“Sweden’s role in climate policy has weakened”

“Both in the EU and in some member states, climate policy has been weakened in several respects. Unfortunately, Sweden is a prime example of a country that has deliberately reversed and weakened its policies in a way that will predictably lead to increased environmental damage. We now have a record increase in emissions. Sweden, which has been a global environmental role model, is now one of the EU countries where emissions are increasing most,” says Karlsson.

A common argument is that there is a lack of public support for climate policy, but research shows that this is not true. In the research programme FAIRTRANS, run by Karlsson and others, researchers have conducted large-scale opinion polls, which show that a clear majority of Swedish people expect more stringent climate targets.

“When we investigate the claim ‘It is more important for politicians to promote low fuel prices than to put the money into transitioning to a fossil-free society’, most people say no. The most important thing is not to reduce fuel prices, the most important thing is climate transition.”

Negative impact on employment

Other studies show that, for example, reducing the energy tax on diesel and petrol will have a negative impact on employment and economic growth, compared with the alternatives.

“It’s actually better to take the money and share it out among people, but even better to invest in electric cars. This would reduce emissions instead of increasing them. At the same time, it would have more positive effects on employment and growth.”

FAIRTRANS researchers have also published studies based on in-depth interviews with company leaders, trade union leaders, indigenous people, environmental organisations and consumer organisations.

“Most of them want to see an acceleration in climate policy. So there is both public support, economic rationality and stakeholder support for stronger policies. There is great international interest in this type of research, so we have presented our results in meetings with all EU member states, among other things,” says Karlsson.

Studying the impact of think tanks

This year’s climate change conference in Brazil is the third meeting that he will attend in order to study ‘independent diplomats’. These include think tanks financed by companies or other organisations. This is a group that can be categorised neither as lobbyists nor activists, but somewhere in between. In various ways, they participate in and influence discussions and decisions at climate conferences, often behind the scenes.

“It is difficult to say how much of an impact they have, but it is quite clear that they do play an important role. At the same time, it is always difficult to know where decisions are made at such large conferences. Historically it has been the large, strong countries that have come to agreements on things, but a great many small decisions are also made.”

Karlsson has attended previous climate conferences and one that stands out in his memory is Paris 2015.

“The world reached agreement then. I think those of us who were present all sensed history being made when the EU, the US, China, India and the rest of the world agreed to keep climate change below the levels research indicates are truly dangerous. The meeting in Dubai a couple of years ago was also important. There we checked how far the world had come, and it was obvious that there were great shortcomings.”

High expectations of this year’s conference

Expectations are also high this year. Ten years have passed since the Paris Agreement was signed and all countries are expected to have updated their national plans to reduce emissions. Karlsson hopes that the world’s countries will take significant steps forward in their climate endeavours, even if they still have a long way to go.

“Before the Paris Agreement, estimates pointed to global warming reaching 3–5 degrees at the end of this century. Now the assessment is that global warming will instead be around 2–3 degrees. That is too high. But if the previous outcome was climate hell, we now have climate hope,” says Karlsson.

“After the groundbreaking Paris Agreement in 2015 it’s been a bumpy road with many obstacles on the way. It’s regrettable that Sweden is now backing into the future. However, the bigger picture shows that we are moving in the right direction. And the economic and technical potential for picking up the pace has never been as good as it is today. To a great extent, the world is a tragic mess, but beneath the surface there are good reasons to feel hope.”

Annica Hulth