Hmm, should I do a breakdown? OK, here goes:

Environmentalists do not demand responsibility.

Bland negation without an argument.

Responsibility is not their idea, it is a basic, elementary aspect of human behaviour - on condition government policies do not give wrong incentives.

Non-sequitor (you can demand something without it being 'your' idea). Also a straw-man, I didn't claim the idea of responsibility originated with environmentalists, cf. the next sentence where I say that it was supposed to be a conservative value. This is not meant to imply that rather than conservative, the value is exlusively environmentalist, but rather that conservatives have lost their way. It can't really be read to imply what Mr. Klaus seemingly thinks it does, as far as I can see, aside of deliberately reading that into (or rather, forcing it onto) what I wrote.

I doubt the factual accuracy of Mr. Klaus' statement. Responsibility is acquired rather than inherent. It can also be lost. In my view, it is one of the moral values that underpin a functioning market economy but are also eroded by the free market if it is left completely unchecked.

The idea of responsibility for damage done to others is not the environmentalists' copyright. It is a standard of human behaviour.

Again, strawman. No dispute on the factual contents this time.

Environmentalists - especially in the case of global warming - artificially created "a damage" (higher temperature) and made all of us responsible for it.

If you read this statement literally you will see that it breaks several laws of ontology and thus accords apparently magical power to environmentalists to affect the realms of material and legal reality purely by will. The regular joe rendition of that would be: it's incoherent. Doesn't make sense. Just being uncharitable in my interpretation here.

If you take the charitable interpretation, you'll see that the statement gets it wrong in several ways. The presumed damage that (as Mr. Klaus would have wanted to say) environmentalists have made up out of thin air is not, according to the environmentalists, the higher temperature. The damage is caused by effects of that higher temperature, by more irregular weather patterns and by more extreme weather.

Saying that environmentalists 'make' 'all of us responsible' obscures the way they think about responsibility. Their principle is that the polluter pays. Since historical emissions (according to the evil environmentalist scientists) still have an effect, they would generally support tracing these emissions, looking at who has polluted the most, and distributing the burden of paying for the damages (or the burden of contributing to abatement and adaptation) accordingly. Responsibility is not generalised, it is traced and differentiated.

I don't believe in this "damage" and I am not ready to pay for it.

Isn't that convenient. Beliefs, however, do not make reality.

The role of men in slightly higher global temperature (0.6°C in the last century) is only marginal, if any.

Bland claim not backed up by any reference. And in contradiction with mainstream science. See the IPCC's Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy-Makers (pdf file).

To say that "the supporters of capitalism demand that they are free to dump their waste on their neighbours lawns without consequence" has the beauty of communist propaganda I had a chance to "enjoy" during the first 48 years of my life.

Poisoning the well and implied guilt by association. Also a misquote (I wrote 'they be' instead of 'are'). Further, even, a selective quote, since I added the qualifier 'more and more', implying that it is a general and increasing trend but not necessarily something all supporters of capitalism do.

Václav Klaus really is a class act.