Vaclav Klaus's Denialist Ranting

Have I mentioned that I take requests? If you email me, or leave a comment asking for my take on a certain subject, there's a very good chance I'll do as asked. And so: Anne wants to know what I think of Czech president Vaclav Klaus's editorial in the FT, which Henry Farrell describes as an attempt "to figure out how many denialist cliches can be squeezed into a single 700 word op-ed".

Part of my problem with Klaus's piece is that I honestly have no idea what he's talking about, much of the time. "Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures," he writes. "Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided." Um, no disagreement there. But what "restrictive measures" and "suppression of freedom and democracy," exactly, does he have in mind? We might learn more on Thursday, when Klaus will respond to FT readers in a Q&A. But for the time being, I think we have to assume that Klaus is simply performing the classic politician's trick of Blaming The Other – in this case, European technocrats who would slow down his country's economic growth in the name of preventing a global environmental catastrophe.

There's really no argument in Klaus's piece, so it's hard to argue against it. I mean, how does one sensibly respond to a writer who can write this?

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond.

The fact, of course, is that Al Gore, and Tony Blair, and Nick Stern, and the scientists at the IPCC, and the politicians at the G8, are all very much "rational and freedom-loving people". And frankly, the only way for rational and freedom-loving people to respond to the IPCC reports and everything else is by trying their darndest to minimise greenhouse-gas emissions. Because if they don't, they'll find billions of environmental refugees swarming to the few places on the planet which will still be inhabitable – places, I might add, like the USA and the Czech Republic.

The fact is that the Czech Republic, of all countries, probably has more upside than downside from at least the next degree or two of global warming. Its agriculture will become more fertile, its winters will become milder, and overall it will become a more attractive place to live. After that, when everything starts going horribly pear-shaped, Vaclav Klaus, who's turning 66 next week, will probably be in no position to care.