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

[Boat + 1,315]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

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. 

I am 1/2 blood Swede so let me tell you what’s up. Fortunately none of the knuckle dragging right wing idiots took part in the poll. The 70% who love spending money on bettering their air and keeping healthcare costs down are willing to invest those savings and do more yet. 
The 30% feel they just won’t get the bang for the buck because their carbon footprint is already so low. But I heard through grapevine they would fund the depopulation of Germany and other coal burning countries in Europe. They would support those taxes.

[Bob D + 562]

Papillion is the Master of misdirection.   Maybe the point was "Lack of actual positive results for the environment"    

 

[Papillon + 485]

4 minutes ago, Bob D said:

Papillion is the Master of misdirection. 

That's not fair sir, I 'directed' you to clarify if anything, which you did.

Now if I can 'direct' you to spell my name correctly now and again there is no stopping us   

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

On 1/12/2020 at 3:54 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

 

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

70% in favor is a sizable majority in favor Tom. What is your point - math is hard?

[Bob D + 562]

1 hour ago, Papillon said:

That's not fair sir, I 'directed' you to clarify if anything, which you did.

Now if I can 'direct' you to spell my name correctly now and again there is no stopping us   

Interesting I got the name wrong as my name sake starred as Andre Maturette in your name sake Movie

 

[Otis11 + 551]

 

On 1/12/2020 at 8:30 AM, NickW said:

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. 

30% picked climate policies as the worst waste. That means the other 70% said something else was a bigger waste, not that they supported the climate policies.

17 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.''

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.  

This was, in fact the worst of any category. No other category got more than 30% of the vote. Second place was 'wasting' taxpayer money on 'Art for earthworms' (whatever that is... someone want to check my translation???) and third worst waste was on 'a cable car across the Gota River'

And Papillon - you hit on the problem of polls, they're only as good as the people making them. You can skew things pretty significantly if you want to - that's why you look at the source. As far as I can tell, this seems like a fairly decent source as "The Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO) are appointed by the Swedish Riksdag (parliament) to ensure that public authorities and their staff comply with the laws and other statutes governing their actions." (However my familiarity with Sweden is low by my own standards, so I don't claim any expertise here...)

But yes, assuming this is representative, the Swedish people believe that, of the taxes they pay, the worst way the government can spend those taxes is on climate change. Even worse than 'Art for earthworms'.

(Also, the Guardian is certifiably 'Leftist Rubbish'. I'd expect most unbiased observers to be able to identify that. Not sure I'd give the Daily Mail much credence either, but I'm not as familiar with that one.)

13 hours ago, NickW said:

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. 

Nick, this is not correct. All 1800 people could have been against it, they just thought 'Art for Earthworms' was an even bigger waste than climate spending. We cannot derive any support for policies from the poll as taken.

13 hours ago, NickW said:

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

Geez - does no one bother to check the source and see what the poll actually asked?!? Making huge logical leaps here that have absolutely no founding.

Sorry Nick, you're wrong.

2 hours ago, Boat said:

I am 1/2 blood Swede so let me tell you what’s up. Fortunately none of the knuckle dragging right wing idiots took part in the poll. The 70% who love spending money on bettering their air and keeping healthcare costs down are willing to invest those savings and do more yet. 
The 30% feel they just won’t get the bang for the buck because their carbon footprint is already so low. But I heard through grapevine they would fund the depopulation of Germany and other coal burning countries in Europe. They would support those taxes.

Where is this coming from? Because it has no support in the poll as taken.

1 hour ago, Jeff_Calgary said:

70% in favor is a sizable majority in favor Tom. What is your point - math is hard?

Apparently so is reading comprehension?

-----

So I trust that clears this up?

@Tom Kirkman - not going to defend yourself? (Even when people are so clearly wrong in their attacks? If anyone bothered to go read the source anyway...)

 

BTW - Source: https://skattebetalarna.se/har-ar-arets-varsta-sloseri-2019/

(Sorry, it's in Swedish. But since y'all know so much about the Swedes that you can derive information that wasn't in the original poll, I'm sure you at least know a bit of the language, right?)

Geez...

[Daniel Ryslink + 19]

Let's buy Tom a nice, big, framed picture of burning Australia. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

14 hours ago, Papillon said:

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

Thirty percent is not the bulk,

Papillon - you've gotten your figures mixed up.. the 30 per cent referred to those who did not vote for climate policies initially. The Swedish taxpayers association survey, which was taken subsequently, has no figures but found that taxpayers thought the policies a waste AS THEY STOOD/STAND. It doesn't mean that the taxpayers are against climate policies as such, just that the existing ones are a waste. . So the government proposes new policies or revamps the existing ones or whatever, so that they actually reduce emissions for less money spent. To repeat, and this point seems to have caused confusion, the taxpayers survey says nothing at all about the level of support for general climate policies.. Hope that clarifies matters. 

[Papillon + 485]

7 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Even worse than 'Art for earthworms'.

Yes I liked that bit too sir. Bizarre.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Norway Says Era of Oil and Gas Production Isn’t About to End

 

 

(Bloomberg) -- Want the lowdown on European markets? In your inbox before the open, every day. Sign up here.

Norway Finance Minister Siv Jensen said she sees no reason why the oil and gas her country produces can’t be part of a future focused on sustainable energy.

Speaking in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Tuesday, Jensen said it’s important to focus on emissions but that the debate needs to be more nuanced to ensure that more efficient forms of fossil fuel production aren’t discontinued.

The richest Nordic nation has long argued that it’s unrealistic to think that oil will no longer be needed in the future. Norway is therefore making the case that it should be the last producer to stop drilling because its operations have some of the lowest emissions of greenhouse gases.

Jensen, who is part of a center-right coalition in the richest Nordic nation, said Norwegian oil and gas companies are more efficient than others in their production. Jensen also noted to the Norwegian currency, the krone, is no longer as correlated with the price of oil as it once was.

To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story:

tbrogger@bloomberg.net

[SERWIN + 749]

On 1/12/2020 at 5:58 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

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

To collect a ridiculous paycheck and benefits for doing nothing. The name even suggests that all they would do is beseech mother nature to stop with the weather swings..... Kinda like an Indian rain dance sort of thing. Maybe they did it on the roof of the White House!!

[SERWIN + 749]

So how much energy does it take to manufacture one wind turbine. Including trucking(moving) one into place, installation, maintenance? Does the cost of the energy used for this justify it by what it will produce over its service life, barring of course some disaster that would end its life prematurely? It would still count, but if it were a perfect world. I am assuming that would be a machine that would produce more energy than was put into it, if there was an actual benefit. Or are they just as every other energy producing machine? It takes more energy to produce and run than it would ever make, translated into energy for consumers. 

[SERWIN + 749]

I also understand that it takes more energy to make a solar panel than it will ever produce. Is that true as well? All the greeny tree huggers seem to believe that because they can't see the pollution, it is clean energy. But the reality is the pollution and energy expenditures are in the manufacturing and installation/maintenance, not from actually producing energy, so it is pollution free. In my mind anything that produces more than what was put into it would be like a perpetual motion machine type of thing, and we know that isn't possible. At least right now it isn't...

Maybe if energy could be made in space and somehow sent to earth

[SERWIN + 749]

So I was just reading that around 2010 was a tipping point for solar, but that was just for the manufacture of the solar panel itself. That does not include wiring and assorted items that have to be in place for a solar system to produce more energy than it consumed during manufacturing and installation

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

32 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

Maybe if energy could be made in space and somehow sent to earth

It is, its called the sun!

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

46 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

So how much energy does it take to manufacture one wind turbine. Including trucking(moving) one into place, installation, maintenance? Does the cost of the energy used for this justify it by what it will produce over its service life, barring of course some disaster that would end its life prematurely? It would still count, but if it were a perfect world. I am assuming that would be a machine that would produce more energy than was put into it, if there was an actual benefit. Or are they just as every other energy producing machine? It takes more energy to produce and run than it would ever make, translated into energy for consumers. 

See below mate

https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/2016/1/14/carbon-and-energy-payback-of-a-wind-turbine

[SERWIN + 749]

Interesting, and I had even forgotten about the backup part. But the article does not seem to account for the backup power generation being built as well, only the energy it would consume while "backing up" the wind turbine. So does anyone account for that as well? We all know that there would have to be some type of backup, for any green technology. And sorry guys, current nuclear technologies do not count as green in my mind, the waste they produce is horrendous to deal with. We need to figure out what to do with the waste to use it some other constructive way before I would consider spent fuel rods as anywhere near green... When we can figure out how to recycle them into something useful, well maybe then.

[SERWIN + 749]

I live in the southwest US, so we get a lot of sun in the summer, but solar would be pretty useless for days on end during the winter months. This week has been cloudy and overcast, and will continue until at least the weekend. Wind would be a good alternative for this time of year, but summer can be quite windless at times. So can the cost(and I mean from a carbon perspective) of wind turbines and solar be justified when the backup system is included? Not all of us enjoy the benefit of constant wind or constant sun like some areas do, so we would have to be including that backup as well, or just go without power. Like forced camping, at home, with no A/C....

[Magnus Karlsson + 3]

Sweden do mot use much hydrocarbons for heating. We use heat pumps a lot taking energy from soil and air. In citys we burn garbage and timber and distribute out hot water to heat houses. In the countryside some heat their  houses with wood pellets or wood if they do have a heat pump.  The hydrocarbons are used for transport and in chemical industri. 

Magnus Karllsson  Sweden

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/12/2020 at 5:58 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

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.  ...

 

While we have by far the best pollution improvement in the world by reducing coal use and replacing much of it with natural gas. Never the less the Climate Movement casts natural gas as a fossil fuel just like coal. By doing that they are fighting against the best solution. 

Meanwhile China is burning more coal than ever and building dozens of coal plants in Third World countries around the world. Few peeps about that obvious fact. 

China is increasing its use of LNG and promoting natural gas vehicles however. That is a plus for China. They may end up being the biggest user of natural gas in the world. They definitely have a China First policy but that is accepted by the news media as normal. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/15/2020 at 2:23 AM, ceo_energemsier said:

Norway Says Era of Oil and Gas Production Isn’t About to End

 

 

(Bloomberg) -- Want the lowdown on European markets? In your inbox before the open, every day. Sign up here.

Norway Finance Minister Siv Jensen said she sees no reason why the oil and gas her country produces can’t be part of a future focused on sustainable energy.

Speaking in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Tuesday, Jensen said it’s important to focus on emissions but that the debate needs to be more nuanced to ensure that more efficient forms of fossil fuel production aren’t discontinued.

The richest Nordic nation has long argued that it’s unrealistic to think that oil will no longer be needed in the future. Norway is therefore making the case that it should be the last producer to stop drilling because its operations have some of the lowest emissions of greenhouse gases.

Jensen, who is part of a center-right coalition in the richest Nordic nation, said Norwegian oil and gas companies are more efficient than others in their production. Jensen also noted to the Norwegian currency, the krone, is no longer as correlated with the price of oil as it once was.

To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story:

tbrogger@bloomberg.net

Norway also has a large new find of natural gas. https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/1200x800/public/d8/images/methode/2020/01/16/9cd06c50-378a-11ea-9933-e21be988cd59_image_hires_194941.jpg?itok=jepD6Eio&v=1579175391

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/16/2020 at 8:58 AM, SERWIN said:

So how much energy does it take to manufacture one wind turbine. Including trucking(moving) one into place, installation, maintenance? Does the cost of the energy used for this justify it by what it will produce over its service life, barring of course some disaster that would end its life prematurely? It would still count, but if it were a perfect world. I am assuming that would be a machine that would produce more energy than was put into it, if there was an actual benefit. Or are they just as every other energy producing machine? It takes more energy to produce and run than it would ever make, translated into energy for consumers. 

The true cost of energy to the consumer against the true cost of the pollution incurred over the total endeavor from mining to burying what is left over. In nuclear power it involves the never ending cost of guarding the radioactive material.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/16/2020 at 9:38 AM, Rob Plant said:

It is, its called the sun!

The best energy saver ever was the clothesline which uses sun and wind. The only problem with it is precipitation.

Burning wood is pollution neutral in the long run but could greatly shorten lives in cities. It is great for very sparsely populated areas. Wood pellets are a very big product and many ships carry them from North America to Europe.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, Magnus Karlsson said:

Sweden do mot use much hydrocarbons for heating. We use heat pumps a lot taking energy from soil and air. In citys we burn garbage and timber and distribute out hot water to heat houses. In the countryside some heat their  houses with wood pellets or wood if they do have a heat pump.  The hydrocarbons are used for transport and in chemical industri. 

Magnus Karllsson  Sweden

That is very good to hear. America should be using combined heat and power to the maximum. That goes for geothermal also. America and Canada produce a lot of wood pellets also and export to Europe. 

Heat pumps should be mandated ,for new housing, in appropriate climates. 

Edited January 18, 2020 by ronwagn
punctuation

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/14/2020 at 10:45 PM, Otis11 said:

 

Sorry Nick, you're wrong.

I have this funny feeling that the Swedish Tax Payers Association have a certain agenda. I suspect if it wasn't climate / environment they would have some other issue to focus on. 

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.

This may of course influence whether or not their population sample is reflective of the Swedish population as a whole - I somewhat doubt it.