/>

Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

reads.

Swedish society for nature conservation was wrong 30 years ago and are wrong now

Since 1980, Sweden has been the country in the world reduced their carbon emissions the most. It has been possible by the fact that we did not make the Swedish society for nature conservation for 30 years ago advocated, and still advocates, namely, to phase out nuclear energy.

We have managed through that Sweden have mainly implemented the long-term climate policy that we conservatives ran. It is easy to see by studying the Swedish energy balance, which consists of a large share of electricity through nuclear power and a large part hydro. We have a rapidly growing energy generation through bioenergy, which has been developed by Sweden did not choose this path. In addition, wind energy contributes according to their abilities, depending on wind and geography.

This might be worth recalling when the Swedish society for nature conservation as a chief judge judge other people's climate policy against its own. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Sweden had followed the Swedish society for nature conservation's recommendations, then, had the impact been significant for Sweden's climate policy leadership in the day. Sweden had likely been sharply rising emissions or, at best, been a country among others.

Our industry because of the growing costs declined in competitiveness. Instead of being an example of success on how reduced emissions can be reconciled with economic growth, Sweden had become a cautionary example of how attempts to reduce emissions leads to lower growth.

Against the us was the socialist government – backed by the Swedish society for nature conservation – who wanted to phase out nuclear power and do it by allowing massive increases of carbon dioxide emissions, with the motive that it had reduced the emissions of cfcs.

On just the DN debate, I wrote 30 years ago about the importance of Sweden should live up to the ceiling for carbon dioxide emissions that parliament had decided on the proposal of the Conservatives. Against us stood the socialist government – backed by the Swedish society for nature conservation – who wanted to phase out nuclear power and do it by allowing massive increases of carbon dioxide emissions, with the motive that it had reduced the emissions of cfcs.

Firstly, the government sought to construct a oljeeldat power plant in Nynäshamn, with venezuelan oil, and a natural gas power plant in Stenungssund. Thereafter, the government sought to develop an extensive natural gas network that would connect Sweden with the gas fields off Norway in the west and the Caucasus in the east. With the expansion of natural gas had the development of bioenergy, however, in its infancy for the reason that heavy investments in natural gas turn away the commercial conditions for bioenergy. Sweden had become deeply dependent on natural gas and of Russian supplies. I believe that it was of utmost important for Swedish climate policy that we stopped this.

of course, It is important that we in Sweden will reduce emissions, which we have done, but it remains marginal in the global perspective if we are not able to show the world that economic growth, fight against poverty and international cooperation can be reconciled with the reduction of emissions. This is true not least because growth is a prerequisite for the technological development and the investments in modern energy and transport systems. It is a growth which is needed on climate change are to be met over the entire world.

International cooperation and the fight against poverty is crucial for the transfer of technology and to the fight against the greenhouse effect does not lead to a further disaster in the form of in-depth poverty. It would not only be a human tragedy but lead to climate change subordinates ' economic development.

the Swedish society for nature conservation has directly wrong when it argues that the conservatives in the european Parliament has voted against a binding target.

An example of the static and short-term perspective is the over-reliance on targets and regulation of funds. Swedish society for nature conservation has directly wrong when it argues that the conservatives in the european Parliament has voted against a binding target. However, we have pushed for a dynamic development, based on the overall binding target to reduce emissions, while the Swedish society for nature conservation gives high scores have been pushing for short-term control through binding requirements on what funds should be used. It is the classic conflict between strong advocate of regulation and market transparency.

. It is to decide how the future mobile phones will be designed based on how yesterday's phones looked like.

another example of the difference between the static short-term and dynamic long-term global is the view on the flight. It is important that emissions from aviation are decreasing in Sweden, but even more important is that global emissions from aviation are reduced and that the development of global economy goes towards a reduction in total emissions. If we in Sweden discontinued all domestic flights, it would obviously mean a reduction of emissions, but because the rise of flight only in Asia every day the equivalent of four to five times more than the Swedish air force would Sweden's reduction does not give noticeable effect on global emissions. However, the Swedish economy and our ability to lead the development hit hard.

the Swedish steel production aiming at zero emissions would lose its link to the markets, and the world outside, which, in turn, means worse conditions for the Swedish steel industry to set standards for the international world of steel production. The Swedish economy would be affected at the same time as the Swedish aerospace industry would not be able to walk in the forefront of reducing emissions in the aviation industry.

the Belief that there is a superior truth, which Ssnc stands for, does a disservice to the climate debate we need.

As the airline industry through technology development to reduce its emissions by 2 to 3 percent each year, the play of these reductions is the major role for the global emissions, while the short-term national perspective provides a negligible effect. Decreased air and reduced trading in the world produces stagnant economies with greater dependence to the current fossil forms of energy, and with little financial leeway to set higher requirements.

.

can Either of Sweden and Europe to be leading the way in combining economic growth with reduced emissions or we can hand over to other countries with lower aspirations to determine the direction. Swedish society for nature conservation is a political party in the question of how we reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that make the same errors today as it was 30 years ago. Their own climate policy would get a bad score. The belief that there is a superior truth, which Ssnc stands for, does a disservice to the climate debate we need.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.