@Sid Well, there you go - you fail to see the differences between the different parties, and anything to the left (of what btw?) are termed "socialists". Are people advocating "welfare for all, and not just those who have" in a given society automatically socialists? If so, then I, for one, am a happy "socialist". I certainly don't see myself as one, but I have a strong hunch I am seen as such by you, no matter what I say. Politics in the greater part of Europe has a lot more nuances than just black and white (or red and blue, for that matter).
As for the SPD - perhaps you might want to read up on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany ("Today the SPD advocates the modernization of the economy to meet the demands of globalization, but it also stresses the need to address the social needs of workers and society's disadvantaged."). They are today, btw, working nicely together with the conservatives CDU in a grand coalition, still fighting the aftereffects of re-unification with socialist East Germany. The Germans know well what the difference between social democrats and socialists are...
We've had social democrats in DK for almost 140 years, and while it's true that they were based on Marxist ideology in the early part of their history, then they have little love left for those theories today... we have several other parties who swear to those. And we know the differences...
Sure, they favour that the state should run busses and trains, so not only people living in bigger towns are serviced by such transportation means, but also 78 year old Mrs. Jensen, who happens to live 15 miles outside of town, and who doesn't own or even knows how to drive a car. No private company would run a bus route through her neighborhood, because it would not be profitable. And they favour a public health system, so Mrs. Jensen can have her hip joint replaced, without having to take out a new mortgage in her house... or be told that she'll just have to live with the pain, if she cannot pay for the operation. They also favour that something like the postal service should be run by the public, and that libraries and schools are run by the public as well, making it possible for anyone to read books they cannot afford to buy, and get an education, even those who have the talent but who cannot otherwise afford to pay for the education. If that's socialism, then we're all socialists here... I prefer that to a corporate state, where business comes first. No state is more than 3 meals away from a revolution...
"Back to reality-land, most of the key developments in technology (often with years of research behind them) have always come from the private sector: electric lighting, AC power generation & transmission, the internal combustion engine, the transistor, &c. "
All of these things could not have been made/invented without some basic research in physics and chemistry, which wasn't done by private enterprises. Einstein, Fermi and Bohr and others did basic research - none of them worked for private businesses. Nor would any private business have let them do what they did if they had worked for them, or had built the equipment they used to make their findings.
@Rondo "About fake Scandinavian stats. Lets look number of the free days for employed people in Denmark and EU? In every country base for calculation is that one week have five work days, in Denmark is six. So on paper they have the most free days in EU when we look number of days, in reality they are not near top when we count that days in weeks. That is just one example of the fake stats, and they are so many." Please show where you get these figures from... you must have them from somewhere? Or are you just making them up as you go along? In Denmark the normal work week is 5 days (Mo - Fr) - 7 1/2 hours a day - and has been so for many years. Saturdays and Sundays are off, unless you work in service areas like shops. But even then you still only work 37 hours per week. Anyone working in DK has 6 weeks of (paid) vacation, which translates into 6 x 5 = 30 work days. 5 days are used around Xmas/New Year, and 2 or 3 weeks are usually used for Summer holidays. The remaining weeks can be held at people's discretion, by agreement with the employer. Add to this the standard public holidays (Easter, Xmas ect.), probably 4-5 days extra per year. That's facts and no fake.
As for the cars... "It is true" is no working argument - anyone can fling that out. Cars are here by law required to be inspected every other year, and cars who do not live up to the standards at the inspection have the license plates cut, unless they are fixed and pass a renewed inspection 2 weeks later - period.
You seem to mix socialdemocrats (who are, have been or will be governing many western european countries for periods, f.ex. the UK, Germany and Denmark) with socialists - a thing I'm afriad is often the case with people in US (as I'm assuming you are). F.ex. here in DK we have something like 7-10 parties represented in parliament, who span the whole spectrum from the ultimate left to the ultimate right, from die-hard socialists on the left wing over socialdemocrats, center-liberals and conservatives to die-hard nationalists on the right wing. The soc.democrats tend to lean towards centralized governments, and sometimes some nationalization of a few essential and necessary key industries (transportation, postal services ect.), while the socialists often favour complete nationalization of the whole production apparatus without regards. To me there's a distinct difference. Not that I favour soc.democrats by a long shot, but I can well tell the difference between the two. But even many soc.democrats have realised a while ago, that the times of nationalization are over. Many people here, though, are quite thankful for the welfare societies that amongst others the soc.democrats have provided to the broader masses up through the decades following WW II, that provides for them a steady and decent income or unemployment pay, so they don't have to think about where the next meal will come from, nor how they're gonna pay the rent, or pay for the medical bill that will allow them to survive beyond next month - also when their employer decided to cut back on the health care/plan insurance he was supposed to provide for them, to save a few bucks extra for his own already bulging pockets. I'm quite confident most people in Europe don't see this as "misguided paths to socialism"... on the contrary. It's focussing mainly on "the people" who voted them into office, instead of on the businesses - and this, I think, is - or at least ought to be - the prime concern of any government.
I agree completely that private research mostly ensures a much more efficient use of the money spent. But one has to keep in mind, that private enterprises rarely see beyond their own noses (and bottom lines) when planning their reseach. And that much research requires a considerable time to do - sometimes decades. Private enterprises are in it for the profit, no doubt - they're not filantropic associations... nor do I expect it to be otherwise.
Basic research is not something private enterprises are very inclined to do, because there's often little or no profit in it, but a lot of investment - time and money, with no guarantee of any payoffs. They are more likely to step in once the basic work is done, and they can see possible business areas emerge. Basic work is thus often done at educational institutions like universities, privately or publicly sponsored... call it research for the sake of research. Often they don't really know which direction they're headed for, until they've gone done the road for a while - could well be it turns out to be a cul-de-sac... tough luck... start over.
As for new fuel/energy sources specifically... I think there's little incentive for the big energy companies (oil, gas ect.) to sponsor reseach into new energy sources, as long as the can keep their figures on the bottom lines up. I'm more inclined to think that these companies' efforts would more likely be counterproductive, to keep their own profit up (which I don't blame them). And by the time their bottom lines start to dive, the new energy sources would have to be in place to take over.
I agree too that the idea of using food for energy production is plain silly - as is becoming quite apparent by now with the rapidly growing food prices. Clearly the idea was not thought through very well. So back to basic research and think up other solutions...
You may have lived 10 years in Denmark, but it sure doesn't make you an expert, as it appears you see yourself. BTW, Vestas manufactures(!) windmills, but doesn't operate them. Most of the production is exported to other countries, like UK and USA - much of the world, so some must be able to make a profit on them, eh?
As for old VWs and Starlets - it must have been quite a while since you've been here since you'd have a hard time finding any of those around here.
What source have you that documents that stats from Scandinavia are 'faked'? And which "stats" are you referring to? I'm sure you're not just making such a claim without any kind documentation, I hope?
Do yourself and others a favour and check your facts before you vent your spite...
"Thanks for the input, Karl, but consider the alternative of foreign oil dependence. Like constantly having to deal with the volatility of the Middle East playing havoc with your economy/energy cost."
Well, yes - of course relying on wind power will ensure much more stability/less volatility... ;o)
I'm not voicing foreign oil dependency, but I'm not seeing a development towards unstable/unreliable energy sources as a viable and better alternative. And certainly not when the population has to pay 2-3 times the actual market price for that kind of energy, mainly because certain politicians feel the need to set themselves a monument for for their activities for future generations. A balance between realism and idealism would work nicely, thank you...
Well, several things in the article aren't exactly correct:
The "standards" aren't standards, but recommandations. And today they realise that it's not all about insulation of homes at all cost. Too much insulation will create poor indoor climates, favour fungus that leads to allergies and other respiratory problems.
The taxes on cars are 180%... 105% is just the beginning... buy one, pay for three. I recently bought an imported car from Germany. Price in Germany: Euros 3,999, roughly $ US 5,900. After it had been registred in Denmark (including a fee for the importer/dealer) the price was $ US 23,650, most of it registration tax (license plates) - we're talking a 12 year old Audi stationcar. Here that price is a bargain, and I honestly felt I made a good deal...
There are some wind farms and they are growing, but the majority of the wind energy comes from independant, private wind mills. The coverage with respect to Denmark is not 21 %, but more like 10 % - the difference being that much of the wind energy is being sent abroad (Germany, Norway, Sweden) as overproduction. But they pay nothing near the actual costs in those countries, as the wind energy is subsidized by the Danish State - so abroad they get cheap energy paid for by the DK taxpayers. It's a hotly debated theme in DK...
A lot of the country is outright plastered with windmills. There are a lot of places where you see windmills, no matter where you stand and which direction you look - not a pretty sight, if you ask many Danes. Lots of people have problems caused by this, living close to these huge monsters - like f.ex. constant reflecting light (from the rotating wings) blinking in through their windows, to the point where they have to install Venetian blinds and use them a lot of the day to avoid going insane from the blinking, constant humming noise from the rotating wings... a life in darkness for them.
The idea that 75% of the energy consumption should be covered by wind energy is outright idiotic - people don't just use energy when the wind is blowing. And there's no technology available that will allow them to stock up energy on a scale sufficient to cover the needed energy when the wind is not blowing. Wind energy is a good supplement, but should never become the prime source. Considering the amount of windmills we have today (and the mills they think about for the future are 500+ ft. monsters..!), I fear for how the landscape will look, if these plans are allowed to be carried out, considering how it's looking now. The only reason btw why we are as advanced with wind energy, is because it's insanely subsidized and the consumers pay an extremely high price for the electricity - you'd faint if you saw a Danish electrical bill - roughly 80-85% of the price is taxes and fees.... And this subsidizing is still going on even 25 years after the industry kicked into gear. If it wasn't for the subsidizing, the industry would collapse because noone would pay the real price.
DK is self-supplying with North Sea oil - that's true. And we will be still for the next 20-25 years, perhaps. Depending on the price development on oil, perhaps for longer - it's quite expensive to pump up, but the soaring prices on oil in the 70's made it feasible, and we thank the Arabs for that.
As for the gas - there's a lot of it, to last 20-30 years still. But the government back then decided to invest around 20 bil. Crowns (which is a whole lot - roughly $US 4,500,000,000 ) in putting pipes into the ground, to distribute it to private homes. They made people jump that wagon promissing them cheaper heating. A few years later they then started tightening the tax screw on gas, now that they'd got people hooked, and today it is no cheaper than other forms of heating. More sensible would probably have been to pump it ashore, and then have used it to fuel electrical plants instead... we already had the distribution net for electricity in place. Now, in 20 years, we'll have a lot of useless pipes in the ground, that cost a lot of money to put there.... and people will have to swap once again to some other form of heating. Or perhaps rely on Russian gas supplies... hmmmm....
Yet despite all these conservation programs, the government still wants people to reduce energy consumption (so other people in other countries can spend even more energy?) - one target is that every person in DK should use only 1,000 kWh on average per year. And the imagination they display when telling people how to achieve this is significant - would be quite funny, if the issue wasn't that serious. And they try to lure people with the money they will save. In the end it's a very good bet people will save nothing, because the government will miss the taxes they don't get caused by the lower energy consumption, and will thus crank up the taxes a notch or two.
Svend Auken is really not the right person to ask. He's an idealistic moron, who loves the media attention and hearing his own voice, who's completely lost any ground connection and any sense of reality, and who's cost the Danish taxpayers a lot - A LOT - of money, with his insane decisions while he was secretary of energy. He f.ex. decreed that a lot of socalled "bare-field power plants" be set up, financed by the local populations. We have one here locally, that roughly cost the municipality (population: 30,000) $ 40 million extra compared to the alternative they suggested to him, which would have achieved the same. He refused and insisted on building the new power plant, paid by the local taxpayers. Today there are people in such ares who are forced to pay $ US 5,000 - 10,0000 a year for heating and electricity, which makes it pretty impossible for them to ever sell their homes, if they want to. By this Mr. Auken effectively reinstated adscription, tying people to their homes - something that was abolished here 200+ years ago with the demise of the feudal system. Few Danes have anything to thank him for.
As for the issue about old/new cars... the Danish car pool is still old when compared to other comparable countries - probably 7 - 10 years on average. People tend to take better care of their cars here, though, because of the horrendous price they pay for it. It's true that a lot of people buy new cars these year when the economy is rapidly growing. But this will very quickly change once the growth starts braking, and they realise they have to pay back all the loans they took out.
Well, there you go - you fail to see the differences between the different parties, and anything to the left (of what btw?) are termed "socialists". Are people advocating "welfare for all, and not just those who have" in a given society automatically socialists? If so, then I, for one, am a happy "socialist". I certainly don't see myself as one, but I have a strong hunch I am seen as such by you, no matter what I say. Politics in the greater part of Europe has a lot more nuances than just black and white (or red and blue, for that matter).
As for the SPD - perhaps you might want to read up on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany ("Today the SPD advocates the modernization of the economy to meet the demands of globalization, but it also stresses the need to address the social needs of workers and society's disadvantaged."). They are today, btw, working nicely together with the conservatives CDU in a grand coalition, still fighting the aftereffects of re-unification with socialist East Germany. The Germans know well what the difference between social democrats and socialists are...
We've had social democrats in DK for almost 140 years, and while it's true that they were based on Marxist ideology in the early part of their history, then they have little love left for those theories today... we have several other parties who swear to those. And we know the differences...
Sure, they favour that the state should run busses and trains, so not only people living in bigger towns are serviced by such transportation means, but also 78 year old Mrs. Jensen, who happens to live 15 miles outside of town, and who doesn't own or even knows how to drive a car. No private company would run a bus route through her neighborhood, because it would not be profitable.
And they favour a public health system, so Mrs. Jensen can have her hip joint replaced, without having to take out a new mortgage in her house... or be told that she'll just have to live with the pain, if she cannot pay for the operation.
They also favour that something like the postal service should be run by the public, and that libraries and schools are run by the public as well, making it possible for anyone to read books they cannot afford to buy, and get an education, even those who have the talent but who cannot otherwise afford to pay for the education.
If that's socialism, then we're all socialists here... I prefer that to a corporate state, where business comes first. No state is more than 3 meals away from a revolution...
"Back to reality-land, most of the key developments in technology (often with years of research behind them) have always come from the private sector: electric lighting, AC power generation & transmission, the internal combustion engine, the transistor, &c. "
All of these things could not have been made/invented without some basic research in physics and chemistry, which wasn't done by private enterprises. Einstein, Fermi and Bohr and others did basic research - none of them worked for private businesses. Nor would any private business have let them do what they did if they had worked for them, or had built the equipment they used to make their findings.
@Rondo
"About fake Scandinavian stats. Lets look number of the free days for employed people in Denmark and EU? In every country base for calculation is that one week have five work days, in Denmark is six. So on paper they have the most free days in EU when we look number of days, in reality they are not near top when we count that days in weeks. That is just one example of the fake stats, and they are so many."
Please show where you get these figures from... you must have them from somewhere? Or are you just making them up as you go along?
In Denmark the normal work week is 5 days (Mo - Fr) - 7 1/2 hours a day - and has been so for many years. Saturdays and Sundays are off, unless you work in service areas like shops. But even then you still only work 37 hours per week.
Anyone working in DK has 6 weeks of (paid) vacation, which translates into 6 x 5 = 30 work days. 5 days are used around Xmas/New Year, and 2 or 3 weeks are usually used for Summer holidays. The remaining weeks can be held at people's discretion, by agreement with the employer. Add to this the standard public holidays (Easter, Xmas ect.), probably 4-5 days extra per year. That's facts and no fake.
As for the cars... "It is true" is no working argument - anyone can fling that out. Cars are here by law required to be inspected every other year, and cars who do not live up to the standards at the inspection have the license plates cut, unless they are fixed and pass a renewed inspection 2 weeks later - period.
You seem to mix socialdemocrats (who are, have been or will be governing many western european countries for periods, f.ex. the UK, Germany and Denmark) with socialists - a thing I'm afriad is often the case with people in US (as I'm assuming you are). F.ex. here in DK we have something like 7-10 parties represented in parliament, who span the whole spectrum from the ultimate left to the ultimate right, from die-hard socialists on the left wing over socialdemocrats, center-liberals and conservatives to die-hard nationalists on the right wing.
The soc.democrats tend to lean towards centralized governments, and sometimes some nationalization of a few essential and necessary key industries (transportation, postal services ect.), while the socialists often favour complete nationalization of the whole production apparatus without regards.
To me there's a distinct difference. Not that I favour soc.democrats by a long shot, but I can well tell the difference between the two. But even many soc.democrats have realised a while ago, that the times of nationalization are over.
Many people here, though, are quite thankful for the welfare societies that amongst others the soc.democrats have provided to the broader masses up through the decades following WW II, that provides for them a steady and decent income or unemployment pay, so they don't have to think about where the next meal will come from, nor how they're gonna pay the rent, or pay for the medical bill that will allow them to survive beyond next month - also when their employer decided to cut back on the health care/plan insurance he was supposed to provide for them, to save a few bucks extra for his own already bulging pockets.
I'm quite confident most people in Europe don't see this as "misguided paths to socialism"... on the contrary. It's focussing mainly on "the people" who voted them into office, instead of on the businesses - and this, I think, is - or at least ought to be - the prime concern of any government.
I agree completely that private research mostly ensures a much more efficient use of the money spent. But one has to keep in mind, that private enterprises rarely see beyond their own noses (and bottom lines) when planning their reseach. And that much research requires a considerable time to do - sometimes decades. Private enterprises are in it for the profit, no doubt - they're not filantropic associations... nor do I expect it to be otherwise.
Basic research is not something private enterprises are very inclined to do, because there's often little or no profit in it, but a lot of investment - time and money, with no guarantee of any payoffs. They are more likely to step in once the basic work is done, and they can see possible business areas emerge. Basic work is thus often done at educational institutions like universities, privately or publicly sponsored... call it research for the sake of research. Often they don't really know which direction they're headed for, until they've gone done the road for a while - could well be it turns out to be a cul-de-sac... tough luck... start over.
As for new fuel/energy sources specifically... I think there's little incentive for the big energy companies (oil, gas ect.) to sponsor reseach into new energy sources, as long as the can keep their figures on the bottom lines up. I'm more inclined to think that these companies' efforts would more likely be counterproductive, to keep their own profit up (which I don't blame them). And by the time their bottom lines start to dive, the new energy sources would have to be in place to take over.
I agree too that the idea of using food for energy production is plain silly - as is becoming quite apparent by now with the rapidly growing food prices. Clearly the idea was not thought through very well. So back to basic research and think up other solutions...
You may have lived 10 years in Denmark, but it sure doesn't make you an expert, as it appears you see yourself.
BTW, Vestas manufactures(!) windmills, but doesn't operate them. Most of the production is exported to other countries, like UK and USA - much of the world, so some must be able to make a profit on them, eh?
As for old VWs and Starlets - it must have been quite a while since you've been here since you'd have a hard time finding any of those around here.
What source have you that documents that stats from Scandinavia are 'faked'? And which "stats" are you referring to? I'm sure you're not just making such a claim without any kind documentation, I hope?
Do yourself and others a favour and check your facts before you vent your spite...
Well, yes - of course relying on wind power will ensure much more stability/less volatility... ;o)
I'm not voicing foreign oil dependency, but I'm not seeing a development towards unstable/unreliable energy sources as a viable and better alternative. And certainly not when the population has to pay 2-3 times the actual market price for that kind of energy, mainly because certain politicians feel the need to set themselves a monument for for their activities for future generations. A balance between realism and idealism would work nicely, thank you...
The "standards" aren't standards, but recommandations. And today they realise that it's not all about insulation of homes at all cost. Too much insulation will create poor indoor climates, favour fungus that leads to allergies and other respiratory problems.
The taxes on cars are 180%... 105% is just the beginning... buy one, pay for three. I recently bought an imported car from Germany. Price in Germany: Euros 3,999, roughly $ US 5,900. After it had been registred in Denmark (including a fee for the importer/dealer) the price was $ US 23,650, most of it registration tax (license plates) - we're talking a 12 year old Audi stationcar. Here that price is a bargain, and I honestly felt I made a good deal...
There are some wind farms and they are growing, but the majority of the wind energy comes from independant, private wind mills. The coverage with respect to Denmark is not 21 %, but more like 10 % - the difference being that much of the wind energy is being sent abroad (Germany, Norway, Sweden) as overproduction. But they pay nothing near the actual costs in those countries, as the wind energy is subsidized by the Danish State - so abroad they get cheap energy paid for by the DK taxpayers. It's a hotly debated theme in DK...
A lot of the country is outright plastered with windmills. There are a lot of places where you see windmills, no matter where you stand and which direction you look - not a pretty sight, if you ask many Danes. Lots of people have problems caused by this, living close to these huge monsters - like f.ex. constant reflecting light (from the rotating wings) blinking in through their windows, to the point where they have to install Venetian blinds and use them a lot of the day to avoid going insane from the blinking, constant humming noise from the rotating wings... a life in darkness for them.
The idea that 75% of the energy consumption should be covered by wind energy is outright idiotic - people don't just use energy when the wind is blowing. And there's no technology available that will allow them to stock up energy on a scale sufficient to cover the needed energy when the wind is not blowing. Wind energy is a good supplement, but should never become the prime source. Considering the amount of windmills we have today (and the mills they think about for the future are 500+ ft. monsters..!), I fear for how the landscape will look, if these plans are allowed to be carried out, considering how it's looking now.
The only reason btw why we are as advanced with wind energy, is because it's insanely subsidized and the consumers pay an extremely high price for the electricity - you'd faint if you saw a Danish electrical bill - roughly 80-85% of the price is taxes and fees.... And this subsidizing is still going on even 25 years after the industry kicked into gear. If it wasn't for the subsidizing, the industry would collapse because noone would pay the real price.
DK is self-supplying with North Sea oil - that's true. And we will be still for the next 20-25 years, perhaps. Depending on the price development on oil, perhaps for longer - it's quite expensive to pump up, but the soaring prices on oil in the 70's made it feasible, and we thank the Arabs for that.
As for the gas - there's a lot of it, to last 20-30 years still. But the government back then decided to invest around 20 bil. Crowns (which is a whole lot - roughly $US 4,500,000,000 ) in putting pipes into the ground, to distribute it to private homes. They made people jump that wagon promissing them cheaper heating. A few years later they then started tightening the tax screw on gas, now that they'd got people hooked, and today it is no cheaper than other forms of heating. More sensible would probably have been to pump it ashore, and then have used it to fuel electrical plants instead... we already had the distribution net for electricity in place. Now, in 20 years, we'll have a lot of useless pipes in the ground, that cost a lot of money to put there.... and people will have to swap once again to some other form of heating. Or perhaps rely on Russian gas supplies... hmmmm....
Yet despite all these conservation programs, the government still wants people to reduce energy consumption (so other people in other countries can spend even more energy?) - one target is that every person in DK should use only 1,000 kWh on average per year. And the imagination they display when telling people how to achieve this is significant - would be quite funny, if the issue wasn't that serious. And they try to lure people with the money they will save. In the end it's a very good bet people will save nothing, because the government will miss the taxes they don't get caused by the lower energy consumption, and will thus crank up the taxes a notch or two.
Svend Auken is really not the right person to ask. He's an idealistic moron, who loves the media attention and hearing his own voice, who's completely lost any ground connection and any sense of reality, and who's cost the Danish taxpayers a lot - A LOT - of money, with his insane decisions while he was secretary of energy. He f.ex. decreed that a lot of socalled "bare-field power plants" be set up, financed by the local populations. We have one here locally, that roughly cost the municipality (population: 30,000) $ 40 million extra compared to the alternative they suggested to him, which would have achieved the same. He refused and insisted on building the new power plant, paid by the local taxpayers. Today there are people in such ares who are forced to pay $ US 5,000 - 10,0000 a year for heating and electricity, which makes it pretty impossible for them to ever sell their homes, if they want to. By this Mr. Auken effectively reinstated adscription, tying people to their homes - something that was abolished here 200+ years ago with the demise of the feudal system. Few Danes have anything to thank him for.
As for the issue about old/new cars... the Danish car pool is still old when compared to other comparable countries - probably 7 - 10 years on average. People tend to take better care of their cars here, though, because of the horrendous price they pay for it. It's true that a lot of people buy new cars these year when the economy is rapidly growing. But this will very quickly change once the growth starts braking, and they realise they have to pay back all the loans they took out.
All is not gold that glitters...