Sweden an oil free country by 2020?

0 Replies

Well they both start with "S" and those pesky Europeans all look alike to me anyway. :wink:

Sweden also permitted the passage of German troops across northern Sweden for quicker access to Narvick, Bodo and other somewhat isolated, but vital population centers in Northern Norway. This was crucial for the German's quick seizure of Norway and defense against Allied operations against narvick. Hardly the action of a neutral country -- facilitating the conquest of another neutral Scandanavian state (and in this case one that (then) had only recently escaped Swedish rule).

By contrast, the Norwegians and the Danes were heroic.

0 Replies

I bet Norway was none too pleased!

0 Replies

Thanks to both for these valuable responses.

However, I'm still somewhat confused what all this has to do with their atcual decission to become an oil-free country.

But maybe my confusion´is only due to the fact that I live in the successor country of a country which was ruled for 12 years by Nazis.

0 Replies

We're just ventillating because we think Sweden is a bit full of itself, hypocritical, and forgetfull of its sordid role during WWII. Swedish proclamations with respect to contemporary political correctitude don't impress me much.

I grew up in Michigan where, until I was 14, I thought dumb Swede was one word. Nothing to be proud of in that, but it is a reminder that Sweden and Swedes have not always been seen as the paragon of perfection they would have us believe.

0 Replies

Okay, Nazis and Switzerland are always are got point to ventilate .... and bashing Europeans helps per se.

0 Replies

I would never bash you Walter. You are patient, good humored, Thoughtful, informative , and - even when you put your finger nin my eye, you do so gently (and I often deserve it).

I don't dislike Europeans - only Icelanders, Swedes and Greeks (the Swiss can also be a bit hard to love.). Italians are truly the salt of the earth; Germans are better organized and more polite versions of most Americans; the French are interesting, agreeable (sometimes) and, in their sense of themselves as the rightful center of things, just like Americans; Spaniards are fascinating in their reserve and occasional strangeness. The British are deceptive - on the surface familiar, but underneath very unlike us, but engaging all the same.

0 Replies

To come back to the actual topic, Sweden is regarded as one of the best run countries in the world. After all the negative reactions and mudslinging, it is tops or near the top when measured against other nations.
It has long-range plans that other countries should look at instead of attacking Sweden.
----------------------------

Sweden is tops or second in official statistics. The reason may be the
politicians that run Sweden for a long time. They have a 'social conscience' and they act instead of just talking.

Example of poor government: USA.

Overall top 10 by EPI Score

1 New Zealand 88.0
2 Sweden 87.8
3 Finland 87.0
4 Czech Republic 86.0
5 United Kingdom 85.6
6 Austria 85.2
7 Denmark 84.2
8 Canada 84.0
9 Malaysia 83.3
10 Ireland 83.3
-------------------
28 United States 78.5
......................................................
Overall bottom 10

133 Niger 25.7
132 Chad 30.5
131 Mauritania 32.0
130 Mali 33.9
129 Ethiopia 36.7
128 Angola 39.3
127 Pakistan 41.1
126 Burkina Faso 43.2
125 Bangladesh 43.5
124 Sudan 44.0

Top 5 Environmental health

1 Sweden 99.4
2 France 99.2
3 Australia 99.0
4 United Kingdom 98.9
5 Finland 98.8
---------------------------
13 United States 98.3

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1693431,00.html

_________________

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

That's just one aspect of Environmental Health.

0 Replies

I think the observation includes more than just one aspect of the thing - quite a lot in fact. The main point is that the list in question is produced by organiuzations with a partiucular perspective, and that the results of their 'analysis' are laced with their often unstated biases and value judgements. This sort of stuff should be read with a great deal of skepticism and not simply be swallowed whole by credulous people -- particularly when the results so clearly violate common sense and perception.

The list itself and the associatedd numerical scores imply a degree of fineness in the measurement that quite obviously defies both the facts and rational interpretations of them.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The main point is that the list in question is produced by organiuzations with a partiucular perspective, and that the results of their 'analysis' are laced with their often unstated biases and value judgements.

From the article:

Quote:

· Scores determined by researchers at Columbia and Yale Universities, who ranked 133 countries according to how they tackled domestic and world problems and met targets

0 Replies

OK, but that in no way either addresses or diminishes my point. Universities are full of self-appointed "researchers" grinding our papers to advance their careers and political views. Few of them prove particularly accurate in the real world. Many involve the most dubious of statistics, masquerading subjective judgements in meaningless numerical indices.

For example -- "... ranked 133 countries according to how they tackled domestic and world problems and met targets." What domestic and world problems? Whose targets? Whose standards and criteria for the rankjing?
The subjectivity here is sufficient to drive through any particular conclusion you may wish for.

Finally, on what basis does this methodology yield meaningful distinctions on a scale involving one part in a hundred?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Few of them prove particularly accurate in the real world. Many involve the most dubious of statistics, masquerading subjective judgements in meaningless numerical indices.

Sure. That's always the case, to some extent. The same can be said about ranking countries by their per capita GDP, for example.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Few of them prove particularly accurate in the real world. Many involve the most dubious of statistics, masquerading subjective judgements in meaningless numerical indices.

Sure. That's always the case, to some extent. The same can be said about ranking countries by their per capita GDP, for example.

I would argue that economic figures have a considerably higher potential to more accurately reflect underlying conditions for a number of reasons:

They are much more quantifiable.

They are often less politicized.

They are produced by central banks and other large financial institutions which are more sincere in their intent, and have better more accurate and more specific sources of data.

0 Replies

Anyway, I think we should talk about Switzerland again, so I can bring back all my bitches about Swiss banks and the Jews Smile

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

old europe wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Few of them prove particularly accurate in the real world. Many involve the most dubious of statistics, masquerading subjective judgements in meaningless numerical indices.

Sure. That's always the case, to some extent. The same can be said about ranking countries by their per capita GDP, for example.
I would argue that economic figures have a considerably higher potential to more accurately reflect underlying conditions for a number of reasons:

They are much more quantifiable.

They are often less politicized.

They are produced by central banks and other large financial institutions which are more sincere in their intent, and have better more accurate and more specific sources of data.

Nah, you'd have to put per capita GDP PPP in relation to suicide rates....

Very Happy

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Oh, and talking about sterilizations and lobotomies...

I actually learned in the Holocaust Memorial Museum about the sterilization programs in the USA. For example, under Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935, the state could sentence compulsory sterilization as part of their judgment against individuals who had been convicted two or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude." Compulsory sterilizations of the mentally disable and mentally ill continued in the USA in significant numbers until the early 1960s, and, overall, some 64,000 sterilizations were performed in the USA.

As for lobotomies: Dr. Walter Freeman, the inventor of the "ice pick lobotomy", alone performed lobotomies on about 3.500 "patients", in some cases without the consent of their families.

But I'm off-topic. So... we were bashing Sweden, I presume?

0 Replies

I suggest we develop an objective international index of the bashability of countries large and small. Too often the big and obvious choices here get an undue share of the bashing, simply due to the laziness and inertia of the bashers themselves. No matter how well organized and motivated a well-intentioned basher may be there just isn't time energy and even information enough to give places like Iceland, Malta, Andorra, etc. their due. Indeed, this thought gives me some comfort as I bash Sweden.

0 Replies

Sweden an oil free country by 2020?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know