Does this bring hope to those who don't believe we can cut emissions and have economic growth?

Good post Ingela and it's not just Sweden either: Most of Europe is embracing greener policies not just for the environmental reasons but also for sound financial ones (and to a lesser degree so are China, India and other developing nations):

1) Investments in high-tech always = more high paying jobs and export trade

2) Investing for the future - oil and gas will eventually run out (nevermind when) hence the price can only go up; wind, the sun, tides, etc. won't run out and, after capital costs, are free

3) The cost of doing nothing will be higher than the cost of doing something (the old "stitch in time" syndrome!)

It's a shame that the once dynamic, innovative, technology driven economic leaders such as the USA, Canada and Australia have become risk averse, backwards looking conservatives. Still, it's their economies that will suffer in the end (but all of our environment...)

James W: Your first statement is unsupported and false. If the 'workable alternatives are off the table', then what do you call solar, wind, biofuel, hydrogen, tidal, etc, etc - they are definitely 'on the table'. Maybe you dismiss them as not workable or not alternatives (surprise to all those - like the link given - who are using them!). As for 'proving' AGW is a fraud, it does no such thing. Where's the logic? There isn't even a connection!

No one doubts that the world has been hotter (and colder) than it is today. It is the rate of change that is worrying, not the actual temperature. The world has had change at similar rates as the present only 5 times before and each led to a mass extinction (60-90% of species wiped out).

You may believe that oil companies have the power to sustain a global conspiracy involving billions of people in all countries around the world - including those that do NOT benefit from higher oil prices - to the point of getting laws passed in all these countries, but I don't. In fact, I think it is hysterical paranoia to even consider such outrageousness.

Get Real - I believe it was JFK who said that the USA chooses to (in that case, send a man to the moon) not because it was easy, but because it was hard. Now you say that the US should give up because it would be "FAR more difficult"; this is what I meant above - the US has lost its vision and leadership that once made it great.

As for the "best science of the last 10 years" dismisses AGW - absolute tripe; the best science does the exact opposite (cf. the IPCC report) - I note that you cannot cite one instance of this 'best science'...

The Bush tax cuts did spur economic growth in the country. It was why a recession was held off for so long, even with Bush's over the top spending. But it only works for just so long and then things start to unravel and that's what's happening now. Even his plan for rebates to taxpayers will not work in holding off a recession without substantial spending cuts which he is not doing. The recession is rolling in and there are some bad times ahead.

What works in one country cannot necessarily work as well in others. There are significant differences with Sweden that make doing what they did FAR more difficult here. Brazil's use of ethanol is a good example of something that SHOULD not and could not be duplicated in the USA.

Of course we first must stop worrying about MAN MADE global warming. The truth about the theory does not depend on politics. It depends on science. The best science of the last 10 years shows that natural causes control the temperature of the Earth and the effect of the man made emissions from fossil fuels are too small to be measured.

Here's one bright spot. Algae farms hooked up to power plants eat up the CO2, grow rapidly, and have a 50% oil content. This is not science fiction - it is working in Arizona right now. This is an environmentally friendly and inexpensive way to produce hundreds of BILLIONS of gallons of biodiesel or jet fuel.

You can find more information at www.CitizensEnergyForum.com

The article makes some excellent points. Many of the biomass energy methods used in Sweden will work well in Canada too. In Manitoba 97% of the electricity is from hydro and we are the largest electricity exporter in North America. Manitoba Hydro sent a group of engineers to Sweden and Denmark to take notes about biomass energy projects. The utility is promoting biomass energy and wind energy projects to satisfy local consumption so that more power will be available for export to the US. I am a principal in a project that will produce about 7% of the province's requirements for heating from agricultural waste. The project will displace coal and eliminate net CO2 emissions. Because the price of coal, which is used as a reference price, has more than tripled, the project is also quite profitable. We plan to invest the profits in more renewable energy projects. Methane production from livestock entrails mentioned in the article is one of our potential future projects. I would be interested in further technical details about that operation.

So, originally, the farmers would simply scatter the bi-products of their activities into their fields to decompose and add nutrients to their lands. Now, they sell the stuff to a green company (which now shows up as increased national productivity), the green company composts it and sells it BACK to the farmers (which ALSO shows up as increased productivity). The methane captured in the process is running municipal vehicles (funded by tax payers)....It's a HUGE TAX!!!!! Whooptie-do!

More people deriving their income from the government is NOT, I repeat: NOT a sign of economic growth/development.

we do not care about the actual emissions, or the particulates or the Real greenhouse gasses.

Perception is reality. therefore the truth does not matter.

or as a comrade once said, tell a lie big enough loudly and often enough and der people will begin to believe it.

THAT and the ability to deny performance translating to income, Or equity of income IS what matters.

A lot of people are suggesting Hydrogen powered engines. While it would be better for the environment, it would be more expensive for people. While gass is now somewhere (in the U.S. in the MidWest where I am right now) is around $3.60 a gallon, while Hydrogen would be $5.70 a gallon.

While better for Earth, it'll be harder on our wallets.

This might be true but starting in the 1970s the environmental movement took all of the workable and practical alternatives off the table and refused to let them be considered. This fact alone proves that the entire AGW thing is a deliberate fraud perpetrated on the world for the personal profit of those promoting the scam.

1.5 million years of well-documented evidence derived from ice cores, tree rings and other geological materials as well 5 thousands years of historical documents show that our current and future climate is well within its normal range. It has been much hotter in the recent past (1930s) and very much colder. The AGW pogrom is a deliberate fraud sponsored by the oil companies in order to enhance their profits as oil in areas they control starts running out. You must realize that the very people who are promoting this fraud are the same exact people who have fought tooth and nail to prevent practical alternate energy systems from being developed. The have also put in place laws to prevent existing alternative systems from being used to their maximum in order to promote the use of coal and oil fueled plants instead.

So when people do real research and follow the money it is easy to see that the energy companies that sell oil and coal are the only ones benefiting from the AGW fraud. The people are losing all across the board in the price of all energy products, electricity, fuels and gas costs more because of AGW promoting.

If you are a Republican, then you wouldn't worry so much about exhaust emissions, because it means Money. Approval of offshore drilling indicates a lazy solution to healthy alternatives. To hell with the environment, and cancer causing emissions, money is more important than our health.

On the other hand, there is an opposition that finds our health more important than money.

My view is: health can create millionairs, but millionairs cnnot create health.