How Dare They?
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
Sweden’s new right-wing government has sparked an outcry after scrapping the Ministry of Environment in a move the opposition has branded "devastating".
Previously, the ministry was a high-profile stand-alone department with a minister in the cabinet, but now it will operate as part of another ministry instead.
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson unveiled his new cabinet on Tuesday, and although he did appoint a Minister of Climate and Environment — 26-year-old Liberal MP Romina Pourmokhtari— she will work under Christian Democrat leader Ebba Busch, the new Minister for Energy, Business and Industry, rather than lead her own ministry.
The leader of the Swedish Greens, Per Bolund, noted that for the first time in 35 years Sweden would have no dedicated environment ministry.
"It is impossible to describe more clearly how little this government values the environment and the climate. This is a historic decision with devastating consequences for environmental issues", said Bolund.
How dare they?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I suppose it is a way of putting Goota Thunbord in her place?
You should not mock the name of the youthful, saintly and authoritative climate alarmist/activist. Her name is Grater von Thunderbird.
I shall use that name henceforward.
Grating Thundermug, you say?
AKA the Green Doom Goblin.
When younger my mate used to call her the “Cabbage patch doll”
Harsh but realistic.
L.O.L.
It’s a pity that we haven’t got a government like that in the UK. Or even one that could possibly win a general election.
Sad..sad
Doug,
You betcha!
I needed cheering up, after the Global Warming Policy Foundation (of all organisations), published this morning a paper which accepts CO2 as a “pollutant” and suggests using Carbon Taxation to control it!
Bloody hell.
Parts of the paper are very well written and extremely informative. But I don’t fancy such a curate’s egg for breakfast.
I apologise for going all O/T so early in the comments but have to bring my blood pressure down somehow.
Meanwhile, how refreshing to see that Sweden apparently has a new government with a clue.
Must be absolutely great. Bully for Sweden and hope the WEF, IMF, IPCC, UN, EU doesn’t squish them like a fig under a steamroller.
Meanwhile, we have to look forward to whatever HMG is to inflict on us…
Something very wrong going on at GWPF.
Yes what is going on at the GWPF?? Very worrying and my donations will now be carefully considered
Link?
(Using my browser to find GWPF, I get no link, just pages of elites telling me what bad people GWPF are.)
Yes, I often have difficulty googling them – I suspect this is a deliberate policy to censor them.
The paper is here:
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/most-efficient-way-of-dealing-with-changing-climate-has-not-been-tried/
Agree. Just looked and the paper starts with warmist prejudices and then goes off into irrelevancy.
It states:
“Although CO2 is not directly harmful, its accumulation in the atmosphere will raise average temperatures in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface, with possible, potentially harmful, ensuing changes in other climate attributes.”
Wow! corrections:
it MAY raise ave temps, since its not proven it does. By how much? Prof Happer calculates a doubling of CO2 MAY produce 1degC warming. He also concludes that if it does this warming will be overwhelmingly beneficial. Cold is a far more dangerous issue than warm.
So his sentence should say ‘potentially harmful or more likely helpful ensuing changes …’
Shocked that GWPF publishes these wild assumptions whithout critiques and caveats.
Professor Peter Hartley is an Energy Economist, and it looks like he has been given data that removed the need to question the Science of the situation, like the Laws of Physics and Chemistry, and focus on the Economics. That is his expertise. But note, this mistake is endemic within the whole Climate Emergency debate, so what is new? And many don’t even take the Economics into consideration, which this paper addresses.
Yes, this paper is a GIGO example for the overall system and, if he had used a computer model, it would be an even better example. 🙂 But it does conclude that throwing money at Wind and Solar is not the most efficient way of reaching NET Zero, we know a false goal, and the wrong way of going about it. That is, I believe, the goal of the paper: to show current government policy to be misguided.
He does discuss some of the weakness in the paper’s assumptions, in sections 2.3 and 2.4, and points out some shortcomings, but accepts the Establishment agenda. I can’t see any mention of the uncertainty of the effects of different concentrations of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, not the Solar influences and the Global Electric Circuit that transfers Energy down towards the Earth’s surface, nor the accelerating weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field, that allows solar High Energy Particles in more easily, adding Energy to the system.
It’s a useful Economics component in an academic discussion, but I am surprised that the GWPF has attached its name to an easily misinterpreted academic paper.
My email to GWPF:-
I have received and studied Prof. Peter Hartley’s recent paper (and the sensible comments by Ross McKitrick and Robert Lyman) with interest.
Prof. Hartley is entitled to his opinions and many parts of his paper are both interesting and compelling.
But I am fearful (and, actually outraged) that the GWPF has sold the pass to the alarmists.
Across the Globe, keyboards will be clicking, bearing the news that the GWPF accepts that Carbon Dioxide is a “Pollutant”.
You must be aware that there is no rational evidence that this is the case and, indeed in fact that trifling increases in an essential trace gas have been and long will be entirely beneficial.
The timing of this episode is all the more regrettable in that, at the moment of its publication, the “Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) v. EPA, [is] now pending in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.” See:-
Note also that “on October 21 an amicus curiae brief was filed in support of CHECC by the CO2 Coalition, together with Professors William Happer of Princeton and Richard Lindzen of MIT. “
Did Profs. Happer & Lindzen approve the publication of this new paper (with its, bluntly, incendiary title) at this time?
Whilst I accept that the paper has the usual disclaimer at the end, I feel strongly that the GWPF could and certainly should have printed a specific statement that (at least) “The GWPF does NOT accept the premise that CO2 is a pollutant and points out the total lack of any evidence that it might be in future.” And use a more sensible title!
Coming to the question of Carbon Taxes, I note with appreciation the responses of McKitrick and Lyman and note that Carbon Taxes are the very thin end of an extremely thick wedge. And they most certainly will be “in addition” and not “substituting” existing taxation.
Carbon taxation already has had some application and has been closely associated with notorious and preposterous levels of corruption and incompetent ‘control’ in the EU. It has also been suggested that the very existence of Jeremy Grantham’s “Grantham Institute at Imperial College Climate Change and Environment (of Bob ‘Fastfingers’ Ward fame) is to assist Grantham in exploiting the hedge-fund opportunities of imposing taxation on an invisible gas.
This too, might have been helpfully mentioned.
I am a long term supporter of the GWPF. I shall be pleased if you will confirm that my email will be forwarded to the President and Board of Trustees for their urgent consideration.
Martin Brumby
I suggest that others might care to forward comments to:-
info@thegwpf.org
Well said, Martin.
Looks like Sweden has some adult politicians as opposed to the children elected in the UK.
It’s not only the UK. It’s the whole of Europe that needs to put an end to the climate scam
At last some common sense prevailing. Even the clown-like cameron regarded all that as ‘Green Crap’. £billions wasted trying to cool the sun’s rays.
Sweden, the land of common sense….No covid lock downs and now no green loonies, don’t you just wish we could move in that direction.
They got covid right.
Perhaps the UK government might follow the example of a sane government this time.
Maybe this is the first indication that people in power are beginning to realise that global warming is a myth at best, a com at worst.
Actually, the thing I noticed is how the name of the dept responsible shares the same name as ours (almost): BEIS. Is this a WEF thing in the same mould as all governments parroting the ‘Build back better mantra.
In passing, I wonder why, when XR-ETC glue themselves to the roads, the police don’t confiscate their backpacks on the grounds of security. Just stop backpacking – and leave them without their support. I mean, a quick cutting through the straps with a Stanley-knife….
in which case, if you havent already seen it, you will enjoy the approach taken by Volkswagen last week who locked the door and switched off the lights, expelled the XR support team from the building and left the glued scientist to it
Saw it. Brilliant! But won’t work on the roads. That’s why they should lose their backpacks. (The phones shoukd prove a mine of info…)
just in case Grating Thumbburger is sad she will be pleased that the BBC are serialising her magnum opus “The Climate Book created by Greta Thunberg” on Radio 4 as “book of the week”
“Selected essays from a unique book created by Greta Thunberg where over 100 scientists, writers, activists and thinkers share their expertise with the aim of combatting the climate crisis. Today, we hear from Greta Thunberg, the science journalist, and author of The Ends of the World, Peter Brannen and the writer and commentator on environmentalism, and author of Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future, Elizabeth Kolbert. Greta Thunberg, Kyle Soller and Kelly Burke read.
Greta Thunberg’s school strikes and speeches shook the world and inspired leaders and people around the world address the urgency of climate change.
Now, with The Climate Book she has created a deep understanding of how the problems we face are all interconnected and what’s at stake by partnering, with more than a hundred scientists, engineers, philosophers, journalists, activists and writers. Alongside them Greta shares her own views on what she’s learned and what’s next.
The Climate Book is a portrait of a planet on the brink of a climate catastrophe. It shows us what needs to be done so that our world can remain habitable for all of humanity for generations to come”
And of course they also interviewed her on BBC2 last week .
“she has created…?” she doesnt have an original thought in her head.
But the bbc are trolling us now. They are really taking the p*ss
Is that the one that said something about the climate collapsing in 12 years, 3 months, 2 weeks and 4 days or some such. I did read this page and thought – an autistic statement if ever I saw one. A book with yellow covers.
in which case, if you havent already seen it, you will enjoy the approach taken by Volkswagen last week who expelled the XR support team from the building, locked the door and switched off the lights, and left the glued scientist to it
‘Sweden’s new right-wing government’
I can play that game, too. Me thinks LEFT-WING euronews doesn’t mean that as a compliment.
‘It is impossible to describe more clearly how little this government values the environment and the climate.’
‘Environment’ and ‘climate’ are undefined, icons of totalist language.
‘This is a historic decision with devastating consequences for environmental issues”, said Bolund.’
This is false. Perhaps a lie (I can’t know what’s in Bolund’s heart). State agencies will stop focusing on fashionable, global BS and go back to dealing with real issues for SWEDEN. Local environments are one of the biggest victims of the Global Warming scam.
At least they didn’t say ‘far right’ which is the usual term for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the Woke, WEF approved, leftist ideals.
The GWPF seem to have lost their way. CO2 is NOT a pollutant!!!!
Volkswagen — Way to go! Brilliant!
What refreshingly good news!!!
Excellent news. Now all other governments need to do the same. And get rid of “Minister for Climate” and anything related
They should do the same here, with our quangos, full of failed Labour MP’s that the public voted out of office.
Wimps! Closing it isn’t enough, they need exemplary punishment of the denizens.
At last! A government with some common sense.
A touch of reality:
1) If government, through law or regulation, says a chemical is a pollutant it is a pollutant.
2) If government, through law or regulation, sets limits on emission of the pollutant it will be limited.
3) Government picking winning and losing technologies for limiting the pollutant’s emission is technical and economic idiocy.
4) Market mechanisms are the best way to pick the best technologies for limiting the pollutant’s emissions in the most economical manner.
5) Putting a price on emissions of the pollutant sends market signals to both reduce emissions of the pollutant and to develop new technologies to replace existing technologies that emit the pollutants at excessive rates.
6) The thinking is that if government is going to take action to reduce a pollutant anyway it is best to do it in the most efficient manner through a price on the pollutant rather than force immature technologies’ adoption.
7) The problem is that government still wants to pick and choose winning and losing technologies in addition to increasing taxes/fees; a lose-lose proposition.
8) Skeptics are left fighting city hall through attempting to contest government actions by initiating FOIA requests, publicly making comments to proposed actions, widely publishing factual information (especially the failure of climate models) and initiating lawsuits where possible.
Bitching about the theoretical science underpinning worldwide scientific studies is a losing proposition. No competent jurisdiction is going to reject the scientific basics of GHG theory, no matter how compelling you think your pet theory is. Skeptical scientists accept the scientific basis of GHG theory. The fight should be about factual data, the consistency over time of extreme weather records and the wholesale failure of UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models.
I am very fond of our pet theory.