Weighing costs against benefits in climate policy - prioritising the environment
- A fixation on carbon dioxide hampers environmental efforts.
The environmental movement has become a power factor
Since the publication of Rachel Carson's book on pollution, Silent Spring, in 1962, a strong environmental movement has emerged. The tireless work of the environmental movement has raised awareness of the importance of caring for the environment.
Today, the environmental movement is making its voice heard in most countries and has become a powerful force. Many people want to represent the political ideology that advocates the green shift. Almost all Swedish parliamentary parties have therefore embraced this way of thinking, which has also become anchored as a state-supporting idea. The ideas surrounding the ”green shift” form an essential foundation for intergovernmental work within both the UN and the EU.
With the Brundtland Commission's report from 1987, a new perspective came into the work of protecting our earth. The Commission paired environmental and development concerns and presented the concept of sustainable development.
The report brought together two NGOs that had previously been active on opposite sides of the arena - the aid organisations and the environmental movement. It highlighted an environmental theme that had come to the fore in the 1980s: the idea that humans were affecting the Earth's climate through greenhouse gas emissions. The year after the Brundtland Commission report was published, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established.
A narrowed environmental debate
In the more than thirty years since these two reports were published, we have seen a narrowing of the environmental debate. It is now solely about the climate, with all environmental and development organisations participating. At the same time, politicians, government and the media have taken centre stage in the debate, with self-proclaimed experts such as Johan Rockström and Greta Thunberg. As a result, everything from changes in ecosystems to population variations of individual animal and plant species are claimed to be caused by climate change.
When most of the real and unreal environmental and development problems are claimed to be caused by man-made climate change, the political solution is simple: we must fight carbon emissions. If we fail to recognise the real problems, we lack the ability to solve them. Ambition Sverige (A) wants to change this!
Politics must become more scientific and science less political
In 1990, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that if a continued exponential increase in carbon dioxide emissions, CFCs and other greenhouse gases were to continue, the consequences for the Earth's climate by 2100 would be devastating. The latest report from the IPCC in 2022, on the other hand, shows that the development that was feared in 1990 will not occur at all. Nor is the development feared in the 2013 report considered likely anymore, and a global catastrophe is no longer predicted.
Despite this, the idea that ”climate science is settled” runs like a red thread through today's discussions in politics and the media. Unfortunately, this is based on an idea that is not even supported by the research it refers to. This has not only distorted our public and political debate on energy, the environment and greenhouse gas emissions - it has also hampered important scientific and political discussions on our future climate. Huge amounts of taxpayers” money have been ploughed into loss-making ”green investments'. This has had a major negative impact on the environment, without having any impact on the climate.
Sweden's carbon dioxide emissions are low
Sweden's emissions are among the lowest in the world. Sweden currently accounts for 0.1 per cent of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions - that is, one per mille. This is the gross figure. If you take into account the enormous amount of carbon dioxide that our forests bind - in line with the UN climate panel's recommendations to consider net emissions - Sweden's share drops to 0.01 per cent of global emissions, or one tenth of a per mille.
This means that Sweden is already one of the world's most climate-neutral industrialised countries. In this situation, continuing to pursue an extreme climate policy to ”lead the way” is not just symbolic politics, it is a waste of taxpayers' money. This calls for reflection and restraint. Sweden can contribute to global solutions, but it must do so in balance with our own welfare, energy security and competitiveness.
Unfortunately, the climate debate focuses on the alleged increase in climate disasters such as torrential rain, droughts and hurricanes caused by our emissions. This is despite the fact that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not been able to demonstrate any such link.
The global average temperature has increased by about 1.5 degrees (measured from a point in time that was extremely cold) - mainly due to less cold winter nights at our latitudes. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in the long term, but far from the most important thing for the climate in the foreseeable future. Sweden has already reduced its emissions by around 70 % since 1970 and can now sit tight. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emissions are expected to fall from around 40 gigatonnes/year today to 10 gigatonnes/year by the end of the century. The reason why emissions are expected to fall is that China and India in particular are expected to reduce their coal-based electricity production after 2050.
We should focus on real problems
It is now important that we address the real problems of the world, and long-term solutions to them. Economics is about economising on scarce resources, something that should permeate all parts of society. Energy resources are something the world needs to optimise in the long term. For example, transporting biomass long distances to make emissions in Sweden ”greener” is counterproductive from a global perspective. The best economy is to use raw materials close to where they grow/are produced. The reduction obligation is another example. When biomass is converted into biodiesel, much of the energy content is lost. Global energy economy should be the topic of discussion at future COP meetings. If resource degradation can be reduced, the winners may outnumber the losers.
Environmental problems can no longer be ignored
In line with an increasingly alarmist view of the climate, traditional environmental problems have been largely neglected, not least when the effects of fossil-free energy are discussed, i.e. wind and solar power plants. Even when it comes to the focus on electric transport, there is largely no account of the environmental impact of anything other than ”climate emissions”.
In today's debate, meat, forestry and agriculture are being denigrated. For the meat issue and agriculture, there is now research that shows that agriculture contributes to reduced emissions of carbon dioxide. Grain, fields and pastures bind large amounts of carbon, which the IPCC and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency strangely enough do not credit agriculture.
In the case of meat, nothing other than methane and carbon dioxide emissions are ever reported as important factors in terms of environmental impact. The benefits of meat with its rich content of nutrients are not discussed. The cows' connection and contribution to open landscapes with all their biological added value is never highlighted in the media. Man's dependence on meat for thousands of years, especially in non-arable areas, is not heard about in the debate. What vegetable food and other substitutes for meat cause for environmental problems is also not heard.
Today, there is almost no debate about organic pollutants in air, water and food. Twenty or thirty years ago, that debate was alive.
A major source of emissions is municipal wastewater and sewage sludge, where PFAS, pharmaceutical residues and other environmental toxins are spread in large quantities to lakes, rivers and fields. Other sources of PFAS emissions include fire training sites, military facilities and airports.
Environmental and health problems caused by organic pollutants must be put back at the centre of attention.
A fifth purification step
Out of 290 municipalities in Sweden, only one municipality, Linköping, has implemented a fifth treatment stage to eliminate organic pollutants such as PFAS, pharmaceutical residues, etc. The Gothenburg wastewater treatment plant alone discharges around 500 million microparticles per hour, despite the fact that the treatment plant separates around 90 per cent of the billions of particles that enter.
In Switzerland, around 30 of the largest cities have installed advanced treatment with a fifth treatment stage. The cost for Linköping was around SEK 25 million in 2015. The corresponding cost today is estimated at around 32 million. The total cost of installing a fifth treatment stage in the 30 largest municipalities in Sweden can be estimated at around SEK 1 billion. This can be compared with Sweden's investment in wind power of around SEK 300 billion or the SEK 85 billion invested in Northvolt, without any result at all.
Environmental scandals are increasing
The fires in landfills in 2020-21 in Botkyrka and Upplands-Bro, revealed that the supervision by the authorities is not working. The fires caused the release of highly dangerous environmental toxins. In Botkyrka, high levels of dioxins, arsenic and heavy metals were found in the extinguishing water. The municipality kept the test results secret for a long time, as SVT reported on 29 January 2021.
The contamination with PFAS in drinking water in Kallinge in Ronneby and in Bäcklösa waterworks in Uppsala are other illustrative examples. In both cases, it is about the Armed Forces' inadequate handling of fire extinguishing agents. The incident with PFAS in Sweden alone is an environmental scandal.
According to the Swedish National Food Agency, as many as 5.8 million Swedes' municipal drinking water may be affected by PFAS. It is unacceptable that this environmental scandal has been allowed to continue for so many years without our supervisory authorities in municipalities, county administrative boards, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Chemicals Agency intervening.
The PFAS problem has been known for a long time, with production starting in the 1940s. Perhaps this is because more and more officials and managers have become preoccupied with the ”climate threat” and the fuzzy concept of ”sustainable development”? They have become ”climate coordinators” and therefore have no time to deal with the serious and urgent environmental issues.
Another major problem is the deposition of pollutants via precipitation. Virtually all known pollutants are present in precipitation. Deposition occurs every day, 24 hours a day, all year round.
No basis for decision - therefore a comprehensive report is needed
One problem is that politicians and other decision-makers currently lack an overall picture of trends and environmental impact. The Swedish EPA should therefore produce a regular report describing how much waste is generated, with a particular focus on hazardous waste: where the waste goes and how it is managed, emissions of various pollutants to air and water, and the quantities of environmentally hazardous chemicals managed. The report should also describe trends and changes over time (see also point 11 below).
As regards the timetable, implementation and project management of the proposed work, the Ministry of the Environment should decide how to proceed. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency can be the formal coordinator, provided that it has access to competent consultancy resources and the necessary funding for the measures required.
Ambition Sverige will work for:
- That the installation of a fifth treatment stage becomes a reality in the municipal wastewater treatment plants in the 30 largest municipalities, where the total annual emissions of organic pollutants including heavy metals are also measured, identified and reported.
- That supplementary treatment is introduced in all PFAS-contaminated waterworks in Sweden to meet future limit values for PFAS.
- Launching a programme to reduce emissions to air and water of so-called microplastics, including nanoparticles, from traffic, roads, industries, wastewater treatment plants, etc.
- A monitoring programme is started for Sweden's 30 largest lakes, where, in addition to organic pollutants and heavy metals, the amount and number of microplastic particles are measured and reported.
- In the wake of the Think Pink scandal, in which waste was allowed to spread unchecked in some 15 municipalities, to set up a monitoring project on waste management in general. The aim is to examine whether the control of waste is working satisfactorily.
- That ongoing projects within Avfall Sverige dealing with emissions of PFAS from waste incineration, among other things, be given extra resources so that results can be obtained more quickly.
- Initiate continuous random testing of organic pollutants in suspected imported consumer products, especially in products from China and Asia. A mandate should be given to the Swedish Chemicals Agency with the aim of stopping the import of the most toxic products - or influencing suppliers to supply non-toxic products.
- That the Swedish Chemicals Agency be given the task of proposing a programme of measures to reduce emissions, leaks and spills of PFAS from various products.
- That the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency initiate a project to report on the state of the environment in Sweden, as a guide for decision-makers/politicians.
- That a monitoring project under the Environmental Code be started, where emissions of particles and other substances from rotor blades in onshore and offshore wind power are investigated and reported. Emissions from various types of malfunctions/breakdowns should also be reported.
- Launch a project to provide an overview of the environmental impact and demand for rare earths in the manufacture, use and scrapping of electric vehicles, solar energy systems and wind turbines, using life cycle assessments (LCA).
- addressing the most serious water and air pollutants, such as persistent and accumulative pollutants.
- That the work of public authorities is based on facts - not on activism based on unrealistic projections of climate emissions.
- Sweden leaving the Paris Agreement (from 2015).
- Sweden to leave coalitions aiming for net zero carbon emissions by 2050, such as the UN Net Zero Coalition, the Carbon Neutrality Coalition (CNC), the EU Fit for 55 and the World Economic Forum's First Movers Coalition.
- That Sweden abolishes the climate policy framework consisting of the Climate Act and the Climate Policy Council and renegotiates the Climate Goals.
- That Sweden establishes a non-political climate science council that follows scientific developments in order to be able to give good advice to decision-makers. Those who are part of this council should be professors in the basic sciences on which the climate issue rests.
- Cancelling all public involvement in the ”green transition”. Innovation and energy efficiency should take place in a free market without government interference.
- The removal of subsidies and other special treatment for companies in the transition industry. For example, companies that want to engage in battery manufacturing, hydrogen production or underground storage of carbon dioxide can do so with their own resources and not with the public's pension funds or taxes.
- That planned bans on the sale of petrol and diesel cars are removed. The same conditions will apply to vehicles with internal combustion engines as to electric cars and hybrids.