VK is right again!

Unbelievable, that guy is unstoppable. This time, he enriched the world by saying "We should not panic about Global Warming".
He is absolutely right! We should not panic about Global Warming. We should not panic at public decisions at all! So how can you prove him wrong?
P.S. I'm surprised how many people put equality between Global Warming and CO2. I have always considered this debate as much broader. The CO2 is the least harmful element in your environment (even too much oxygen in worse!), and its impact on our world is probably the least understood. Since more and more people are rich or getting richer, and thus much more people produce all forms of pollution (among which you may include CO2), and because rich(er) people care more about the environment (and live longer to get sick because of the pollution), it is a great time to start anti-pollution campaigns. But we should not focus all our attention on CO2. In fact, we can do so little about it (and so much more about other pollutants) that it is ok to develop mechanism to fight variety of polluting chemicals and test them on known, harmful substances (some successes are SOx and NOx in the US, but small particles seems to be very dangerous and almost unregulated) and finance research on other, less understood mechanism (like CO2). Well, I guess I was naive.

Global Warming, Czech Republic and Vaclav Klaus

Vaclav Klaus has somewhat extreme opinions about global warming - he says it does not exist, and if it it did exist, it would be best solved by "free markets." Especially the second part is quite popular in Czech Republic, despite trivial number of Chicago Economics Department graduates is trivial. The reason is that many former "Marxists" simply substituted one ideology for another and thanks to VK they have a big say.
In some sense, one always feel good about dissenting voice - it suggests that we are indeed looking for truth, that all facts are being considered. Global warming issue is especially problematic - nobody knows how much of it is caused by humans, how fast it will progress and how costly it will be (both in damages and preventive costs).
Yet, VK does not reach level of Bjørn Lomborg. In fact, he does not reach any (positive) level - he does not bother with data, facts, observations, he just repeats the mantra "free market will solve everything" and that regulation of pollution is worse than communism (no kidding). Moreover, he likes to create an impression that he is known in the world for this opinion, while in fact, he is not. Brilliant article by Jiri Zlatuska (former rector of my alma mater - Masaryk University in Brno, senator,...) shows that the emperor is naked. Why does it have to be our emperor?

P.S. Czech Republic is small, beautiful but unimportant country, so we will not be any significant obstacle on the difficult road to first attempts to tackle the global warming on the international level. Thank God.

International solution to the global warming

Let's assume that there is the global warming, that it is a problem, and that humans can solve it by reducing the emissions of CO2 (or something else). Also, let's assume that we know how much of CO2 the humans on this planet can produce to reduce the problem (Ideally, you would need to know costs and benefits to choose the appropriate level of emissions).
These are all strong assumptions, but let's say they are all satisfied. The tough question is, how do you reach a global/international agreement that will lead to enforcement of the right level of emissions? It is a very difficult thing to do, because poor countries want to grow (we did not care about emissions during technical and scientific revolution, which made our progress much faster, so why should they?), rich countries do not want to reduce their living standards (which would be an effect of a significant reduction in emissions). Morally, you cannot simply cap the emission on some historical levels - this is pure nonsense that would make poor countries poor forever. There has to be a solution that will allow smooth transition, allow poor countries to grow and rich countries to slowly adjust to the new requirements.
I believe there is. And it seems surprisingly simple. Take the right amount of emissions of CO2 and divide it by the number of people (according to UN or whatever). This is what every country can produce. Establish world market for these "permissions". Establish a system of enforcement (this is tough, too, but has to be part of every system). Voila!
Currently, the poor countries produce less emission that they are entitled to, so they can sell extra permissions to rich countries who produce (probably) more than they should. As the poor countries will grow, they will be selling less of these permissions. And as rich countries will finish their investments into low-emission technologies, they will need less of them.
The system would start best if there is a cushion, that is if we(all people) produce about the same amount of emission we should. Otherwise, some transition system (say small reduction every year till the "right" amount is reached) needs to be established.
Such system would, I believe, solve many problems and seems enforceable/acceptable (depending on reduction needed by rich countries) and also helps poor countries to get richer! This might help to solve poverty (hunger,...) problems, too!
It seems to me that such system would be superior to anything I heard so far. Will see whether somebody will come with something similar on the international level (or whether I will find a mistake in the idea).