Talk:Vattenfall/Archives/2015

Focus/NPOV

I definitely see this article as pretty biased and unbalanced. Much of it reads like a corporate press release, and there's really no need for all those little sections regarding environmental initiatives. I'd like to combine them all into one or two sections, maybe with a title like "environmental initiatives" or "corporate environmental policy" or something similar.

This is exactly why the criticism section should stay, it is very useful to me when doing research on companies to have criticism sections and it is corporations who would want those sections removed because they want to hide their wrong-doings. To remove the criticism section - that would stink of pro-corporate bias.--46.208.7.78 (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstannik (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to remove the mentioned sections entirely since they have little to do help explain what Vattenfall is or what it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.99.163 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing critics section

In the prolog of the article we find:

Vattenfall’s coal-fired power plants account for more than twice as much CO₂-emissions as the rest of Sweden combined, and, if counting their Swedish-owned but foreign-located plants as Swedish, would bring Sweden up to fourth most CO₂-emitting country, counting per capita.

To many ifs, this statement could be in a critics section about Vattenfall but not in a prologue. There is a political agenda here and POV. Going to delete this section if it not moved to a missing critics section. This is much like Vattenfall was founded in Sweden and I think it sucks but with fancier words. This section is not informative just rhetoric and hypothetic. --Pwa66 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In May 2009, Vattenfall was voted the winner of the 2009 Climate Greenwash Awards for "its mastery of spin on climate change, portraying itself as a climate champion while lobbying to continue business as usual, using coal, nuclear power, and pseudo-solutions such as agrofuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS)." [2][3]

I can not see that CCS article in Wikipedia is stating that CCS is a pseduo-solution. I can not see that sources like http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Agrofuel or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel states that it's pseduo-solutions. Everything needs to develop to get efficient. Greenpeace is an political organization and may state this. I wonder what the Republican party in US thinks about oil? I know what Bush thought and I will not write political lines like that in fossil fuels. So take that to a critical section or I remove it. ---Pwa66 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Vattenfall owns four of the dirty thirty most polluting power stations in Europe. This is a fact --Pwa66 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit and bias

Vattenfall’s coal-fired power plants account for more than twice as much CO₂-emissions as the rest of Sweden combined, and, if counting their Swedish-owned but foreign-located plants as Swedish, would bring Sweden up to fourth most CO₂-emitting country, counting per capita

Please what is this? If you count in the cars and the steel the Germans makes out of Vattenfalls electricity the figures would go even higher. But since when have Sweden a responsibility for German power politics?

Have the author of this bs counted in similar dynamic parameters for all other countries so Sweden in fact is no 4? I mean the countries who mine coal, the countries who pump up oil and so on. I think Nigeria, Venezuela, Baharain, Kuwait and other countries are pretty much up there.

Biased information NPOV

In May 2009, Vattenfall was voted the winner of the 2009 Climate Greenwash Awards for "its mastery of spin on climate change, portraying itself as a climate champion while lobbying to continue business as usual, using coal, nuclear power, and pseudo-solutions such as agrofuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS)."

Who says that it's pseudo-solutions and I need proof. About the climate change isn't up for kind of revision? They cheated didn't they? So the criticism may be that it's pseudo-solutions but please don't take it up as a fact and dont refer to one of the biggest lobby organizations there is, Greenpeace.

Please it's a vote not facts. Get rid of it! --83.226.36.50 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Every award and every election is a vote. The outcome of a vote is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.99.163 (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)