Al Gore's film to see worldwide distribution 15 February 06

The news about Sweden sounds just fantastic, though i haven’t had a really chance to read anything about it – does anyone know how easy it will be for Sweden to pursue an oil-free economy?

I live in sweden (i’m afraid I missed Mark when he was in stockholm last week..)and I think there is a chance for “us” to make it. The only trouble is that we chooses to invest in things like nuclear power, and to me that’s like a choise between two bad things.

MJV (friends of the earth sweden) and other NGO:s are really pushing the goverment now but it’s still a very long way to go. Sweden aint so cute as it seems on the surface I’m afraid, we have a lot of ass-kissers in the goverment (dont we all?) and if you look though out the world, sweden exports guns to countries at war (Bofors) and many of our companies (like SKANSKA) gears up for new pipelines in the ecuadorian amazon. What I’m trying to say is, that we have a tendensy to say one thing but doing another. (WW2 for example; we were “neutral” there but still we helped the germans in the north). Beside all this there’s also time for election in august and a lot of enviorment people threatens to bojcott the election if the goverment don’t act on oil and nuclear issues.

But (and a pretty big butt), I think we are far more closer than many other countries and that must stand for something I guress. Besides, the NGO:s are getting stronger and stronger and if we don’t change there will be hell to pay for the goverment.

Hi Eddan,

Do you know how likely it is that the Swedish government will pursue an oil free economy through an increased reliance on nuclear power? I understand that there has been some push in Sweden for a while to prevent the expansion of nuclear power but that that has never really made its way into any firm government policy.

Cheers

Swedens powerproduction is nearly fossilfree with 40-50% nuclear, 40-50% hydro, and most of the rest biofuelbased combined heat and powerplants (due to a recent introduction of green certificates). The amount of fossilfuel use in the industry and community-heating sectors has been steadily decreasing since the 1970s.

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (www.snf.se/english.cfm) recently published a report saying that Sweden could be fossil-free in all energyuse, except the transportation sector, by 2020. (And still shut down all nuclear powerplants, as decided in a referrendum in 1980.)

The problem is, as everywhere else, the transportation sector.

The swedish goverment has officialy said that they are against an expansion of nuclear power. Still we have several multinational companies searching for uranium in our mountain and forest areas. I think there’s a risk that our goverment will change direction in the near future and that an expansion of nuclear power soon will become a reality. In order to reduce the use of oil and fossilfuels, an expansion of the nuclear power can pretty much be forced on the public – like in finland for example.

To say something good about Swedens enviormental intensions; we have great opportunities to develop alternetives like wind, water and solar energy. Biofuels is also an option.

Although the use of oil is in focus right now as the greatest threat to the world, the danger of nuclear power must never be forgotten. The world might crash in several ways which means that we must take the fight on many diffrent areas at the same time. You die if you drown and you die if you blow up – I don’t wanna have to make that choise.

I just got this:

Good afternoon. My name is Robin Sanders, and I work at CBS News. I wanted to let you know about a story that “60 Minutes” will be airing this Sunday on climate change and global warming. It’s an incredibly interesting piece, and we’re trying to get the word out beforehand to as many people as possible who might have a particular interest in this subject. To that end, we were wondering if you might consider sending out an email to your listserve and/or posting something on your website. The story will be broadcast on CBS stations on at 7:00 ET/PT on Sunday, February 19. Further details will be posted on our website, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13502.shtml, which you’re welcome to link to from your own site.

Since Sweden has appx 9 millions to 60 million Brits, and 173,666 to our 94,214 square miles, that means you have 12x as much land per capita to source biomass from (gross of what land is productive.) Yet as George Monbiot has pointed out, if UK’s entire arable land were turned over to biofuels, that would still only power about 20% of our present road vehicles, let alone the aircraft and solid fuel for ships. We’ve touched before on the destruction of rainforest for traded biofuels.

So it’s to be expected that Swedes will still need to make some lifestyle changes to have genuinely carbon-neutral transport. And like people everywhere, they will surely take particular issue over household gas, demanding access to the wholesale market that other countries benefit from? And will they cease using lime and making concrete?

You are fortunate in having a vast array of tidily arranged upland river valleys, so presumably much of your hydro is off-the-peg, as it were?

I have a simple remark that complements the above question. Sweden or any other country that does business deals with other countries, and has connecting flights to other countries cannot be carbon-neutral. Not unless they stop importing and exporting everything…

Sweden’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions faster sounds very hopeful.

Right now, Sweden ranks just below the UK in GHG emissions per capita – nearly eight times the global per capita figure. IPCC/Grida figures show that emissions were rising from 2000 to 2003 (haven’t found up to date figures).

Now, Sweden is undoubtedly doing better than many other countries as far as the carbon-intensity of the economy is concerned. To aim for the sort of atmospheric stabilisation that a good contraction and convergence agreement would want to achieve, Sweden would still need to reduce their emissions from nearly 8 tons per capita to less than 1 ton per capita – ie a huge amount. Their new plans will hopefully get a bit closer to this.

I think it is important for all of us to be aware just what a huge change in the energy base is needed even by a country like Sweden, and in very little time (the time left before Greenland starts to melt very fast indeed)- and remember this whenever we think about nuclear energy, for example. I looked at the link from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservancy, which does not suggest how the aim of becoming both carbon neutral and nuclear free very quickly can actually be achieved. It mentions biofuels, without mentioning an assessment as to how much energy this would produce (‘The End of Oil’ mentions that Germany already uses nearly all available agricultural waste for biofuels and cannot much increase the supply without expanding agriculture – and it hardly makes a dent in CO2 figures, so without a full study I am afraid I am sceptical. Plus, is everything in the forest apart from the trees waste to be burnt, or does a forest not need a lot of biomass if it is to survive? I don’t know much about this.). It rules out big hydro as a sustainable source (so good-bye to Sweden’s main renewable source at present, too, as well as to all fossil fuels and nuclear energy). Sorry, but much as I would like to see a nuclear-free world I am becoming increasingly sceptical about suggestions that it will be easy and won’t interfere with strong targets to reduce CO2 emissions.

Almuth Ernsting

I know Sweden well, and if they can go carbon-neutral it will be a positive move. But as you say, one small nation on the right track does not a carbon-neutral world make. Sweden with 9 million people compared to China with 1 billion 200 million is a drop in the bucket. China and India developing along US lines with coal and oil as the major energy sources are, added to the US current practices, quite simply a climate disaster. A run away train of CO2 and all those other green house gases. The trouble with being a good intentioned nation like Sweden, is they are to small to make a global impact. But I admire them for trying their best despite the odds against them.

Robert, I guess you are a “swede” just like me, right? :)

I must say that I dissagree, I do think one small nation can make a difference. If we don’t believe that, whats the point on going on? We all have to start somewere, dont we?

To my point with this reply: What makes you think that sweden is a country with “good intentions”?? Word are only words and do you know about SKANSKAS buisness in Ecuador? Do you know what “sweden” and our multin. corporations are doing with the forest and the amazon population? If you don’t, you soon will find out – I guess the newspapers will tell you all about it.

We are a dirty nation considering our “immunity” to everything. We were “neutrual” in WW2, vietnam, Rwuanda, Bosnia at the same time as we supported one or the other. Now we plans to be “neautrual” in the carbon-conflict as well.

Even if we, inside our own borders, becomes “carbon-free”, our compaies world wide continues to infect the planet. We, as swedes, are directly resposible for killing people of the amazon, cutting forests and drilling oil. I’m not proud over my country, not at least. We just have the ability to hide in the shadows all the time and letting other take the blame for our wrong-doing.

That the big nations are going to drive climate change. USA/Russia/China/India/and others will decide the climate future of our world. Of course I like to see the scandinavian countries carry forward carbon neutral energy programs. Every bit helps, but I admit I am not optimistic about the future. For example, Mexico city, one city, has a population of nearly Sweden and Norway put together. I’ve seen that city’s air pollution first hand. When just one city can out do all of Norway and Sweden it puts things into perspective. I’m not swedish myself, but my grandparents were immigrants to america from Sweden many years ago. I visit Sweden often and do speak, read and write the language.

I think your right, no qustion about that. I was just a bit worried about your “good faith” towards sweden, thats all.

I still say we stink in a lot of was, despite what the politicians say. Nothing unique about that I guess… :)

Lite roligt att du föåsvenska. Inte ofta man stö påån såi dessa sammanhang. Ditt namn ädefinitivt svenskt i alla fall. :)

att kunna fö svenska. Min far läe sig svenska hemma eftersom hans födrar alltid pratade påvenska nähan var ung. Jag blev intresserad av spåt pårund av min fars svenska kunskaper. Han brukade svä påvenska nähan blev arg! Ja, det finns inte sååa häi Amerika som kan det svenska språt. Jag fortsäer att studera språt fött föttra mina kunskaper. Att besöSverige såycket som mögt ocksåjäer. Naturligtvis kan jag inte flytande svenska men det ämitt syftemå