It's all well and good that Sweden has its own Ministry of Ecoweenies or whatever. But as I recall from reading P.J. O'Rourke's Eat the Rich, Sweden is in danger of going totally bankrupt. Now, Eat the Rich is getting on in years -- it's from 1998 -- and O'Rourke isn't an economist (wait, I think that makes him more qualified to discuss economics, doesn't it?), and I don't always agree with Peej about every last thing. Still, his portrait of Sweden, while mostly positive, isn't exactly heartening. The main trouble with Sweden seems to be the government takes pretty much everything it can and then hands it back out again in a way it deems fair. Which works as long as your government and voters are essentially good. I don't see that working for too many societies outside of Scandinavia, and, heck, with some more immigration, maybe not even there any more.

As much as I don't trust the United States brand of socialism -- who was it who called it socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor? -- I'm not sure another brand of socialism is going to solve anything. Whatever you do, the people who seek money and power (and already have a fair amount of both) will find the cracks in the system and start hammering in their wedges.

It seems to me we in America are dealing right now with that point in time when the wedges are starting to split the country again. That's why our Interior Department and so forth are so clearly being run by corporate stooges. It's probably time for one of our periodic reorganizations, but I'm not sure I'd choose Sweden as our model.

The only thing that surprises me is that "industry" can be so nearsighted sometimes.

It seems to me a pretty clear choice: Reap the short-term (maybe that's 50 years, but still...) benefits of the oil economy and only start trying to create realistic alternatives when the wells start drying up; or sow the short-term profits of said oil economy into R&D -now- so that we, the everlovin' USA, can be the OPEC of the 22nd century.

IT comes down to that, doesn't it? When the oil dries up, do we really want to BUY alternative energy solutions from nations like Sweden, or do we want to be the ones selling American technology for said solutions to the rest of the world?

I know which I'd choose, but them I'm a crunchy green lib, not an energy tycoon....

JD

What really makes me weep is the "ecoweenie" comment. OK, not that comment in particular, but the all too prevalent American attitude that concern about keeping the planet fit for human habitation is only for fringey zealots. What exactly is so "macho" about maintaining our prostrate obeisance to the Saudi empire, anyway? Or perhaps it's propping up a anti-American lefty authoritarian in Venezuela that our letter-writer finds hard-nosed and patriotic...

Normally, political debates center around the best way to resolve a problem. In the USA circa 2005, political debate on environmental problems seems to have been reduced to "if you acknowledge there is a problem and express any concern about it at all, you must be a liberal." How did we get to this point? The (admittedly limited) reading I have done in conservative political thought suggests a philosophical tradition deeply distressed over a culture without consequences in which hedonism and material gain are the be-all and end-all of life. Shouldn't this be a natural fit for a movement that seeks to slow our consumption today in order to preserve the Earth's majesty (not to mention functionality) for future generations? I just plain don't get it. Are Republican leaders all stuck in 1968 and think you need to wear Birkenstocks to plan for energy transitions?

(I say political debate because ironically enough, it's business and unelected state administrators that are taking the lead in greenhouse gas reductions while the federal government, mired in Bushite morass, fiddles obstinately away.)

I lived i Sweden 1985-86 and 1990-91. Right as well I worked there at software business 2000 for 6 months. Nowadays I visit the country 3-4 times in year. I read Swedish netzines daily, and it is just stunning how Sweden is the golden boy of the media year in year out. Now Sahlin - oh jeez, of all people - has declared that fossiles are gone by 2020. Sure, so would all the nuke plants by 2010, and so would all the hydro if river conservationists had. This is, 50-95 % of the existing power production should go, and add the fossile consumption, mainly traffic to it. What is going to happen to her declaration is that it will end up in the same heap with the anti-nuke declaration. Is Sweden going to build 30 000 windmills to offset the nukes ... no. Are they going to build 30 000 to feed the car fleet ... no. But the political crap goes on, be so sure.

Matti Keski-Korpela

Finland

Here's proof that there is so much more we can be doing.

I never understood why clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment is so politicized either. Do republicans (and other ecoweenie haters) LIKE the increase in lung disease created by polluted air? Do they like breathing smog in? I'd think that no one, regardless of political leanings, likes breathing yucky smog that damages your lungs.

Talk about survival of the fittest. We're going to be a nation of people stopping to breath their inhalers every 5 minutes.