William Tucker writes in the Spectator:
President Obama swung through Sweden Wednesday on his way to Russia and couldn’t miss the chance to comment on what a wonderful job the Swedes are doing in creating a clean energy world…
Hand-in-hand into a glorious future.
Now, would you like to know what is really going on in Sweden? Here are the facts:Sweden does indeed have the lowest rate of carbon emissions in Europe, 5.3 metric tons per capita as opposed to 6.1 in France, 8.1 in Austria, 10.5 in Norway and 17.2 in the United States. Why? Because Sweden gets 42 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. In Europe, this is second only to France’s 75 percent. In a county the size of California and with a population smaller than North Carolina, Sweden has 10 operating reactors and two more held in reserve. Illinois, our most intensely nuclear state, has only 11 reactors with a 25 percent larger population…
In reporting the President’s energy remarks, not a single report in the U.S. press even mentioned nuclear energy. The only story for the day came from the Copenhagen Post, which reported that heavy summer rains have given Sweden such an excess of hydro that it is now exporting its excess nuclear to Denmark. As a result, that country — where you can’t turn around without encountering a windmill — is also running 15 percent on nuclear…
Kneepad media could do a lot better coverage on Obama’s energy “policy”.
He’s not saying it but he’s doing it…
Good point. I don’t know about Sweden, but Norway and Finland use a lot of wood for winter heating – even in urban areas. In rural and peri-urban areas, heating is almost exclusively wood (although I do like their penchant for heating cables under the bathroom floor!).
In the UK, wood-fired power stations (don’t laugh) are classed as “renewables” so whoever has added up these numbers probably hasn’t included wood-fired heating as a CO2 emmission.
On the topic of heating requirements, I’m curious whether their emissions totals account for wood or pellet burning fireplaces and stoves. My cursory research indicates those are popular and growing fuels for home heat.
As far as populist sentiment goes, mushers often proclaim their love for their sled dogs.
At least he’s not saying we should emulate Spain’s economy anymore.
Sweden has lower carbon emissions (which is a useless metric for weather or climate anyway) also because Swedes do a lot less driving than Americans do. Their population is more concentrated than much of the US. I’d think their heating requirements would be pretty intense, although they’d use much less cooling.
Nuclear energy can be a very good part of a nation’s economic and energy system. But yes, it’s a hoot that Obama praises Sweden while avoiding one of its most important ways of producing clean energy.
Rhetorical question: why do “populists” proclaim their love of the hoi polloi, then introduce policies to give the elite a much higher standard of living than the hoi polloi?