It is undisputable that Vaclav Klaus’s opinions on the environment are weird. One cannot just disapprove of what one can see. There are scientific proofs that the Earth is getting warmer and warmer as well as that the Maldives are sinking. I think it would be naïve and totally irresponsible to say that the nature itself is to blame. Of course, these are the results of industrial activities. If there are no other reasons to save this little blue planet, there is still one economic one. A basic theory of economics can teach you that an economist is an egoist. If there are no resources left in the future, there will be no production because there will be nothing to produce from. If there is nothing to produce, there will be no profits. This may be one good reason even for an absolute egoist to save something from this planet.
Latest confrontations of the Czech President with the organs of the Union made me feel like the European Union is a kind of a “yes club”. Is not the Union’s motto: “United in diversity”? I am under the impression that the diversity is not about race, sex or religion only. It could appeal to ideas and opinions as well. Why must everybody agree on everything that the Union suggest? Are not different views a way how to trigger a mutual dialogue and how to make people think?