Friday, May 30, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Fewer cars, less utility – but more expensive

Less but more expensive. This is how the green movement's program and proposals for the future can be summarized.

Published yesterday 7:12
– By Tege Tornvall
Photo: Jakub Zerdzicki/Pexels
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

Less but more expensive. That sums up the green movement’s program and proposals for the future. It means a shrinking market in a growing world.

When it comes to transportation, we should travel shorter distances, less often, preferably by electric vehicle, and even better by bicycle or on foot. We should take fewer and shorter vacations and fly less.

We should eat less meat (especially red meat) and more vegetables. We should save our clothes and throw away less food, repair and reuse things, and generally consume less. We should also own less, live in smaller homes, and heat our homes less.

Of course it is wise not to waste, but this program is not going to win any elections. Especially since it is exaggerated and mostly unnecessary. It sets the world’s development back and leaves fewer resources for urgent needs.

The program is outlined in activist Greta Thunberg’s 442-page book “The Climate Book”. In it, 102 selected debaters give their views on the climate issue with proposals for various measures.

They are mostly political scientists, behavioral scientists, economists, and lawyers, all of whom start from the premise that more carbon dioxide could dangerously warm the Earth. Few are natural scientists with knowledge of physics, chemistry, geology, oceanography, solar research, and other subjects important to the climate.

For vehicles and transport, higher costs threaten to bring fewer benefits. More biofuels are to be mixed into gasoline and diesel (reduction obligation). They are more expensive, contain less energy, can damage sensitive engine parts, and are also in short supply due to competition from other needs.

From 2035, no new combustion-powered cars will be sold, and higher taxes and more expensive fuel will phase out even used fuel cars in the years that follow. In return, electric cars will continue to be subsidized with the goal that all Swedish cars will be electric by around 2050.

At least according to The Climate Book. This applies not only to cars but to all road vehicles, including motorcycles, tractors, trucks, buses, and construction machinery. Six to seven million vehicles will then need 25-30 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity per year.

This is 15-20 percent more than Sweden’s electricity consumption (approx. 140 TWh) and will have to compete with grandiose industrial projects – which are unlikely to be realized.

The catch is not electric motors, but their batteries. These require increasingly rare, expensive, and often environmentally harmful materials, which compete with other more pressing needs. This makes all electric vehicles more expensive than their fuel-powered counterparts.

If a new gasoline-powered small car costs €25,000-€30,000, the equivalent electric car costs €30,000-€40,000. A mid-size gasoline car costing €35,000–€40,000 is matched by an electric car costing at least €50,000. Cheaper electricity is more than offset by greater depreciation.

To preserve the batteries, you should neither drive with an empty battery nor charge it fully. This means that only around 80 percent of the capacity is available. In Swedish traffic, electric cars consume 1.5-3 kWh per 10 km, depending on size, load, weather, and speed. The actual range is a maximum of 300-400 kilometers.

Larger electric cars can cost upwards of €100,000. Today’s car journalists are dazzled by new technology and see the prices as perfectly normal. But ordinary Swedish households do not. That’s why two out of three new cars are bought or leased by companies, driven by taxes and subsidies.

This also applies to light transport and trucks. But buses and heavier trucks consume 12-15 kWh per 10 km. Even just 100 km requires at least a 120-150 kWh battery (one ton). Longer distances require several tons.

This reduces their payload capacity and revenue and requires long and expensive charging times. A regular bus costs around €300,000, an electric bus twice as much. A larger truck without a load weighs 5-6 tons. For 10,000 km, it needs a 1,200-1,500 kWh battery. That would weigh 8-10 tons, cost €150,000-€200,000, and significantly reduce load capacity.

Which transport companies would accept that? That is why Scania and Volvo only sell 1-2 percent electric trucks.

 

Tege Tornvall

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Climate policy free-for-all

The exaggerated climate crisis

The billions promised at climate meetings for poorer countries will come from household tax revenues. This means thousands of crowns annually for each household – a cost expected to rise in the future.

Published 27 November 2024
– By Tege Tornvall
Photo: COP29
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

The recently concluded climate meetings in Colombia and the oil city of Baku once again confirmed the true nature of the UN’s annual climate summits:

These climate meetings are political free-for-alls over funding and the allocation of the promised $300 billion to poorer countries. The goal is to incentivize these nations to abandon cheap, abundant, and reliable energy sources (coal, oil, and gas from the ground) in favor of expensive, unreliable, and resource-scarce energy (such as “renewable” wind, solar, and bioenergy) under the pretext of combating climate change.

Media reports from these meetings often focus on how poorer countries want to pressure richer nations for more money. The total amount now discussed is no longer $100 billion but $300 billion annually.

These funds come from the taxes of ordinary households. The world’s wealthier nations, home to about 1 billion of the planet’s 8.2 billion people, are expected to shoulder this burden. At an exchange rate of roughly SEK 11 per dollar, $300 billion equals SEK 3,400 (€295) per person annually.

For an average household, that amounts to SEK 7,000 (€610) per year – and this figure is expected to rise. Are households in wealthy nations aware of this? Many of them already struggle financially or live in poverty.

On top of this, higher energy and living costs will follow. This could undermine continued economic growth in currently prosperous democracies and lead to disputes over funding and allocation within these nations. For this reason, the entire climate issue is more about politics than science.

This is especially true considering that Earth’s climate is determined by the lower atmosphere and is primarily influenced by how much solar energy reaches the planet’s surface, particularly its oceans.

 

Tege Tornvall

More expensive petrol and diesel to encourage more people to buy electric cars

The exaggerated climate crisis

Car manufacturers are calling for “bold policy decisions” to make diesel more expensive, so that consumers are pushed to buy electric vehicles instead.

Published 26 October 2024
– By Tege Tornvall
Photo: Christopher Persson
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

When electric vehicles attract too few buyers, their manufacturers want to make it more expensive and difficult to buy gasoline and diesel cars. Recently, China-owned Volvo Cars and its sister company Polestar demanded that the EU ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars by 2035.

For trucks, Volvo AB’s CEO Martin Lundstedt thinks electrification is moving too slowly. So does Scania CEO Christian Levin, who wants politicians to do more to support electric vehicles.

He calls for “bold political decisions” to make diesel more expensive, thus making trucks and road transport more expensive.

The same goes for competitor Daimler Trucks, whose outgoing CEO Martin Daum wants annual fuel price increases instead of bonuses for electric vehicles. The goal is to “make it unthinkable to buy gasoline or diesel cars”.

Well aware of the limited range of electric vehicles, they call for more charging stations on the road. To be paid for by vehicle owners and taxpayers.

A larger electric truck costs more than twice as much as a diesel-powered one and carries several tons less cargo. In short: higher price for less benefit.

 

Tege Tornvall

Money that does not exist

The exaggerated climate crisis

Despite the fact that carbon dioxide is a scarce resource in the atmosphere, we are investing hundreds of billions in reducing its concentrations. This is money that does not yet exist and risks being lost on misguided projects and ideological pipe dreams.

Published 5 September 2024
– By Tege Tornvall
Photo: Nina Laakso/CC BY 2.0
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

There is no end to the billions to be invested in wind, solar, bioenergy, electric car batteries, “fossil-free” steel and iron, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and other projects.

This is money that does not yet exist. These projects are therefore mortgaging our future – and lowering the value of the Swedish krona if they fail.

The money is invested by banks and private financiers, by investment and pension funds, and by various government agencies. Most of it is in the form of loans, often guaranteed by the government. That is, all of us together.

If things go well, the borrowers take most of the profits. If things go badly, we all suffer the losses. A brilliant arrangement for so-called “entrepreneurs” who weather financial storms dry-shod.

What these projects have in common is that they claim to benefit the Earth’s climate by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, or by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

“Ideological pipe dreams”

But carbon dioxide is a vital nutrient for plants and, through photosynthesis, provides the atmosphere with its equally vital oxygen.

Despite a recent slight increase, carbon dioxide is in short supply in the atmosphere. Long periods of time in the past were many degrees warmer and had many times higher CO2 levels and richer plant and animal life than today.

After the intermittent cold of the Little Ice Age, more warmth and carbon dioxide now favor vegetation and crops. Between 1930 and 2015, world harvests increased fivefold (FAO). More people are better off. Fewer people suffer poverty and hunger.

Yet we are spending hundreds of billions to reduce the beneficial carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Money that does not yet exist and is in danger of being wasted on misguided projects and ideological pipe dreams.

 

Tege Tornvall

Artificial Intelligence and the Power of Language

The future of AI

How the mastery of language may be driving emergent abilities in Large Language Models, and what this means.

Published 7 May 2024
– By Thorsteinn Siglaugsson

This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

A few days ago, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, said that the advent of artificial intelligence could be likened to the discovery of electricity, so profound would be the societal changes it brings about. Artificial intelligence is certainly nothing new in banking; it has been used for decades. However, what is driving the discussion about the impact of artificial intelligence now is the emergence of Large Language models like ChatGPT. This is the major change, not only in the corporate world, but also in everyday life.

The Large Language models are unlike other AI tools in that they have mastered language; we can communicate with them in ordinary language. Thus, technical knowledge is no longer a prerequisite for using artificial intelligence in life and work; instead, expressive ability and understanding of language are key. But the development of these models and research into them also vividly remind us how language itself is the true prerequisite for human society.

Theory of Mind: Getting Into the Minds of Others

Large Language models function in a different way from normal software because they evolve and change without the developers and operators necessarily foreseeing those changes. The ability to put oneself in the mind of another person has generally been considered unique to humans. This ability, known in psychology as “theory of mind,” refers to an individual’s ability to formulate a “theory” about what another person’s mental world is like. This ability is fundamental to human society; without it, it’s hard to see how any society could thrive. Here’s a simple puzzle of this kind:

“There is a bag filled with popcorn. There is no chocolate in the bag. Yet the label on the bag says “chocolate” and not “popcorn.” Sam finds the bag. She had never seen the bag before. She cannot see what is inside the bag. She reads the label.”

The question is, what does she think is in the bag? Of course, the right answer is that Sam thinks there’s chocolate in the bag, because that’s what the label says. When Michal Kosinski, adjunct Professor at Stanford University, tested last year whether the first language models could handle this task, the result was negative. GPT-1 and 2 both answered incorrectly. But then he tried the next generation of the model, GPT-3. And in 40% of cases, it managed this type of task. GPT-3.5 managed it in 90% of cases and GPT-4 in 95% of cases.1

Emergent Capabilities of Large Language Models

This capability came as a surprise, as nothing had been done to build theory of mind capability into the models. They simply acquired it on their own as they grew larger and as the volume of data they were trained on increased. That this could happen is based on the models’ ability to use language, says Kosinski.

Another example I stumbled upon myself by chance recently was when GPT-4 asked me, after I had posed a puzzle to it, whether I had tried to solve the puzzle myself. The models certainly ask questions all the time, that’s nothing new, they aim to get more precise instructions. But this question is of a different nature. I answered yes and also mentioned that this was the first time I had received a question of this kind from the model. “Yes, you are observant,” GPT-4 replied, “with this I am trying to make the conversation more natural.”

Does this new development mean that the artificial intelligence truly puts itself in the mind of others? Does it mean it thinks, that it has feelings, opinions, an interest in the viewpoints and experiences of others? Of course, we can’t draw that conclusion. But what this means is that the behavior of the models is becoming increasingly similar to how we use language when we interact with each other. In this sense, we could actually talk about the mind of an AI model, just as we use theory of mind to infer about the minds of other humans.

The Power of Language

The language models draw our attention to the importance of language and how it underpins our societies and our existence. We now have a technology that is increasingly adept at using language, which has the advantage of possessing vastly more knowledge than any individual could possibly acquire in a lifetime and which can perform tasks much faster. We can use this technology to greatly enhance our own productivity, our reasoning, and our decisions if we use it correctly. This way, we can use it to gain more leisure time and improve our quality of life.

The comparison to the discovery of electricity is apt. Some might even want to go further and liken this revolution to the advent of language itself, which could be supported by pointing to the spontaneous capabilities of the models, such as theory of mind, which they achieve through nothing but the very ability to use language. What happens then if they evolve further than us, and could that possibly happen?

The fact that artificial intelligence has mastered language is a revolution that will lead to fundamental changes in society. The challenge we now face, each and every one of us, is to use it in a structured way, to our advantage, and avoid the pitfall of outsourcing our own thinking and decisions to it. The best way to do this is to enhance our own understanding of language, our expressive ability, and our critical thinking skills.

 

Thorsteinn Siglaugsson

 


  1. Kosinski, Michal: Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models, Stanford 2023. https://stanford.io/4aQosLV

Thorsteinn Siglaugsson is a Icelandic economist, consultant and writer. Chairman of the Icelandic Free Speech Society. Author: "From Symptoms to Causes" (Amazon). Regular contributor to The Daily Sceptic, Conservative Woman and Brownstone Institute. Siglaugsson also writes on Substack.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.