Ecologism?

The Big Green Lie Exposed - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest: "The Big Green Lie (or Delusion, to be charitable) isn’t so much that climate change is happening and that it is very likely caused or at least exacerbated by human activity. The Big Lie is that the green movement is a source of coherent or responsible counsel about what to do."

"The ideas that get us out of this mess will be ideas that work for specific countries and that make the economy work better, produce more wealth and use energy and raw materials more efficiently."

Walter Russell Mead compares the ecology movement with an alarm clock. Once we have waked up it should be turned off. I have myself said earlier in the blog that I'm not sure I believe that ecologism has relevance as a political doctrine. In political philosophy it only boils down to don't waste and pollute less. As a proponent for Religious Humanism I should perhaps be more of a romantic for Nature. It is just that Man is also part of Nature and his well being should also be taken into consideration. Perhaps with priority over the environment.

Johan Norberg discusses the situation in Sweden between liberalism and environmentalism in his resumé from a debate with the porte parole of the Greens, Maria Wetterstrand. Johan Norberg brings up the disdain for technology development and life style morality as important differences. Walter Russell Mead brings up the problems of prohibition as an example on what life style moralism might do.

The question is what happened to the environmental media debate? I had warned Europe for using the environmental morality weapon against China and the US. Did they tell Europe to be quiet at the COP15 meeting? A conspiracy theorist would relish thinking that the debt crisis is punishment by the "markets".

The Red-Greens of Germany are coming?

News Analysis - Germany Begins to Shed Its Role as E.U. Integrator - NYTimes.com: "Mrs. Merkel’s call for the right to exclude countries like Greece actually seems linked to domestic politics before an important regional election in North Rhine-Westphalia in May. Polls suggest that the governing coalition could lose to a liberal combination of Social Democrats, Greens and the Left party."

Well, today EU leaders meet again to dwell on the topic of Europe's future. The article by Stephen Castle and Matthew Saltmarsh points out that Germany's interest no longer necessarily is Europe's interest. Angela Merkel and her CDU party have been speaking for the environment but apparently are also threatened, like Nicholas Sarkozy in France, in regional elections by a Red-Green coalition. Polls indicate that Germans are not keen on sending money to Greece, they'd rather invest via the markets in Russia, apparently.

Here in Sweden Henrik Oscarsson discuss the recent result of a SIFO poll where the most talked about topics are displayed for the different parties. Swedes fancy jobs, healthcare, education, eldercare and the environment, in this order. The Red-Greens own healthcare, eldercare and the environment. It is more even for the job and education categories. However, the Center party and the Christian Democrats have completely failed to rally for the environment and eldercare, respectively, which is perhaps the main reason for the lead of the Red-Greens over Alliansen, the rightwing governing coalition, who never since the last election 2006 was in the lead in polls.

The article thus suggests that Red-Green coalitions might be breaking Europe apart by challenging the ruling center-right coalitions. The Red-Greens have traditionally been against the EU and EMU in Sweden.

One more round of Nuclear Power seems necessary

Regeringen vill ha nya reaktorer - DN.se: "Beslutet fattades på torsdagen och propositionen presenteras nästa vecka. Förslaget innebär att de nuvarande tio reaktorerna ska kunna ersättas med nya — och att ett tak om högst tio reaktorer sätts."

Jan Björklund, leader of Folkpartiet, has argued well for the need of replacing at least some of the present reactors for securing electricity until Sweden can become fully renewable. Tomas Ramberg gave Björklund a hard time on the actual percentage of nuclear power that presently generate electricity in a recent Saturday Interview on the Radio program One. However, it still represents a significant percentage that currently cannot be replaced by renewable sources.

The argument that people seem to avoid is that of actual cost when production starts which is hard to calculate. The construction of the latest Finnish reactor which is late and more expensive is generally brought up. Avoiding dependence on Russian natural gas is of course something worth paying defence tax money for as is perhaps substituting for fossil fuel produced electricity from European sources. There is of course a risk that we would damage the prospects of the export industry with too high costs on electricity?

After listening to the speech of Jan Björklund at the Folkparti Riksmöte in Västerås the other day, I realized that he did not mention anything about future sustainability. He advocated full speed ahead. Personally I think it is unwise to not address this issue at all due to its importance. A moderate approach to sustainability from the right would be appropriate as an alternative to more unrealistic approaches of the Greens. It might be that Alliansen, the political coalition of Sweden, now delegates to the Centerparti to argue for sustainability, but it does not yet show on the national stage. Nicolas Sarkozy, a right wing politician, is arguing for sustainability who is also hard pressed by a Red-Green alliance.

Are we doing the right thing in Afghanistan?

Avatar (2009 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Worldwide, Avatar grossed an estimated $232,180,000 on its opening weekend,[15] the ninth-largest opening-weekend gross of all time, and the largest for a non-franchise, non-sequel and original film. After 17 days in release, it became the fastest film to reach $1 billion in box office receipts[16] and the fifth to gross more than $1 billion worldwide. Less than three weeks after its release, the film became the second highest grossing film of all time worldwide."

According to reviews of the film, I have not seen it myself, the US army is beaten up by a spiritual people called Na'vi in a sensitive ecosystem, a planet Pandora. In other words there is both save-the-earth and anti-war sentiments that seem very popular. It is fascinating to observe capitalism in action against its main proponent. Don't misunderstand me, I'm very grateful that it is the US that has the largest military in the world.

Yesterday I referred to a speech by Hillary Clinton, the US State Department Secretary, where she spoke of development as a means of lowering risks to the US in the future from states that are on the verge of failing. Military would be used to secure such operations. She makes use of an axiom: if we don't invest in this today, it will be more costly tomorrow. Is this axiom correct if the countries in question are indigenously hostile to the West in general and to the US in particular? Because, development will not work under such circumstances and it then smells of waste of good money, not mentioning the loss of lives. Making war, polluting and devouring raw materials apparently do not make the US, China or the EU popular.

Used as a world opinion poll Avatar might be more important the many seem to think?

Climate Science and Gene Modified Organisms

"Avdramatisera genmodifierad växtförädling" - Aktuella frågor - Sydsvenskan - Nyheter dygnet runt: "För att klara framtida behov av livsmedel är det nödvändigt att utveckla olika tekniker inom växtförädling. Med genmodifiering kan växtförädlingen uppnå resultat som inte är möjliga med andra förädlingstekniker, skriver docent Anders Falk på Jordbruksverket."

There is still a great controversy between the US, which is for GMO, and the EU which is highly restrictive. It is also so that Europeans does not seem so fascinated with the technology as such, notwithstanding the safety concerns. They simply don't like it. Since the US currently are more deft in science than the EU, it is clear that scientific arguments in this case don't work on the Europeans.

It is interesting to compare the use of science for the argumentation of using GMOs and that of scientific arguments in the climate change debate. It is, for example, obvious that scientific arguments work better in Europe than in the US. There has even been arguments for letting the scientists rule the world even if this is a little too Platonic for most people. Turning this against the Europeans it might be so that the issues at hand cannot only be discussed by scientific arguments.

Anders Falk in the article in Sydsvenskan therefore seems to be American in character and I must spontaneously agree with him that in all probability there should be great possibilities with GMOs. Science in general, and molecular biology in particular, has shown tremendous progress during the last century. However, this is more of a political opinion than it is a thorough scientific investigation of possible hazards with the technology in question. The use of scientific argumentation is seemingly very political.

The Lid Opened a Little?

EUobserver / Racism at 'shocking' levels in EU, landmark report says: "Using language rarely found in the dry reports of EU agencies, the FRA described as 'shocking' the rampantly racist, anti-immigrant and Islamophobic experiences of minorities as they go about their daily lives."

Here is another one in Spiegel Online where Dennis Meadows, a US economist who wrote a book in 1972 that used modelling with that era of a computer to conclude that lifestyles had to be changed. He claims it is too late now and that we just have to hold on and see what happens. I recognize myself a little with this view on the matter. He says we don't have to save the Planet it will save itself. What we have to worry about is our civilization. Man survived the ice age. Africa now have to move to Siberia, instead of everyone moving to Africa.

Considering these two articles together it becomes evident that why it is so silent out there is because people are saying conflicting things. On one hand we have to globalize more so that the world population will start to decrease after 9bn. On the other hand people cry for blocking growth to save the climate. "Business as usual" is not good, they say. But Meadows says it is too late. If he is right there is no problem. The problem is perhaps that the climate fundamentalists claim that we can save the planet if we do this and this. Meadows says the only thing that would help is changing lifestyles.

Then the very unpleasant truth surfaces mercilessly. Should we go back to the caves and all live as they do in Afghanistan instead of trying to change their lives? The glory of our civilization was all a hoax. Or should we hope that the industrialized countries will come up with solutions also for the rest of the world. Meadows says that we should not have 18 pairs of shoes. What happens if it is not enough for people to have the three pair of shoes that he prescribes to save our civilization? Well, for the time being we would have to accept an outsideship and one main goal would be to eliminate it using science.

If science is the solution it is very bad that it is being discredited and politicized currently. It is bad that the schools in the Western world suffer from an apparent lack of motivation which is perhaps not so strange if doomsday prophets continue to sing their songs in the vein of the interview with Meadows. What remains important, however, is that for prosperity to rein it is necessary for individuals to work freely and searching for a solution to the world outsideship that is just going to be another hurdle on the track.

I must say that I come down more on the hopeful side of 'business as usual' than on the gloomier sustainable growth side because the whole system evolves from hope and the current situation. Eventually when we solved the population crisis by globalizing completely, which results in lower birth rates, sustainability must ensue.

Another type of solidarity

Jan Thurins tankar: Leta efter resultat för wallström: "Det är naturligtvis bra att smutsa ner så lite som möjligt men det verkar som om vi kommer att nödsakas att ta en risk med en ökad temperatur för att de fattiga på jorden skall få det bättre.

Solidaritet kräver denna risk.

Jag har inte sett någon dra denna slutsats och gör det därför själv. Jag tror det är att fördedra att se på problemet som ett måttligt risktagande snarare än som en analkande domedag.

Jag inbillar mig att det är fler än jag själv som gör denna bedömning."

Remembered that I had written the above after reading Johan Norberg's column in Metro today. Norberg was apparently one such person but I have not seen anyone else since I wrote the above in March 25, 2008.

OK! Don't talk about the bad stuff. Instead focus on the good stuff and the bad will disappear?

Charlemagne's notebook The Economist: "And the results of sober, sustainable growth are not the same as those from a consumption-based society. How will we find sources of alternative jobs? The ecological revolution has to create a lot of jobs."

I love a sunny story. Tax money is going into this right now but as I wondered earlier why is the civil society not following suit? Jacques Delors, who is a socialist, and who said the above, believes in green technology as does Obama and seemingly everyone else. I have heard people say this is a new industrial revolution. Thomas Friedman at the New York Times writes today that we don't have anything to lose from going head over heel into this new phase in our life. Even if man is not culpable for climate change what could we possibly lose from cleaning up the place.

When I talked about the trans-Atlantic axis as a unified force into the next level the other day, I had sustainable growth in mind. China might forcefully follow suit trying to outshine the US in world opinion as the good guy on the block despite its need for growth. After all they are not bogged down in two war zones.

But why the gloom? Why is not everyone dancing on the roof?

The Environment?

Ett mirakel krävs i Köpenhamn Brännpunkt SvD: "Klimatförändringen kan inte lösas isolerat utan måste ses som en del av en större kris, i form av överutnyttjandet av många viktiga ekosystem. Klimatavtalet måste följas av ett avtal om hållbar utveckling. Ett sådant avtal förutsätter helt andra spelregler för ekonomin och världshandeln än dagens."

Continuing my read-up on climate change. Johan Rockström, Director of Stockholm Environmental Institute, and Anders Wijkman, Tällberg Foundation, seemingly want the world to be governed in another fashion. The Economist with its Special Report on Climate Change delivers a calm and nice appraisal of the situation. Yes, climate change can technically be taken care of and yes, it is affordable. The question is how, apparently.

However, it is interesting to note that energy companies like BP and Shell lowers their investments in renewables currently. Is this because there is large amounts of money invested in 2010 and 2011 as stimulus money and they want to see what's happening with these tax funds? Or is it because profits are nowhere in sight, for a while? Solar electricity cost ten times as much as coal electricity.

It is questionable if climate change will make the world centralize government. It seems more likely that a fight on preeminence in green technology is going to ensue. At least the Chinese seems to think like that. Hu Jintao will run China like a green technology company, the engineer he is, and try to win market shares. He currently, alone in the world, sits on a pile of money and invests galore. In my ignorance I can't help wondering why BP and Shell don't take him up on this?

The reason why people are not in such a hurry?

Mike Hulme: The Science and Politics of Climate Change - WSJ.com: "The citizens they rule over have minds of their own. In the U.K., a recent survey suggested that only 41% believed humans are causing climate change, 32% remained unsure and 15% were convinced we aren't. Similar surveys in the U.S. have shown a recent reduction in the number of people believing in man-made climate change."

I guess this is the reason we don't think the philosophers should rule the world like Plato said.

An earlier meeting of climate scientists in Copenhagen

Hopes of climate change accord 'are sinking' - Times Online: "“We all hope that Copenhagen will succeed but I think it will fail. We won't come up with a global agreement,” Professor Anderson said. “I think we will negotiate, there will be a few fudges and there will be a very weak daughter of Kyoto. I doubt it will be significantly based on the science of climate change.”"

It seems that Hansen in the earlier post alludes to the statement that COP15 will not be based on the science of climate change. Perhaps I have been fooled to believe that there is a relationship of trust between the political domain and the scientific domain that seems to be non-existent?

The cited meeting last March was one of climate scientists only that wanted to bring forward a status report on climate change for politicians in COP15.

First Climategate, then a farce?

Climate scientist James Hansen hopes summit will fail - Times Online: "A leading scientist acclaimed as the grandfather of global warming has denounced the Copenhagen summit on climate change next week as a farce"

Well, I thought I'd take the opportunity to learn a little about where the climate change debate is standing during the COP15 meeting. However, I'm surprised over the heavy attacks towards the meeting. It indeed seems confusing now. On the radio somebody said that there is no opposition anymore against the main tenets of climate change, ie, the temperature rise and the culpability of mankind. I'm apparently supposed to draw the conclusion that yes something should be done but there is no consensus on what exactly?

Now a so called grandfather of climate change is against the meeting itself and an icon like the cap and trade system. He wants to tax carbon directly instead. He is apparently telling people to start the same civil unrest as during the Vietnam war in the US in the process.

COP15 is an interesting feature. It is a measurement of what the world currently can muster on collaboration in the face of supposed danger. Should I draw the conclusion that there is not sufficient danger? Or is it that it so happens that the world is just emerging from a financial crisis that would make a suggestion to tax carbon directly economical suicide.

Is James Hansen a clown rather than COP15 being a farce?

In the wake of "Climategate"

Richard S. Lindzen: The Climate Science Isn't Settled - WSJ.com: "Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned."

Well, I took the liberty of reading the Wikipedia article on Dr. Lindzen, a meterologist at MIT, and he is apparently one of these in the field that people have severe problems contradicting. It is not only The Wall Street Journal that contribute with scepticism towards current conclusions on climate change The Economist is also noting in the wake of "Climategate" that the science involved are predictions that constantly need upgrading for better reflecting reality.

They claim: This newspaper believes that climate change is a serious threat, and that the world needs to take steps to try to avert it. That is the job of the politicians. But we do not believe that climate change is a certainty."

In the Wikipedia article, however, one finds a note that tells that the politicians with the Kyoto agreement didn't do much, next to nothing, to stabilize the CO2 levels. This is a Lindzen argument which he claims there is no controversity about.

Politicians have therefore not so far had much luck in combating climate change. Even if the CO2 problem is not fruitfully contributing positively to our climate, reductions of all kinds will of course dirty down our planet less and therefore have other positive effects.

Priorities of the Red-Greens?

Sahlin öppnar för styre med C och FP - DN.se: "Mona Sahlin ställer nu ultimatum och kräver att det ska bildas en majoritetsregering efter valet om Sverigedemokraterna kommer in i riksdagen och får en vågmästarställning. 'Det skulle bli politiskt kaos med en minoritetsregering', säger Sahlin till DN."

Mona Sahlin seems to want to defy history since (S) has been ruling in minority governments for long periods.

It seems to me that what Mona Sahlin is saying is that she prefers the "icke-jämlika", or non-equal, liberals before the "främlingsfientliga", or the foreigner averse, (SD) line. This means that they are less socialistic than yesterday and thus fits less with the (V) which they, like PJ Anders Linder suggested would "drop like a hot potato".

Is this not a very important ideological shift by Mona Sahlin and as such it should be welcomed not spurned? (FP) is on top of this supposed to have taken a step to the right of (M). Sahlin might though be more afraid of the grand personal popularity of Reinfeldt, which might cloud her ideological self?

On the other hand, Sahlin might assume that (FP) and (C) should lose their souls and become strictly "jämlika", like perhaps (MP) has become, in a (S), (FP), (C) and (MP) alliance. After the recent discussions about the flirtation of Maria Wetterstrand with the social liberals a governing system with Wetterstrand as Statsminister and with only (S), (FP), (C) and (MP) might be a real alternative that easily would get a majority.

Perhaps Sahlin has changed the game to a fight between two majority governments: Liberals, Greens and either (M) or (S) where (KD) and (V) would be the losers? The likelihood for this might be higher with a positive outcome of the COP15 meeting. Environmental issues become all the rage and Sweden would project itself as a world leader on climate change lore--as it seems to aspire to? This might very well happen if the left odorous China takes the initiative over the US as indicated by the latest debate in The Economist.

Personally I would prefer the "Alliansen" to get a majority. Andreas Carlgren has done a great job as environmental minister, now recently by taking responsibility for the poisonous story of Boliden, he then projects the climate change lore. It does not seem to work for either (C) or (KD) to attract green voters, however. Right now in Sweden they seem to gravitate to the popular Maria Wetterstrand.

The word "jämlikhet" is not used as the Social Democrats do by (MP) politics file on their web site?

There has been a lot of writing on the flirtation by Maria Wetterstrand to social liberals on Newsmill. This discussion on Newsmill was better than the politics file of (MP) on their web site to explain their relative position. I then browsed the politics file on their web site and found no occurrences of the word "jämlikhet" as used by the social democrats. That would be "equality". If this is true, I can understand the flirtation because I found out that "jämlikhet" is a key word in the distinction between Alliansen and the Red-Greens. Jan Björklund, for example recently pointed out on the "Landsmöte" of (FP) that it is necessary to accept different effective salary levels.

Johan Norberg speculated about the possibility for Alliansen to balance out (SD) with (MP) in the next election which might not really be possible.

What is perhaps most interesting with this find, if relevant, is that it might not be possible for (MP) to function in the Red-Green alliance because of this ideological deficit. A socialist marker. Magnus Andersson, however, brings up factors that are against societal development that then solidly places (MP) aside of Alliansen and (S) + (V) as pointed out by Birger Schlaug. However, Fredrick Federley thinks (MP) is socialistic in other ways.

More on the debate social liberal/environmentalism Marteus, Expressen

(FP)'s "landsmöte"

Per Altenberg – ett liberalare Sverige » Blog Archive » Fp tar ett steg till höger: "De flesta besluten på landsmötet som betecknas som höger, t.ex. moderniseringen av LAS, är dock i själva verket ett tecken på att Folkpartiet frigör sig från den socialdemokratiska världsbilden. Det är en bra utveckling."

There was one of Björklund's reforms that seem to be a step in the direction of the Social Democrats namely the job loss protection insurance. In Jan Björklund's speech there was no information as to the level of support that a person would receive. Helle Klein is hitting real hard because of the reforms taken by Alliansen on the loss of "A-kassa" coverage that is happening right now. Klein is bordering rude when she complains on this matter. I guess this is tactics to prevent loss of social liberals to (FP) from the social democrats.

The question is on what level it is economically reasonable to keep people after they lose a job or get sick. It is perhaps more stimulating for the reemployment to have lower compensation levels than that of the A-kassa. People will muster a higher degree of motivation to return to the job market? After all the system seems to be in trouble since we have the highest taxes in the world and still have to lower tax for creating jobs. Is it possible to lower taxes by saving on the job loss reimbursements? In this case it might help in creating more jobs and thus lower the time in orbit.

Lowering job loss reimbursements would also cause a blending of the people in the outsideship. It would not only contain the most desolute. This might have stimulating effects one job creation as well. There might also be less problems with violence in suburbs.

Birger Schlaug writes about our society as driving on the freeway in either the right or the left lane with the green so called "utvecklingssamhälle" in the bushes beside the road. There might be people that prefer using the machete to clear their way in the bush but I prefer my car on the freeway. A new outsideship according to the above might suffice for such a detour and they would not need so much money.

However, such a life will not lead to the goals provided by the life on the freeway. Most people would in all probability not fit into Schlaug's new way but would rather work than having free time, digest culture and spending time with their families which is all fine at a reasonable dose.

The Blame Game

Tärande politik - DN.se: "Skulle Maud Olofsson ha haft större förtroende för en vd som nöjt sig med vattenkraft, och på sin höjd subventionerat lite fler vindsnurror? Med en sådan ledning för Vattenfall hade svenska folket varit många hundra miljarder fattigare. Vi hade fått betala ett högre elpris och saknat möjligheter att på allvar påverka Europas klimatpolitik."

Niklas Ekdal have the kindness of delivering facts but is in the process too negative regarding the government role. After all most acquisitions to Vattenfall AB were done prior to the Alliansen government. Economics minister Thomas Östros was reprimanded for example by KU for failing to properly steer Vattenfall AB in May 2005.

However, the above citation brings up the question of the cost of protection from the climate change problem. Ekdal points out that USA, China, Japan and Germany all are heavy users of fossil fuels and they are currently the top economical performers. I have noted that both Germany and Japan have recently begun a climate friendly approach that perhaps have as a by product a competition promoting element vis-à-vis their larger competitors.

Having concluded this it is easy to see why ownership of a energy company today becomes a liability for the government and why Jan Björklund and Fredrick Federley started talking about a sale. It is also evident from the the bouquet of blogs from the opposition preying on this issue. The state should not own companies is an other conclusion. Systembolaget and tobacco companies are other funny examples where the companies make negative commercials on their products. They produce something that is bad for you but that people like to use. The web site of Vattenfall AB gives the customer an opportunity of selecting electricity from for example only hydroelectric power for no extra charge.

In retrospect it may be possible to say that having diagnosed the problem earlier people from Alliansen should have prepared for a sale of Vattenfall AB earlier on. They could have guessed that they would be reprimanded in the same fashion as the Social Democrats and that they would be attacked during the end of the EU chairmanship for optimal deletary effect and just in time for the election process to begin. On the top of this, the potential flop of the Copenhagen meeting will then make the government look idling. The problem is of course that selling of the problem might give an air of irresponsibility that the opposition can capitalize on instead.

Vattenfall AB?

Björklund vill sälja delar av Vattenfall - DN.se: "– De senaste turerna visar att det inte längre är speciellt lätt att motivera att staten ska äga ett bolag som är en internationell aktör. Det kan vara väldigt mycket problem med det, säger Oscarsson och pekar bland annat på hur svårt både den sittande och tidigare regeringar haft att styra det kraftigt växande företaget"

This affair interest me because of the conflict of government/environmentalists and concerns for the delivery of energy to customers. Politically the ratio of renewables to fossil/nuclear is up in the air until the 2010 election for Sweden as such. However, sovereign wealth funds are investing all over the place currently. Seemingly without problems.

Otherwise this sounds like a good idea. It must be very difficult to run a company if there is constant discord between the owners and the CEO. Be that unrealistic environmental demands or other matters. The insurance for accident aspect is apparently a quite normal affair in this business and it is therefore strange that the press has been trying to make that an issue.

There has been an endless stream of articles to read on this affair that I must admit I still don't understand properly. To start with there was apparently a problem with selling the Swedish grid which was 10% of the total but the largest one of 170 actors on the market. Why would this be a problem if the company had decided on this? Björklund speak of selling parts of the company. Are we then back to selling the grid?

Per Altenberg calls Vattenfall AB "Svenska Gazprom". Monica Saarinen on Studio Ett informed that Vattenfall AB emits twice as much CO2 as does Sweden itself. Apparently they for example produce 23% of the electricity in Germany. GreenPeace would say "close the damn thing". My question would be if Sweden can afford closing down companies because of environmental concerns says Hans Bergström in DN today. Vattenfall AB is getting a stain from the international ownership due to the leadership role in environmental issues of Sweden. Maud Olofsson is, however, just one of many Economics ministers that have been letting Vattenfall AB grow. Presently, of course, the row then soils the government to the favor of the opposition.

There is an article in DN today which presents Öystein Löseth, the new CEO of Vattenfall. Between 2009 and 2013 they are going to invest 6% in nuclear power, 12% renewables, 37% fossiles and 33% not yet decided. Will that be nuclear or renewables if not fossils? They are set to expand in France, Czech Republic, Schweiz and Austria.

DN claims that there is a decision taken in the Swedish Riksdag that Vattenfall AB is going to produce 10 terawatt hours renewables by 2016. The problem is that does not tell me much without a breakdown of what they actually produce today. They are also supposed to promote the transfer to renewables. The press have tried to claim that they have not done this properly as of yet. The new CEO likes nuclear power but it is unfortunately not renewable.

If this debacle continues it might be possible to understand why it causes such a fray when so little can be understood about the issue. The press serves a new fact per day approximately. Today, for example, we find out that our company hires a CEO that is a friend of nuclear power when it was not popular a few days ago that Vattenfall AB would invest in this type of energy.

Nordstream?

JohanNorberg.Net#3386: "Men inget av dessa mål nås av denna energihandel. Gazprom är inte ett vanligt ryskt bolag. Det är ett statsmonopol sammanvuxet med Kreml och befolkat med gamla KGB-män. Putin monterade ned embryot till ett oberoende rättssystem för att skapa dess olje- och gasmonopol."

That is probably perfectly true but if I have understood this correctly it is the wish of Germany that this gas duct is installed. With that point of view it is clear that Germany probably knows what they are doing and that they in principle now is in charge of area security in the east. The Americans seemingly lost interest. This seems perfectly clear from between the lines of recent diplomatic activity, i.e., what the public have been able to see.

I also think there is a point in thinking of Russia as a European country. The selection of an economically oriented foreign minister in Germany probably highlight the business orientation of the relationship between Russia and Germany.

Why is Centerpartiet bleeding?

”Opinionssiffrorna en tydlig signal från väljarna” Politik Debattämnen Debatt Aftonbladet: "Jag brukar sällan kommentera opinionssiffror. De kan snabbt ändra sig till något helt annat. Men ett stadigvarande tapp i opinionen för centerpartiet är tydligt. Ett parti får de opinionssiffror det förtjänar och den sista tidens siffror är en klar signal från väljarna om en besvikelse över att vi inte längre levererar framtidsdrömmar och liberala reformer som ifrågasätter rådande system."

Fredrik Federley wonders why his party is losing ground. He thinks liberal dreams fuel interest in Centerpartiet. I wonder if this is true? The popular Maria Wetterstrand in the Green party is potentially recruiting center party members that do not like the nuclear power issue. Perhaps this is why Maud Olofsson, less popular than Wetterstrand, tries to be nasty to Vattenfall AB that dares to have a wish on making some money building nuclear power stations in the UK? The greens have indeed gained popularity lately.

Magnus Andersson, the CUF leader writes on his blog in an approximately similar fashion. He says, for example, "you form politics from the need of the people rather than for the need of the political apparatus". However, is the problem not that natural force that by necessity makes small parties smaller in a coalition with a greater party? People tend to vote with the power.

PJ Anders Linder has again brought up the idea of forming an election alliance. But this is of course tactics rather than politics. I have been told that Reinfeldt's popularity is not necessarily going to help in the election because Swedes vote on the party. Is that on ideology? In pragmatism you do what works. "Regeringsduglighet"! The problem with that ideology might be that there is no driver in the system. Today it should be possible to find out whether people like the situation they are in. It should be possible to run experiments where you find out what politics people prefer without people even knowing about it. Maybe the Chinese are doing that currently? They have apparently made a replica of Sigtuna.

That's true. It is different to ask a person their opinion and asking their body of its opinion. Andersson and Federley both think their party would benefit size wise if they verbalize a clear policy and criticize the government. I wish them luck because I will vote for freedom. For the living human being.