Sweden dumps climate agenda and scraps green energy targets

a reply to: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AlienBorg

It's cold and it's pouring with rain.

Last night at the pub everyone was saying it feels like autumn.

I am not in the UK but have checked the weather forecast and it's pretty cool and gas been cool for most of the summer. If media argue this heat is extreme you must have to challenge their nonsense.

I am in the UK. June was our hottest on record.

July, in contrast, is pretty average. But not as cool as we'd expect given the synoptics. This may in part be due to the abnormally high sea surface temperatures (highest ever recorded).

I doubt June was that hot. It's mainly bogus claims pushed by the media. It seems to me you ve got a pretty cool summer.

I am 100% certain it was that hot - I was here and monitoring the temps across the country. And it wasn't the media making the claims, it was us meteorologists.

Are you a meteorologist?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AlienBorg

a reply to: AndyMayhew

When did they start measuring the temperature at surface level for weather reports?

The animation below uses data from the Copernicus Sentinel-3 mission’s radiometer instrument and shows the land surface temperature across Italy between 9 and 10 July. As the image clearly shows, in some cities the surface of the land exceeded 45°C, including Rome, Naples, Taranto and Foggia. Along the east slopes of Mount Etna in Sicily, many temperatures were recorded as over 50°C.”

Taken from esa.

Online it says, officially temperature should be measured:

Place the thermometer 5 feet above the ground (+/- 1 ft.). A thermometer too low will pick up excess heat from the ground and a thermometer too high will likely have too cool of a temperature due to natural cooling aloft. 5 ft. is just right.

All official temperature data - including any records - is measured as per your 2nd quote. Using weather stations that are regularly checked (especially after any exception temps have been reported) to ensure they are correctly positioned, within Stevenson frames, and that there are no issues that may affect their reading. It's not unknown for a WS to report a record high temp and for that to then later be discarded after evaluation.

However, we can (and do) also use satellites to look at ground surface temps as well. These should not be confused with air temperatures. Although I know that just lately a few people have been deliberately doing so in order to muddy the waters and try and discredit recent temperature records.


I'm only an amateur meteorologist - though I have many friends who are professionals - and I don't issue forecasts myself these days.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AlienBorg

a reply to: AndyMayhew

When did they start measuring the temperature at surface level for weather reports?

The animation below uses data from the Copernicus Sentinel-3 mission’s radiometer instrument and shows the land surface temperature across Italy between 9 and 10 July. As the image clearly shows, in some cities the surface of the land exceeded 45°C, including Rome, Naples, Taranto and Foggia. Along the east slopes of Mount Etna in Sicily, many temperatures were recorded as over 50°C.”

Taken from esa.

Online it says, officially temperature should be measured:

Place the thermometer 5 feet above the ground (+/- 1 ft.). A thermometer too low will pick up excess heat from the ground and a thermometer too high will likely have too cool of a temperature due to natural cooling aloft. 5 ft. is just right.

All official temperature data - including any records - is measured as per your 2nd quote. Using weather stations that are regularly checked (especially after any exception temps have been reported) to ensure they are correctly positioned, within Stevenson frames, and that there are no issues that may affect their reading. It's not unknown for a WS to report a record high temp and for that to then later be discarded after evaluation.

However, we can (and do) also use satellites to look at ground surface temps as well. These should not be confused with air temperatures. Although I know that just lately a few people have been deliberately doing so in order to muddy the waters and try and discredit recent temperature records.


I'm only an amateur meteorologist - though I have many friends who are professionals - and I don't issue forecasts myself these days.

Let's put it very simply as you seem to be struggling with this matter and you're struggling quite a lot.

Regardless of the media alarmism the world isn't going to end.

In the UK July has been one of the coldest and June was average in terms of temperatures. You have a good and cold nice summer and so do much of the Northern European countries.

A good website to use to see current temperatures all around the world. These are all properly positioned weather stations and the ones that (may) be used for temperature records.

weatherobs.com...

In most cases these station update hourly - you can also click on them to get more information including temp graphs.

(There are other stations which report monthly - these aren't shown here)

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AlienBorg

a reply to: AndyMayhew

When did they start measuring the temperature at surface level for weather reports?

The animation below uses data from the Copernicus Sentinel-3 mission’s radiometer instrument and shows the land surface temperature across Italy between 9 and 10 July. As the image clearly shows, in some cities the surface of the land exceeded 45°C, including Rome, Naples, Taranto and Foggia. Along the east slopes of Mount Etna in Sicily, many temperatures were recorded as over 50°C.”

Taken from esa.

Online it says, officially temperature should be measured:

Place the thermometer 5 feet above the ground (+/- 1 ft.). A thermometer too low will pick up excess heat from the ground and a thermometer too high will likely have too cool of a temperature due to natural cooling aloft. 5 ft. is just right.

All official temperature data - including any records - is measured as per your 2nd quote. Using weather stations that are regularly checked (especially after any exception temps have been reported) to ensure they are correctly positioned, within Stevenson frames, and that there are no issues that may affect their reading. It's not unknown for a WS to report a record high temp and for that to then later be discarded after evaluation.

However, we can (and do) also use satellites to look at ground surface temps as well. These should not be confused with air temperatures. Although I know that just lately a few people have been deliberately doing so in order to muddy the waters and try and discredit recent temperature records.


I'm only an amateur meteorologist - though I have many friends who are professionals - and I don't issue forecasts myself these days.

Let's put it very simply as you seem to be struggling with this matter and you're struggling quite a lot.

Regardless of the media alarmism the world isn't going to end.

In the UK July has been one of the coldest and June was average in terms of temperatures. You have a good and cold nice summer and so do much of the Northern European countries.

In the UK July has been near average (the coldest - thus far - since 2020) and June was the warmest on record - both for the country as a whole and for the CET series (which go back to the mid 17th century - nearly 400 years)

You constantly stating otherwise will not change that.


I do agree though that the world isn't going to end - albeit it will get hotter (and wetter and drier)

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AlienBorg

a reply to: AndyMayhew

When did they start measuring the temperature at surface level for weather reports?

The animation below uses data from the Copernicus Sentinel-3 mission’s radiometer instrument and shows the land surface temperature across Italy between 9 and 10 July. As the image clearly shows, in some cities the surface of the land exceeded 45°C, including Rome, Naples, Taranto and Foggia. Along the east slopes of Mount Etna in Sicily, many temperatures were recorded as over 50°C.”

Taken from esa.

Online it says, officially temperature should be measured:

Place the thermometer 5 feet above the ground (+/- 1 ft.). A thermometer too low will pick up excess heat from the ground and a thermometer too high will likely have too cool of a temperature due to natural cooling aloft. 5 ft. is just right.

All official temperature data - including any records - is measured as per your 2nd quote. Using weather stations that are regularly checked (especially after any exception temps have been reported) to ensure they are correctly positioned, within Stevenson frames, and that there are no issues that may affect their reading. It's not unknown for a WS to report a record high temp and for that to then later be discarded after evaluation.

However, we can (and do) also use satellites to look at ground surface temps as well. These should not be confused with air temperatures. Although I know that just lately a few people have been deliberately doing so in order to muddy the waters and try and discredit recent temperature records.


I'm only an amateur meteorologist - though I have many friends who are professionals - and I don't issue forecasts myself these days.

Let's put it very simply as you seem to be struggling with this matter and you're struggling quite a lot.

Regardless of the media alarmism the world isn't going to end.

In the UK July has been one of the coldest and June was average in terms of temperatures. You have a good and cold nice summer and so do much of the Northern European countries.

In the UK July has been near average (the coldest - thus far - since 2020) and June was the warmest on record - both for the country as a whole and for the CET series (which go back to the mid 17th century - nearly 400 years)

You constantly stating otherwise will not change that.


I do agree though that the world isn't going to end - albeit it will get hotter (and wetter and drier)

In the UK the weather has been cold and rainy in July.

That's the best possible way to describe it.
We're not subscribing to the climate change ideology. It's simple.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


If you want to learn about the global temperatures you need to ask Greta and her friends. Hohoho

originally posted by: AlienBorg
slaynews.com...

Sweden has just dealt a severe blow to the globalist climate agenda by scraping its green energy targets.

In a statement announcing the new policy in the Swedish Parliament, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson warned that the Scandinavian nation needs “a stable energy system.”

Svantesson asserted that wind and solar power are too “unstable” to meet the nation’s energy requirements.

Instead, the Swedish Government is shifting back to nuclear power and has ditched its targets for a “100% renewable energy” supply.

The move is a major blow to unreliable and inefficient technology.

Alleluia!!!

A massive blow to the climate change ideology. Let's see what Sweden did for a moment. They said solar and wind power are too unstable and too unreliable to meet the energy requirement of the country so let's switch back to nuclear power, one of the most efficient and reliable sources of energy together with energy from fossil-fuels.

A bad day for the climate activists and the green agenda but a wonderful day for common sense and reality. Perhaps more countries should follow what Sweden did and do exactly the same.

For the record Sweden said NO to lockdowns and other absurd and dangerous measures.

Your whole thread premise is misleading in that Sweden's net zero emissions target is still in place - they have only switched from renewables to nuclear, but it's still within their goal of their net zero emissions goal.

Along with other measures...

To achieve the target of zero net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2045 and the milestone targets by 2030 and 2040, supplementary measures may be utilized, such as:

increased uptake of carbon dioxide by forests as the result of additional measures;
verified emission reductions carried out outside the Swedish borders; and
carbon capture and storage based on the combustion of biomass, known as bio-CCS.

www.naturvardsverket.se...

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
slaynews.com...

Sweden has just dealt a severe blow to the globalist climate agenda by scraping its green energy targets.

In a statement announcing the new policy in the Swedish Parliament, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson warned that the Scandinavian nation needs “a stable energy system.”

Svantesson asserted that wind and solar power are too “unstable” to meet the nation’s energy requirements.

Instead, the Swedish Government is shifting back to nuclear power and has ditched its targets for a “100% renewable energy” supply.

The move is a major blow to unreliable and inefficient technology.

Alleluia!!!

A massive blow to the climate change ideology. Let's see what Sweden did for a moment. They said solar and wind power are too unstable and too unreliable to meet the energy requirement of the country so let's switch back to nuclear power, one of the most efficient and reliable sources of energy together with energy from fossil-fuels.

A bad day for the climate activists and the green agenda but a wonderful day for common sense and reality. Perhaps more countries should follow what Sweden did and do exactly the same.

For the record Sweden said NO to lockdowns and other absurd and dangerous measures.

Your whole thread premise is misleading in that Sweden's net zero emissions target is still in place - they have only switched from renewables to nuclear, but it's still within their goal of their net zero emissions goal.

Along with other measures...

To achieve the target of zero net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2045 and the milestone targets by 2030 and 2040, supplementary measures may be utilized, such as:

increased uptake of carbon dioxide by forests as the result of additional measures;
verified emission reductions carried out outside the Swedish borders; and
carbon capture and storage based on the combustion of biomass, known as bio-CCS.

www.naturvardsverket.se...

What are you talking about?!
You're very late in this debate

Sweden has just dealt a severe blow to the globalist climate agenda by scraping its green energy targets.

In a statement announcing the new policy in the Swedish Parliament, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson warned that the Scandinavian nation needs “a stable energy system.”

Svantesson asserted that wind and solar power are too “unstable” to meet the nation’s energy requirements.

Instead, the Swedish Government is shifting back to nuclear power and has ditched its targets for a “100% renewable energy” supply.

The move is a major blow to unreliable and inefficient technology.

These net zero policies and supposed targets are just noise in my ears. Politics and nothing more. The reality is very different.

What is misleading is the net zero policies and the promises 'green energy' will substitute fossil fuels and provide the world with its energy needs.

Nonsense

a reply to: AlienBorg

They are not using fossil fuels just going nuclear. Your whole premise is nonsense, read other sources besides the one you have latched on to.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

They are not using fossil fuels just going nuclear. Your whole premise is nonsense, read other sources besides the one you have latched on to.

Don't make things up please.
Sweden uses a range of sources for its energy needs. Around 25% comes from fossil fuels (imported) the rest comes from hydroelectric and nuclear power. Nuclear is nowhere near anything 'green'.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable but it provides one of the best sources of energy together with fuels.

Your argument Sweden doesn't use fossil fuels is just indirect. You are too late on this debate anyway.

Best sources of energy are fossil fuels and nuclear energy. A massive blow to the green agenda what Sweden did.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

They are not using fossil fuels just going nuclear. Your whole premise is nonsense, read other sources besides the one you have latched on to.

Don't make things up please.
Sweden uses a range of sources for its energy needs. Around 25% comes from fossil fuels (imported) the rest comes from hydroelectric and nuclear power. Nuclear is nowhere near anything 'green'.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable but it provides one of the best sources of energy together with fuels.

Your argument Sweden doesn't use fossil fuels is just indirect. You are too late on this debate anyway.

Best sources of energy are fossil fuels and nuclear energy. A massive blow to the green agenda what Sweden did.

I didn't use the word 'green' I used the term 'zero net emissions' which Sweden claims they are still on target.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

They are not using fossil fuels just going nuclear. Your whole premise is nonsense, read other sources besides the one you have latched on to.

Don't make things up please.
Sweden uses a range of sources for its energy needs. Around 25% comes from fossil fuels (imported) the rest comes from hydroelectric and nuclear power. Nuclear is nowhere near anything 'green'.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable but it provides one of the best sources of energy together with fuels.

Your argument Sweden doesn't use fossil fuels is just indirect. You are too late on this debate anyway.

Best sources of energy are fossil fuels and nuclear energy. A massive blow to the green agenda what Sweden did.

I didn't use the word 'green' I used the term 'zero net emissions' which Sweden claims they are still on target.

You may have to see the reality and not the politics and unreasonable expectations.

These targets mean nothing. The dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is a reality and there are no other reliable and efficient sources of energy that meet energy requirements. Everything else is just politics.

Fossil fuels—including coal, oil, and natural gas—have been powering economies for over 150 years, and currently supply about 80 percent of the world's energy

It could be more than 80% but that's besides the point. We are dependent on fossil fuels and out dependence hasn't changed on the last 20 or 30 years. It was 80+ back in the 90s, and 20 years ago, and it's still more or less the same now.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

They are not using fossil fuels just going nuclear. Your whole premise is nonsense, read other sources besides the one you have latched on to.

Don't make things up please.
Sweden uses a range of sources for its energy needs. Around 25% comes from fossil fuels (imported) the rest comes from hydroelectric and nuclear power. Nuclear is nowhere near anything 'green'.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable but it provides one of the best sources of energy together with fuels.

Your argument Sweden doesn't use fossil fuels is just indirect. You are too late on this debate anyway.

Best sources of energy are fossil fuels and nuclear energy. A massive blow to the green agenda what Sweden did.

I didn't use the word 'green' I used the term 'zero net emissions' which Sweden claims they are still on target.

You may have to see the reality and not the politics and unreasonable expectations.

These targets mean nothing. The dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is a reality and there are no other reliable and efficient sources of energy that meet energy requirements. Everything else is just politics.

Fossil fuels—including coal, oil, and natural gas—have been powering economies for over 150 years, and currently supply about 80 percent of the world's energy

It could be more than 80% but that's besides the point. We are dependent on fossil fuels and out dependence hasn't changed on the last 20 or 30 years. It was 80+ back in the 90s, and 20 years ago, and it's still more or less the same now.

I am addressing the net zero emissions category only and Sweden remains steady in that respect. Energy use and climate policy are other matters entirely.

Sweden holds its ranking of 5th in this year’s CCPI, receiving an overall high rating. While Sweden performs very high in the GHG Emissions category, with its low per capita emissions of 0.47 tCO2 eq (including LULUCF), and receives a high in Renewable Energy, its performance is considerably worse in Climate Policy and Energy Use, with a medium and very low, respectively.

ccpi.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

They are not using fossil fuels just going nuclear. Your whole premise is nonsense, read other sources besides the one you have latched on to.

Don't make things up please.
Sweden uses a range of sources for its energy needs. Around 25% comes from fossil fuels (imported) the rest comes from hydroelectric and nuclear power. Nuclear is nowhere near anything 'green'.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable but it provides one of the best sources of energy together with fuels.

Your argument Sweden doesn't use fossil fuels is just indirect. You are too late on this debate anyway.

Best sources of energy are fossil fuels and nuclear energy. A massive blow to the green agenda what Sweden did.

I didn't use the word 'green' I used the term 'zero net emissions' which Sweden claims they are still on target.

You may have to see the reality and not the politics and unreasonable expectations.

These targets mean nothing. The dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is a reality and there are no other reliable and efficient sources of energy that meet energy requirements. Everything else is just politics.

Fossil fuels—including coal, oil, and natural gas—have been powering economies for over 150 years, and currently supply about 80 percent of the world's energy

It could be more than 80% but that's besides the point. We are dependent on fossil fuels and out dependence hasn't changed on the last 20 or 30 years. It was 80+ back in the 90s, and 20 years ago, and it's still more or less the same now.

I am addressing the net zero emissions category only and Sweden remains steady in that respect. Energy use and climate policy are other matters entirely.

Sweden holds its ranking of 5th in this year’s CCPI, receiving an overall high rating. While Sweden performs very high in the GHG Emissions category, with its low per capita emissions of 0.47 tCO2 eq (including LULUCF), and receives a high in Renewable Energy, its performance is considerably worse in Climate Policy and Energy Use, with a medium and very low, respectively.

ccpi.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

There policies are meaningless.
Only for once public consumption.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

They are not using fossil fuels just going nuclear. Your whole premise is nonsense, read other sources besides the one you have latched on to.

Don't make things up please.
Sweden uses a range of sources for its energy needs. Around 25% comes from fossil fuels (imported) the rest comes from hydroelectric and nuclear power. Nuclear is nowhere near anything 'green'.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable but it provides one of the best sources of energy together with fuels.

Your argument Sweden doesn't use fossil fuels is just indirect. You are too late on this debate anyway.

Best sources of energy are fossil fuels and nuclear energy. A massive blow to the green agenda what Sweden did.

I didn't use the word 'green' I used the term 'zero net emissions' which Sweden claims they are still on target.

You may have to see the reality and not the politics and unreasonable expectations.

These targets mean nothing. The dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is a reality and there are no other reliable and efficient sources of energy that meet energy requirements. Everything else is just politics.

Fossil fuels—including coal, oil, and natural gas—have been powering economies for over 150 years, and currently supply about 80 percent of the world's energy

It could be more than 80% but that's besides the point. We are dependent on fossil fuels and out dependence hasn't changed on the last 20 or 30 years. It was 80+ back in the 90s, and 20 years ago, and it's still more or less the same now.

I am addressing the net zero emissions category only and Sweden remains steady in that respect. Energy use and climate policy are other matters entirely.

Sweden holds its ranking of 5th in this year’s CCPI, receiving an overall high rating. While Sweden performs very high in the GHG Emissions category, with its low per capita emissions of 0.47 tCO2 eq (including LULUCF), and receives a high in Renewable Energy, its performance is considerably worse in Climate Policy and Energy Use, with a medium and very low, respectively.

ccpi.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

There policies are meaningless.
Only for once public consumption.

I am not addressing their policies, I am pointing out their net zero emission goal which remains on target. So nothingburger here.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

They are not using fossil fuels just going nuclear. Your whole premise is nonsense, read other sources besides the one you have latched on to.

Don't make things up please.
Sweden uses a range of sources for its energy needs. Around 25% comes from fossil fuels (imported) the rest comes from hydroelectric and nuclear power. Nuclear is nowhere near anything 'green'.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable but it provides one of the best sources of energy together with fuels.

Your argument Sweden doesn't use fossil fuels is just indirect. You are too late on this debate anyway.

Best sources of energy are fossil fuels and nuclear energy. A massive blow to the green agenda what Sweden did.

I didn't use the word 'green' I used the term 'zero net emissions' which Sweden claims they are still on target.

You may have to see the reality and not the politics and unreasonable expectations.

These targets mean nothing. The dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is a reality and there are no other reliable and efficient sources of energy that meet energy requirements. Everything else is just politics.

Fossil fuels—including coal, oil, and natural gas—have been powering economies for over 150 years, and currently supply about 80 percent of the world's energy

It could be more than 80% but that's besides the point. We are dependent on fossil fuels and out dependence hasn't changed on the last 20 or 30 years. It was 80+ back in the 90s, and 20 years ago, and it's still more or less the same now.

I am addressing the net zero emissions category only and Sweden remains steady in that respect. Energy use and climate policy are other matters entirely.

Sweden holds its ranking of 5th in this year’s CCPI, receiving an overall high rating. While Sweden performs very high in the GHG Emissions category, with its low per capita emissions of 0.47 tCO2 eq (including LULUCF), and receives a high in Renewable Energy, its performance is considerably worse in Climate Policy and Energy Use, with a medium and very low, respectively.

ccpi.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

There policies are meaningless.
Only for once public consumption.

I am not addressing their policies, I am pointing out their net zero emission goal which remains on target. So nothingburger here.

These green policies are tragic.
Can you really have your energy supply from solar and wind power? Only according to some mythology from the far left...

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Did you believe that the fires in Greece were caused by climate change?

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

They are not using fossil fuels just going nuclear. Your whole premise is nonsense, read other sources besides the one you have latched on to.

Don't make things up please.
Sweden uses a range of sources for its energy needs. Around 25% comes from fossil fuels (imported) the rest comes from hydroelectric and nuclear power. Nuclear is nowhere near anything 'green'.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable but it provides one of the best sources of energy together with fuels.

Your argument Sweden doesn't use fossil fuels is just indirect. You are too late on this debate anyway.

Best sources of energy are fossil fuels and nuclear energy. A massive blow to the green agenda what Sweden did.

I didn't use the word 'green' I used the term 'zero net emissions' which Sweden claims they are still on target.

You may have to see the reality and not the politics and unreasonable expectations.

These targets mean nothing. The dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is a reality and there are no other reliable and efficient sources of energy that meet energy requirements. Everything else is just politics.

Fossil fuels—including coal, oil, and natural gas—have been powering economies for over 150 years, and currently supply about 80 percent of the world's energy

It could be more than 80% but that's besides the point. We are dependent on fossil fuels and out dependence hasn't changed on the last 20 or 30 years. It was 80+ back in the 90s, and 20 years ago, and it's still more or less the same now.

I am addressing the net zero emissions category only and Sweden remains steady in that respect. Energy use and climate policy are other matters entirely.

Sweden holds its ranking of 5th in this year’s CCPI, receiving an overall high rating. While Sweden performs very high in the GHG Emissions category, with its low per capita emissions of 0.47 tCO2 eq (including LULUCF), and receives a high in Renewable Energy, its performance is considerably worse in Climate Policy and Energy Use, with a medium and very low, respectively.

ccpi.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

There policies are meaningless.
Only for once public consumption.

I am not addressing their policies, I am pointing out their net zero emission goal which remains on target. So nothingburger here.

These green policies are tragic.
Can you really have your energy supply from solar and wind power? Only according to some mythology from the far left...

Nope, how about from reality?

Denmark is now 100% wind power.

China ranks #1 worldwide for wind turbine capacity @ 329 GW. China's wind and solar combined account for 31% of total power exceeding 800 GW - and rising.

Sweden's wind power accounts for 21.5% and it's policy has gone from '100% renewables' to '100% fossil-free'. Their net zero emission goals are still on target.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Its no wonder that plan is being abandoned. It was unattainable and did more harm than good. And everyone knows it.

biden has increased his mandate for 50% EV's by 2030 to 60%. But there are a few problems biden won't address publicly. One is that this move will devastate the US automotive industry. Two is that our power generation stations are incapable of generating enough electricity to charge that many EV's, even if we ran ever single plant, including fossil fuels, at max capacity. Hell, many states can't meet their energy needs now, even while borrowing energy from neighboring states. Three, even if we somehow magically manage to produce that much electricity the entire power grid from coast to coast would have to be retooled to handle transmitting that power. Four, even if we managed to retool the entire national grid nearly every home would have to be rewired to handle that amperage needed to charge multiple EV's. Five, that energy demand, along with all the associated retooling costs, would drive the cost of electricity so high most families couldn't afford it. The inevitable government subsidizing would help but the taxes to pay for those subsidies would bankrupt the rest of us.

And the kicker to all this unachievable nonsense? The expected net global drop in temperature is: .0002 degrees. Two ten-thousandths of a degree. Gut the automotive industry, bankrupt the majority of citizens, destroy the ecology by mining minerals six times more devastating to the environment than fossil fuels, line the pockets of politicians and lobbyists, all for two ten-thousandths of a degree. Yep - that is definitely a democrat policy. Expensive, bloated, self-enriching, and completely useless from a practical sense.

But .0002 Degrees! How dare you!

(Thats my quote in your sig.)