Sweden Plans to Be World's First Oil-Free Economy

[donsu]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0208-05.htm

Sweden Plans to Be World's First Oil-Free Economy
· 15-year limit set for switch to renewable energy
· Biofuels favoured over further nuclear power


Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations

The attempt by the country of 9 million people to become the world's first practically oil-free economy is being planned by a committee of industrialists, academics, farmers, car makers, civil servants and others, who will report to parliament in several months.

The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises.

"Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020," said Mona Sahlin, minister of sustainable development. "There shall always be better alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline."

According to the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, there is growing concern that global oil supplies are peaking and will shortly dwindle, and that a global economic recession could result from high oil prices.
-snip-
--------------------------------------


don't you wish it was america doing this?

[MadMaddie]

1. I think * and company will try to interfere with Sweden somehow ..

If Sweden is successful other countries will follow and you know these oil barrons can't have none of that!!

[Tesha]

23. You'll know Shrub is serious when...

You'll know Shrub is serious when it's a Volvo used to
carry the next bomb that goes off here in the Fatherland,
err, Homeland.

Tesha

[laruemtt]

2. good for Sweden!

i'm so happy for the swedes living in a place that is actually progressive. the u.s. is SO 20th century.

[PATRICK]

3. Sweden disappears

from the world news until a right wing government slides in and quietly recommits to gas guzzling and business assisted suicide.

No e-voting in Sweden?

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Yes, I really do!

[johan helge]

8. Join the fight!

Voting Green has the same effect as liberals, blacks etc. not voting - the Republicans love it. Why not join the fight against these bastards?

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. I'm fighting in two ways. Voting for progressives in any race where

either they or the moderate Dem are likely to win, and working for election reform so we really _can_ be a democratic republic.

[johan helge]

11. Join the fight!

Are there any races where progressives are likely to win?

I assume you vote Democratic when the race is tight? (And also when the Democrat is losing?)

About voting Green when the Democrat is winning: It makes the Democrat weaker than he/she would otherwise have been. And the weaker the Democrat is, the more to the right he has to position him-/herself, to win (partly because winning a voter from the Repub means that the Repub also loses a voter, while winning a voter from the Greens does not mean that). Join the fight then too!

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. The trouble is I have to vote Green in certain races to help my party

stay on the ballot.

I am against two party systems so even if I wasn't a Green I would be an Indy or Socialist.

[johan helge]

13. Join the fight!

The Greens shouldn't stay on the ballot - as long as there is a two party system, because then they help only the Repubs.

I'm against the two party system too. But I wouldn't dream of making life easier for the Repubs because of that!

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Well going off the ballot is as good as saying,

"Hey, we like everything the way it is".

Not the way I want to fight.

[johan helge]

15. Join the fight!

There are other ways of working for election reform than staying on the ballot. And:

1 How probable is it that an election reform will ever take place?
2 How important is it - compared to beating the Repubs?
3 If ever there is an election reform: It will probably not come because people start voting for other parties - because they won't, because it helps their main enemy. It will come because people inside the two parties want it.

Ok, I gotta go, thanks!

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Well....

1. Very probable if comes from the grassroots level on up. Many cities and counties are making positive changes to their election systems.

2. Very. Democracy is very important to me. Not allowing other parties to run is the same as saying we aren't really allowed to have a democracy.

3. Trouble with this is it makes an assumption, everyone is either A or B. Leaves no room for people who fit in neither category. As I said above it won't come from the top down. It is not profitable for the people at the top of the parties to change the system because the current system is what got them into office. It is not likely that people will be able to get them out of office without a change to said system. So don't expect politicians on the Hill to save us from the "We've got you by the short ones because we know you'll never vote for the other party" system. Will never happen that way.

[johan helge]

17. Join the fight!

A method for fighting for election reform which means that people should help their main enemy as long as the long or endless struggle lasts, will never be used by many. And given such a method, I doubt that the Repubs will ever accept election reform, because they will probably benefit on this method, compared to the Democrats.

My guess is: The first time you thought about voting for the Greens, election reform was not the main reason. But later on, voting Green has become hard to defend. So you construct this "must vote for a third party"-rule. John Kenneth Galbraith has said (and this often applies to me, too!) (http://quotes.worldvillage.com/i/b/John_Kenneth_Galbraith): "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof."

Join the fight, and fight for election reform in a way that does not help the Repubs (and therefore does have a bigger chance of being supported by many)!

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Wrong. I have been a Green since the day I turned 18 and could register

to vote. That was 16 years ago. I was raised in a home by a father who majored in political science and watched him go from Goldwater Republican to Independent to Green. I heard him rail against Raygun and Bush the prequel.. I heard him rail against Clinton. And I heard him talk about a system that favors millionaires and 'team players' only.

I have _always_ been a third party member because I do not believe in two party politics. We have a strong tradition here in Maine of doing things our own way. I am proud to live in one of the only states that offers voluntary clean election public campaign financing and the fact that Eder was able to be elected to the legislature (despite the Dems redistricting him out of his first district) only goes to show two things: 1) election reform can be done and 2) some Dems don't want to see other progressives succeed if they are affiliated with the wrong group. They put party ahead of progressivism and that's just not right.

So what is it for you? Party or progressive?

[johan helge]

41. Join the fight!

I just want to see the Repubs beaten, and, at least in Presidential elections, only Democrats can do that, and in that respect, the Greens are destructive. In 2000, I could hardly stomach to watch Bush on TV (and this hasn’t become easier!), but watching Nader was worse. As Dante wrote: "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." Green voters ain’t that bad, at least they vote, but for all practical purposes, they’re neutral in the fight.

The Democrats are in a desperate struggle to stop the Repubs. To me, voting Green because of this or that is analogous to not fighting Hitler in 1940 because of this or that.

I have full respect for you and your father. To me, your motives are perfect, your voting is not!

[mdmc]

25. GPV, you ARE the fight

peace and low stress! The American Dem loves the passion that you and other progressives share with the mainstream voters. Hang in there!

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. Thanks! :^) That's one reason why I love DU. I can hang with progressives

of many stripes and colors and get something _done_.

[mdmc]

31. and not for nothing, but I know dozens of progressives that

would label you and I traitors for voting for Kerry over Cobb or Nader (or was it Gore that you voted for? I remember seeing you post something like that somewhere). I would like to see this "join the fight" du'er sit down at a USA Green party convention. The dedication is so PURE! You and I would get run out of there in a heart beat! Peace!

[GreenPartyVoter]

32. Right now here in Maine the Greens are split into two factions one

wanting to roll themselves into the Dems and the other wanting to maintain their independence. I side with the indy group but again because I don't believe in two-party politics. I would much rather build a coalistion with the Dems than be a sub-group under it. I think it's harder to be heard from inside than from outside in some ways.

(BTW, I voted Clinton, Nader, Nader, Kerry.. the second Nader in 2000 was safe here in Maine which was clearly gonna go for Gore, so I went for it. I have no idea what will happen next time around because I honestly have lost faith in the federal level of the system after all these thefts and riggings. x()

[mdmc]

33. clinton, nader, nader, kerry too.. all in blue nys...

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Do you have fusion voting there?

[mdmc]

35. I don't know what fusion voting is

We do allow party bosses to give the party ballot line to a non-party members, if the candidate runs in a primary. The working family party cross endorses most dems.

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. Yes, cross endorsement is a form of fusion voting.

[johan helge]

43. Join the fight!

John Kenneth Galbraith once wrote (”A View from the Stands” p. 401): “George (Kistiakowsky) didn’t believe one changed much by meetings and discussions or by speeches, however impassioned. One accomplished things in a democracy when one elected legislators committed to one’s purpose and defeated those who were opposed. Few things are so important in modern life as the distinction between action and the self-gratifying illusion of action.”

[Cascadian]

18. I wished we had a multiparty system.

Why not let people have more choices? Canada does, Germany does, Sweden does.


John

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. I wonder what sort of system Norway has? That's where he's posting from

[johan helge]

42. Join the fight!

Broadly speaking, in Norway a party needs at least 4 % of the voters to be significantly represented in the Parliament (where there are now seven parties), while in the US Presidential election, a candidate needs at least 50 % of the voters to win. That’s why small parties are counterproductive in US Presidential elections, but not necessarily so in Norway.

[Tesha]

24. It will be interesting to see what tune you sing when...

> The Greens shouldn't stay on the ballot - as long as there
> is a two party system, because then they help only the Repubs.

It will be interesting to see what tune you sing when the
day finally arrives that, in some state, the Green Party
passes the Democrats as the #2 party.

I'd bet you'll suddenly think voting for a third party
has much more appeal than you do today.

By the way, in answer to your earlier question, Vermont
has, for quite a few years now, elected an independent
Congressman and is about to elect an independent Senator.

Tesha

[mdmc]

26. Bernie!

but...its a two party system... God Bless America and Bernie Saunders!

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. Bernie Rocks! He is the real deal and he gets it. Still I know

some dems did not want the DNC to bow out of the Senate race in his favor, which totally underscores what I was saying before. People have got to let go of their fear of indies and other parties who are progressive. It's almost as though they think that carrying the label Dem will mean they will play ball and and be progressive, but there's no guarantee of that because look how many times people complained about Dems breaking ranks and siding with the Repubs in situations like the Alito vote.

I would rather have a Sanders who I know from his track record will promote and vote for progressive ideals than a Dem who would likely break ranks to side with the Repubs.

[Tesha]

38. Hear hear!

> I would rather have a Sanders who I know from his track
> record will promote and vote for progressive ideals than
> a Dem who would likely break ranks to side with the Repubs.

Hear hear!

If we had a party full of Bernies we wouldn't be in the
pickle we're in, where no one has any idea what Democrats
actually stand for any more.

Tesha

[brmdp3123]

5. Good for them.

Unfortunately, the US doesn't have the geothermal option.

[kiteinthewind]

6. I want to move to Sweden!!

I want what they're having! :thumbsup:

[lakeguy]

19. you should move to sweden, it's great!

really hard to get citizenship unless you marry a swede though!

[Stockholm]

22. Name your first born Magnus and you are on your way

Will Ferrel who is married to a Swedish woman practices figure skating for a new role...

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/noje/story/0,2789,776117,00.html

[kiteinthewind]

40. LOL, my husband probably wouldn't be too happy about THAT!! : )

:shrug:

[Ready4Change]

7. Well, if I ever decide the USA is unrecoverable...

...it's good to know there may be a saner place in the world.

Sad thing is, when the oil wells run dry, we'll make the Swedes rich through buying/licensing their (then) tried and true alternative energy technologies. So much for the US being a tech leader.

[ieoeja]

9. What about Brazil?

They started this in a big way in the 70s, then let it slide until prices climbed again. The majority of cars in Brazil today run on bio-fuels as do a lot of their electric plants.

[NickB79]

39. Brazil's approach has been unsustainable

They have clearcut massive amounts of forest to grow sugarcane, which is then fermented to ethanol for fuel. While this drastically cuts oil imports, it also destroys the environment in the process. Their's is a pattern I do not want to see the US follow.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. I posted the following in the GD thread...

...but it seems worth cross-posting in this thread.

Sweden:
Population: 9,001,774 (July 2005 est.)
Oil - consumption: 346,100 bbl/day (2003 est.)
Consumption per person per day: .038 bbl

US:
Population: 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)
Oil - consumption: 20.03 million bbl/day (2003 est.)
Consumption per person per day: .068 bbl

Our oil consumption per person is double that of Sweden.

The source for these figures is the CIA world factbook, except for the per-person figures, which I did.

[lakeguy]

21. yup, about 35% of energy here comes from oil. 26% is from

renewable sources. i think it will still be tough to become completely independent in the time frame suggested, but to shrink that 35% down to less than 10% would be a huge step.

it helps when you have an excellent rail system because you can generate electricity to run many different ways. the US has no option when it comes to this which is why it will be impossible to achieve such a goal. you can thank the oil, car and tire companies for ripping up the rail system last century.

[Selatius]

45. They had good lobbyists in the 1950s to destroy light and heavy rail lines

Eisenhower built the interstate highway system, but he never developed complementary rail systems as well.

[mzmolly]

37. Man I love Sweden.

If only my ancestors had stayed put! Course I'm an example of the great melting pot, so "Svedish" is but a portion of my heritage. ;)

[Selatius]

44. We can't do that in the US. Our infrastructure is far larger than theirs

Also, we have shit for mass transit, so how are people going to get around the countryside without a car? We cut Amtrak funding, so how are Republicans going to sit idly by and let Democrats start a wave of construction programs to reintroduce light rail into America's cities and towns and high-speed rail lines connecting major cities to the detriment of automanufacturing corporations and oil corporations?