they can still look up and see the stars.  When God saw that His handiwork was very good on the sixth day, it implies that we should keep it nice, and that we should not be wasteful.  We should keep the planet fit for human life; but we also must keep the world fit for a life that is human.

The current tenor of the climate change debate is flawed in this respect.  It is true that the climate-change-bandwagon wants to keep the planet fit.  However, its zealous drive to do so by any means necessary, it is doing a greater disservice to humanity than a couple degrees in the air ever could.

A very interesting essay...

from over at the City Journal.  Apparently Christopher Hitchens recently wrote a biography about Thomas Paine; Jerry Weinberger, a professor at Michigan State, points out that Thomas Paine and Christopher Hitchens have some interesting parallels, and the biography is very good.  The relationship between Franklin and Paine is particularly interesting, and the discussion about Burke and Paine is also very, shall we say, enlightening.

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.

Rings of Saturn Not Quite Enough for You?

Well, then, perhaps you'd like rings around one of its moons, too.

Kometa Wins First Round of the Playoffs!

Radek Dlouhý scored 2 goals, including the game-winner with 1:52 remaining in the 3rd period, to put Kometa over Hradec Králové 3-2 at Hradec.
Mira Barus also scored, firing the equalizer at the end of the 2nd.
It was not an especially pretty game for the Kometáci, who had a handful of penalties, but Kamil Jarina stopped enough shots to get the victory, and Kometa's penalty-killing unit kept Hradec to one power-play goal, which was early in the game. That gave Kometa plenty of time to make up for a bad start.

President Bush...

is on TV right now talking about Colombia. He is rolling the "R" in President U-rrrr-ibe very nicely.

Detained in a camp in Prostějov....

The Prague Monitor reports this morning that a couple of Americans, aged 30 and 31, were deported from the Czech Republic yesterday for violating the terms of the Schengen Agreement.

The agreement, which Czech Republic became part of last December, stipulates that people in Europe's Schengen Area can travel freely without the hassles of border crossings.   It also provides for cross-border law-enforcement cooperation, and some minor changes in customs rules. All new members (post-1994) of the EU had to sign up to its implementation as part of their accession to the EU (All new members also must work to implement the €uro, but that's on a different timeline, and has completely different procedures).  It is probably a net benefit for Czechs, who can now travel to almost any country in Europe without a passport, but it makes it much more difficult for non-Europeans, like these two Americans.

I suppose I should say that they violated the law, and like any illegal immigrant, they should expect deportation. (Wouldn't it be interesting if we applied the rule of law in the US?) However, I know that one of the attractions of Czech Republic for Americans was the way that Czech Republic for so long managed to be an easygoing place for everyone "Wanted in America, or Unwanted in America."  Czech Republic used to be a place for where a life free of the bureaucratic hassles so common to government was easily avoided.

However, borders were set up to protect Czechs from other Europeans, not the Americans. As Czech Republic becomes more and more a part of the vaunted European Community, we can only hope that it does not lose its quirky Czech-ness.  The institutional weltanschauung of Official Europe is one of a relatively high level of skepticism about capitalism, a penchant for government intervention in the economy, and an enforced "Let's-Get-Along-As-Europeans" attitude. However, much of the Left in Europe worries that increased trade in Europe will allow businesses to move to the place most conducive to conduct business.  (This is particularly clear in France).  The Czechs who *like* capitalism, and see their future in it, have to be happy about the free-trade aspect of Europe, but skeptical about its statist inclinations, which will inevitably crush individual and national identity.

Of course, the first question of all politics should be "does this law make those subject to it more free, or less?" I believe that generally the Schengen Agreement makes it more free for Europeans. I only wish that my compatriots were in the same situation, and that the Czech national character could keep its border crossings up.

Forsberg, Hejduk on Mars!

OK, perhaps not exactly. But this is cool!

There is probably Lightning, but there are no Senators or Capitals, no Islanders, and no Blue Jackets.
Wouldn't it be interesting if we found Predators or Coyotes? And I wouldn't mind a few Canucks there.

All I'll say is that the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was assembled in Denver, so any Flyers on Mars were Colorado-born.
And there are no Red Wings on Mars!