"Nevertheless, there is another threat on the horizon. I see this threat in environmentalism which is becoming a new dominant ideology, if not a religion. Its main weapon is raising the alarm and predicting the human life endangering climate change based on man-made global warming"
About this Quote
Klaus frames environmentalism not as a policy agenda but as a rival faith, and that choice is the whole move. By calling it a "dominant ideology, if not a religion", he shifts the debate from evidence and risk management to power and legitimacy: the implied problem is not rising temperatures but rising moral authority. The sentence is built to make climate politics sound like a takeover - "another threat", "on the horizon" - language that belongs to invasions and coups, not regulatory frameworks or emissions targets. It primes the listener to treat environmental concern as a pretext for control.
The subtext is post-communist and intensely Central European. Klaus came of age under a system where "ideology" carried real coercive weight, so he taps a cultural memory in which official truths were enforced, dissent was moralized as deviance, and everyday life was reorganized around grand narratives. Environmentalism becomes a convenient stand-in for that old machinery: alarm functions like propaganda; scientific projections become articles of faith; "endangering" forecasts read as apocalyptic sermons. In this framing, even consensus looks suspicious, because unanimity is what regimes manufacture.
His phrasing also dodges an awkward asymmetry. By describing climate warnings as a "weapon", he suggests bad intent rather than hard trade-offs. That allows him to defend markets and growth as the embattled normal, while casting decarbonization as an extremist project. It's a classic statesman's counternarrative: delegitimize the messenger, recode urgency as hysteria, and you don't have to argue the numbers - you argue the motive.
The subtext is post-communist and intensely Central European. Klaus came of age under a system where "ideology" carried real coercive weight, so he taps a cultural memory in which official truths were enforced, dissent was moralized as deviance, and everyday life was reorganized around grand narratives. Environmentalism becomes a convenient stand-in for that old machinery: alarm functions like propaganda; scientific projections become articles of faith; "endangering" forecasts read as apocalyptic sermons. In this framing, even consensus looks suspicious, because unanimity is what regimes manufacture.
His phrasing also dodges an awkward asymmetry. By describing climate warnings as a "weapon", he suggests bad intent rather than hard trade-offs. That allows him to defend markets and growth as the embattled normal, while casting decarbonization as an extremist project. It's a classic statesman's counternarrative: delegitimize the messenger, recode urgency as hysteria, and you don't have to argue the numbers - you argue the motive.
Quote Details
| Topic | Science |
|---|
More Quotes by Vaclav
Add to List
