Swedes Think Climate Policy Worst Waste of Taxpayers' Money in 2019

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Ya think ! ? ! ?   Once again, ordinary people are not going along with the narrative being forcibly shoved down their throats by the globalists. 

The Climate Armageddon folks are gonna need a scarier plan for Doomsday, to get them to accept coughing up loads more tax money and ceding more control to Big Brother Government.

'Costly Blow in the Air': Swedes Think Climate Policy Worst Waste of Taxpayers' Money in 2019 - Poll

 

The authors of the poll explained the Swedes' vote as being due to the fact that while the Swedish government has invested loads of money into climate action policies, the actual amount of carbon dioxide emissions has slightly increased.

Swedish citizens have voted for climate policy as the worst waste of taxpayers' money, a poll conducted by the Swedish Taxpayers' Association revealed earlier this week.

Out of 18,000 citizens who took part in the poll, about 30 percent voted against national climate policies.

"The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year", explained Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers' Association.

The poll says that in Sweden's budget for 2020, 12.6 billion krona ($1.3 billion) has been allocated to climate action, compared with 5.2 billion krona ($547 million) in 2014. Back in 2017, the National Institute of Economic Research even said that the government's budget risked becoming "a costly blow in the air".

Given the amount of money and lack of actual positive results for the environment, Gustafsson suggested that it would be more beneficial if the government's funds would be diverted into something valuable.

"Too much tax money is wasted without benefit to those who pay. It is no less important that money has an effect when it is invested in something that is important - rather the opposite", he said.

Sweden is one of the leading nations in advocating for environment-friendly initiatives, including trends like electric bicycles and solar cells.

 

 

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Heh heh, the Climate Armageddon crowd's desperation is palpable.  ZOMG THE WORLD IS GONNA END BECAUSE ORANGE MAN BAD !!!!!

Oh, and what the heck was the job of Climate Negotiator in Obama's State Department?

How bad can the climate crisis get if Trump wins again?

Climate pollution in the US is up under Donald Trump and threatens to undermine international efforts to stall the crisis, especially if he wins re-election this year and secures a second term in the White House.  ...

 

...  Andrew Light, a climate negotiator for President Barack Obama’s state department, said the world is taking note of those efforts, but if Trump is re-elected “you are going to see a lot of people who are worried anew about what the US can do.”

Americans choosing Trump would send the signal that they don’t care about the climate, Light said.  ...

 

... Under Trump, the oil and gas industry contributing heavily to the climate crisis is thriving. Oil and gas-related industries in the US are planning to build 157 new or expanded plants and expand drilling over the next five years – releasing as much greenhouse gas pollution as 50 new coal-fired power plants, according to a report from the Environmental Integrity Project.  ...

 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Ya think ! ? ! ?   Once again, ordinary people are not going along with the narrative being forcibly shoved down their throats by the globalists. 

The Climate Armageddon folks are gonna need a scarier plan for Doomsday, to get them to accept coughing up loads more tax money and ceding more control to Big Brother Government.

'Costly Blow in the Air': Swedes Think Climate Policy Worst Waste of Taxpayers' Money in 2019 - Poll

 

The authors of the poll explained the Swedes' vote as being due to the fact that while the Swedish government has invested loads of money into climate action policies, the actual amount of carbon dioxide emissions has slightly increased.

Swedish citizens have voted for climate policy as the worst waste of taxpayers' money, a poll conducted by the Swedish Taxpayers' Association revealed earlier this week.

Out of 18,000 citizens who took part in the poll, about 30 percent voted against national climate policies.

"The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year", explained Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers' Association.

The poll says that in Sweden's budget for 2020, 12.6 billion krona ($1.3 billion) has been allocated to climate action, compared with 5.2 billion krona ($547 million) in 2014. Back in 2017, the National Institute of Economic Research even said that the government's budget risked becoming "a costly blow in the air".

Given the amount of money and lack of actual positive results for the environment, Gustafsson suggested that it would be more beneficial if the government's funds would be diverted into something valuable.

"Too much tax money is wasted without benefit to those who pay. It is no less important that money has an effect when it is invested in something that is important - rather the opposite", he said.

Sweden is one of the leading nations in advocating for environment-friendly initiatives, including trends like electric bicycles and solar cells.

 

 

 

 

Am I missing something here. 

30% voted against climate policies. 

So the other 70% were broadly in favour (that doesn't mean they agree with every element) so do not view it as a waste of money. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

Am I missing something here. 

30% voted against climate policies. 

Nick W - minor suggestion. Instead of quoting the whole previous comment just highlight a couple of sentences. You'll find the quote option will come up and the original poster will be notified. It makes for shorter threads.

As for your comment - what it means is that most of those who voted for the climate policies now consider them to be a colossal waste of money. The survey doesn't say anything about whether those being surveyed now want climate policies or not, only that the existing, costly policies aren't working. The Swedes will certainly still want climate policies of some sort, but a rethink is needed.

[Marcin2 + 724]

Swedes are really environmentally friendly in a good, modern way. Electricity is half hydro, half nuclear. They still have large usage of hydrocarbons per capita cause are rich, relatively large country with low population density ( 0.5 million km2, 20 persons/km2). Plus cold climate, long nights in winter a lot of electricity needed and hydrocarbons for heating.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

You have it backwards are rich because of large hydrocarbon per capita. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Rob Kramer
Typo

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

You have it backwards are rich because of large hydrocarbon per capita. 

Sweden has one of the lowest Carbon footprints and intensity per capita in the western world. 

Their Carbon footprint per capita is 1/4 of that of the USA. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick W - minor suggestion. Instead of quoting the whole previous comment just highlight a couple of sentences. You'll find the quote option will come up and the original poster will be notified. It makes for shorter threads.

As for your comment - what it means is that most of those who voted for the climate policies now consider them to be a colossal waste of money. The survey doesn't say anything about whether those being surveyed now want climate policies or not, only that the existing, costly policies aren't working. The Swedes will certainly still want climate policies of some sort, but a rethink is needed.

Unless the survey has specifically examined the structure of who voted in which direction the above comment is nonsense. Its as simple as 

7/10 in favour of the policies

3/10 against policies*

 

I suspect some of that is formed from people who opposed the abandonment of Swedens nuclear programme. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

13 hours ago, NickW said:

Sweden has one of the lowest Carbon footprints and intensity per capita in the western world. 

Their Carbon footprint per capita is 1/4 of that of the USA. 

Guess he had it right and I was backwards.  Energy use per capita is high but as he said alot of renewables (probably built with the help of carbon sourced energy) ... goes to show you what can be accomplished with a gov and population working together.  I'm not saying carbon energy is bad btw just that they dont produce it and dont want to rely on other countries sources. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

13 hours ago, NickW said:

Unless the survey has specifically examined the structure of who voted in which direction the above comment is nonsense. Its as simple as 

7/10 in favour of the policies

3/10 against policies*

Nope, sorry Nick, the original comment still stands. Your objection does not add up. The bulk of the voters thought it was a waste of money.. you can split hairs and say that we don't know specifically what the 7/10 thought as no figures are given at all in the story in English.. but its a safe bet that they'll want a rethink.. anyway, time to move on..  

[James Regan + 1,776]

Yael Stone Aussie actress from ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK giving back her green card in an act to defy Trump on climate change and so she can’t fly back and forth from Oz to USA to improve her carbon footprint, however she can still work in the USA without a green card she will get a cultural visa (whatever the FOOK that is) when working she will give half her pay to climate change associations (business) , she is FOS stay in Aussiewood and film kangaroo films , where is this bullshit going to stop? CNN loved it, what’s CNNs carbon Sasquatch print. 
These lefty Hollywood dingbats need to get a life, I’m not going to fly but when I do blah blah horsepiss.

[Papillon + 485]

''With over 18,000 votes, it was a new record in the number of votes for the competition's worst waste of the year and 30 percent of the votes landed on climate policy.''

So presumably seventy percent did not, and so by definition not a majority, and so not the 'worst waste'? Also considering the suggestion the Swedes are so angry at policies, that the number of votes recorded reached record levels, they still only had thirty percent of the vote? 

Climate policy is therefore awarded the award by the Taxpayers' Waste Ombudsman.

So this random organisation's poll and opinions reflect the enire nation of Sweden do they? A poll of eighteen thousand citizens out of their population of over ten million means 'Swedes think the following..' ?

I am growing tired of the picking and choosing here. If this vote were about Mr Trump and certain policies for example, the majority here would be saying what I just have. For instance, the number of votes is not a fair reflection, it is fake news, the majority polled were Democrats and so on. People here need to wake up to these constant hypocrisies and their agreements in articles purely on the basis that it went along with your personal view anyway.

This is not personally directed at you Mr Kirkman by any means, I see this sort of thing here constantly. With respect though sir, when you label The Guardian for instance as leftist rubbish and dismiss anything in it, while at the same time post articles from The Daily Mail, it is rather ironic. For the record they are both considered absolute trash here generally.  

Edited January 14, 2020 by Papillon

[Papillon + 485]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Your objection does not add up. The bulk of the voters thought it was a waste of money.. you can split hairs and say that we don't know specifically what the 7/10 thought as no figures are given at all in the story in English.. but its a safe bet that they'll want a rethink

Why did the 'bulk' sir think it was a waste, I do not understand this reasoning?

Thirty percent is not the bulk, plus the fact you are now assuming what the other seventy percent thought? Seventy percent do not seem to agree and so what they actually thought as a majority is now 'splitting hairs'? The thirty percent and their views though are undisputable facts? I'm sorry, I fail to see the reasoning here sir. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Papillon

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nope, sorry Nick, the original comment still stands. Your objection does not add up. The bulk of the voters thought it was a waste of money.. you can split hairs and say that we don't know specifically what the 7/10 thought as no figures are given at all in the story in English.. but its a safe bet that they'll want a rethink.. anyway, time to move on..  

My objection is to your inability to grasp basic mathematics. 

Bulk indicates majority. 30/100 is not a majority. 

30% of people in the poll voted against climate policies therefore 70% were broadly in favour. 

70/30 is 2.333 therefore for every 1 person against 2.333 were for.

Its really simple to understand. 

[Papillon + 485]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Its really simple to understand. 

Precisely sir. As I say, the oddest part is that the thirty percent's view is of course undisputed fact here, as it fits a narrative. The seventy percent majority is not only ignored, but their views are now assumed, again, to fit a narrative.

There is a certain irony to the start of the thread therefore, about a certain narrative being shoved down throats. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Papillon said:

''With over 18,000 votes, it was a new record in the number of votes for the competition's worst waste of the year and 30 percent of the votes landed on climate policy.''S

18000 assuming they are representative of Swedish Society would be a robust number for a poll. The risk here of course is that if the polling organisation has a particular political position the selection for the survey will be biased one way or another. 

70/30 - 80/20 are the typical poll outcomes for surveys about Govt Policy on Climate / Environment. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

26 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Precisely sir. As I say, the oddest part is that the thirty percent's view is of course undisputed fact here, as it fits a narrative. The seventy percent majority is not only ignored, but their views are now assumed, again, to fit a narrative.

There is a certain irony to the start of the thread therefore, about a certain narrative being shoved down throats. 

Grade A+ drivel when the poll immediately shows 70/100 support for the policies the organisation are arguing against. 

[Papillon + 485]

I fear you have misunderstood my point sir as it was with regard to Mr Kirkman's second sentence, and the ironies of narratives here. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Papillon

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, Papillon said:

I fear you have misunderstood my point sir as it was with regard to Mr Kirkman's second sentence, and the ironies of narratives here. 

Yes - sorry - I didn't word my response that well - I should have just highlighted narrative being forcibly shoved down their throats by the globalists. 

[Papillon + 485]

No problem sir, that is what I gathered, though I may have to insist you delete the word 'drivel' and the rest of the sentence to merely 'A+'     /sarc

Edited January 14, 2020 by Papillon

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/12/2020 at 4:54 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Ya think ! ? ! ?   Once again, ordinary people are not going along with the narrative being forcibly shoved down their throats by the globalists. 

The Climate Armageddon folks are gonna need a scarier plan for Doomsday, to get them to accept coughing up loads more tax money and ceding more control to Big Brother Government.

'Costly Blow in the Air': Swedes Think Climate Policy Worst Waste of Taxpayers' Money in 2019 - Poll

 

The authors of the poll explained the Swedes' vote as being due to the fact that while the Swedish government has invested loads of money into climate action policies, the actual amount of carbon dioxide emissions has slightly increased.

Swedish citizens have voted for climate policy as the worst waste of taxpayers' money, a poll conducted by the Swedish Taxpayers' Association revealed earlier this week.

Out of 18,000 citizens who took part in the poll, about 30 percent voted against national climate policies.

"The government has more than doubled the appropriations for climate policy, but despite this, emissions no longer decrease. In 2018, emissions even increased. That is why climate policy has been voted the worst waste of the year", explained Johan Gustafsson, Waste Ombudsman at the Taxpayers' Association.

The poll says that in Sweden's budget for 2020, 12.6 billion krona ($1.3 billion) has been allocated to climate action, compared with 5.2 billion krona ($547 million) in 2014. Back in 2017, the National Institute of Economic Research even said that the government's budget risked becoming "a costly blow in the air".

Given the amount of money and lack of actual positive results for the environment, Gustafsson suggested that it would be more beneficial if the government's funds would be diverted into something valuable.

"Too much tax money is wasted without benefit to those who pay. It is no less important that money has an effect when it is invested in something that is important - rather the opposite", he said.

Sweden is one of the leading nations in advocating for environment-friendly initiatives, including trends like electric bicycles and solar cells.

 

 

 

 

My public administration professor was a big fan of the Club of Rome. Of course I knew better. He also warned us in advance not to use a local newspaper that leaned conservative. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

It doesn't matter. Thanks to sketchy math and dubious numbers Five Hiroshima bombs are dropping per second

[Bob D + 562]

Argue all you want about percentage of support.

The real issue is this ...

Given the amount of money and lack of actual positive results for the environment, Gustafsson suggested that it would be more beneficial if the government's funds would be diverted into something valuable.

 

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

Latest research suggests that human intervention has postponed the beginning of the next ice age.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/14/world/ice-age-postponed/index.html

[Papillon + 485]

1 hour ago, Bob D said:

The real issue is this ...

Given the amount of money and lack of actual positive results for the environment, Gustafsson suggested that it would be more beneficial if the government's funds would be diverted into something valuable.

Absolutely sir. Why listen to eighteen thousand in a poll, or to ten million citizens when you can listen to one opinion instead? Just give up. Marvellous. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Papillon