Buried behind the news of the supposed “attempted coup” in Russia this weekend, was the Swedish government’s announcement, last Wednesday, that they will be stepping back from their plans to go 100% renewable energy.
According to finance minister Elisabeth Svantesson, wind and solar power are simply not efficient or reliable enough to be trusted to produce the entire country’s energy supply.
This has been celebrated in some circles as an example of a government taking a logical approach.
But, to be clear, this is not about refuting or rejecting the “climate change” agenda, but purely a question of methodology. Sweden is rejecting “renewable energy” goals, not net zero. Net zero is still very much on the cards…via nuclear power, what some still laughably call “clean energy”.
According to Euractive.com:
Sweden’s parliament on Tuesday (20 June) adopted a new energy target, giving the right-wing government the green light to push forward with plans to build new nuclear plants in a country that voted 40 years ago to phase out atomic power. Changing the target to “100% fossil-free” electricity, from “100% renewable” is key to the government’s plan to […] reach net zero emissions by 2045.”
Sweden has always been at the fore-front of climate messaging, introducing one of the first ever “Carbon Taxes” as early as 1991.
And yet this scrapping of renewable goals has been welcomed by some in the alternative sphere as Sweden “seeing sense”.
This is highly reminiscent of Sweden’s role in the Covid narrative – the “voice of reason”. The sensible rejection of the official narrative in favour of a very slightly different version of the official narrative.
Sweden pushed for no lockdowns and “early treatment” and herd immunity, but all of that actually served to underline that there was an actual pandemic that needed dealing with. Reinforcing the official story through carefully orchestrated dissent.
It looks like Sweden is about to cast itself in the same part for the Climate play.
Moving forward, the debate will be about “net zero via renewables” vs “net zero via nuclear”, without ever questioning whether we need to go “net zero” at all, or if it’s even physically possible to do so.
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.