[ad_1]
LEADER. It has been almost three months since the Supreme Court of Lands and Environment gave the green light to Preem’s expansion of the Lysekil refinery. This has been followed by a compact silence from the government, which on a whim of a Polish and Hungarian character decided to make the decision on the extension of the court.
The expansion would increase Preem’s emissions by up to one million tons per year. At the same time, the climate targets say that Sweden must have zero emissions by 2045. It is in this context that the Green Party in particular resists. On Saturday, there was fresh pressure from the party’s climate policy spokesman, who believes the government should go against the court and say no.
When the court tried the case, it found no legal basis to stop the expansion. Preem is part of the EU emissions trading and will be treated accordingly. Nor can the Weather Law be used to allow testing of individual activities, as it only contains guidelines. In a state governed by the rule of law, it must be possible to trust that decisions will be made by independent legal bodies. This is a principle that is only questioned by the government that is open to trampling the opinion of the court.
Furthermore, it is far from certain that preventing expansion will bring climate benefits. On the contrary. As the refinery is part of the EU emissions trading, this means that the emission rights that are not used by Preem will be available to anyone else. Emissions are only transferred between operations. However, environmentalists have sometimes argued that national emissions reductions may have an effect on total emissions due to an emissions trading reform. It works if emission reductions take place in the near future. Avoiding Preem emissions during the second half of the 2020s, when the expansion is expected to complete, is pointless.
Preem also emits 21 percent less carbon dioxide than the average Western European refinery. Giving other companies the opportunity to take over Preem production is therefore anything but climate-friendly, but would risk increasing global emissions by several hundred thousand tons per year.
The reprehensibility of endangering the rule of law should be reason enough for the government not to go against the court’s decision. If this is not enough, the government can trust that a yes to Preem is also best for the climate.
