Politicians break the promise of the environment: Sweden misses the mark

It was on April 28, 1999 when the president struck the stick on the table. The Riksdag had adopted the Government’s proposal on the objectives of Sweden’s environmental work. There was something solemn, almost fatal about the writing. In one generation, by 2020 at the latest, major environmental problems would be solved.

One of the political architects behind this was Anna Lindh (S), Minister of the Environment in the Göran Persson government. To speak of today’s twentysomethings as a lost generation is perhaps misleading, but in any case they should not inherit the world that hopeful members of parliament saw in the future that day in April 1999.

“Of course it is very sad that we have not advanced further.”

The environmental goals were 15 and then became 16. It is now clear that only one of them has been achieved within the set time. It is “Protective ozone layer”. The “Safe Radiation Environment” goal is not that far off. For the other 14, it says unequivocally “no” in the latest assessment from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

“Thus, we will not reach the generational goal for the year 2020,” says the report.

Johanna Sandahl is the president of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

– Of course, it is very sad that we have not advanced further. What is outlined in the environmental goals cannot be circumvented, it must be done for our own good, for future generations, for animals and nature and for Sweden as a pioneer country, he says.

Two areas are according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency it is particularly worrying and should be given priority. It is climate change and the impoverishment of biodiversity. Here we are not only far from the goal, development is also negative, according to the agency’s 2019 assessment. Policy decisions and other measures over the past year do not change the picture, according to Björn Pettersson, manager of the environmental goals unit .

– There have been no decisive jumps so the conclusion is still very relevant, he says.

For the climate, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is calling for “new and stricter national instruments”, in addition to international cooperation. Regarding biodiversity, the authority writes that “many species and habitats are at risk of extinction and ecosystems are depleted.” Greater consideration is needed “when using resources, as well as greater protection and better management of natural environments.”

Political scientist Katarina Eckerberg is a professor at Umeå University specializing in environmental policy. It is also part of the government think tank, the Climate Policy Council. According to her, environmental problems are the so-called “wicked problems”, which due to their complexity are significantly more difficult to understand than most of the problems for which our political and economic system is rigged. It requires collaboration between a myriad of actors: the state, regions, municipalities, companies, organizations, each of us as citizens and consumers.

“It’s the elephant in the room. Nobody dares to tell the truth.”

The difficulty also has to do with conflicts of objectives, in which there is a high political price to pay for those who choose the path.

– We have other social goals that often go against environmental goals and become higher. We must have constant economic growth, get more in our wallet, consume more. But it is not possible to do it in the same way as now if we want to achieve the objectives. That perception has never really been assimilated.

– It’s the elephant in the room. Nobody dares to tell the truth, we tried to polish the surface a bit, says Katarina Eckerberg.

She believes that the relationship between economic policy and environmental policy must be fundamentally reconsidered if society is to reach environmental goals all the way. The Environment Minister should sit in the Finance Ministry where the real power resides, suggests Katarina Eckerberg.

DN has spoken with three previous environment ministers about why the goals were not achieved. Åsa Romson was Sweden’s Minister for Climate and Environment from 2014 to 2016. Currently, the former political MP is a researcher at IVL Swedish Environmental Institute. She is on the same track as Katarina Eckerberg.

– If we aim to build our prosperity on the basis of sustainable management of our planet, then environmental policy is the prerequisite for economic development, not the other way around, says Åsa Romson.

She believes that the generational goal has been important as a vision, but that it was based on unrealistic hopes.

– It was a little naive to say that you would solve these big questions in a generation. It was pretty obvious that it wouldn’t work, so there was a credibility issue early on. This does not mean that the goals did not become important and had a controlling effect. Perhaps it was important to express ourselves in that way to show where we wanted to go, says Åsa Romson.

At the time, ozone holes and acidification were the most notable environmental problems. There was knowledge about climate change among researchers, but the information had not yet had an impact on policy. In general, few in the late 20th century understood the extent of human impact on nature, according to Åsa Romson.

Another politician who has been responsible for working with environmental objectives is the Center Party member Andreas Carlgren, Minister of the Environment from 2006 to 2011 in the Reinfeldt government.

– It’s just to say: no government has been prepared to invest what would be required, he says.

“It is just to say: no government has prepared to invest what would be required.”

Point out several shortcomings. One is that Swedish governments have not been good enough to direct the authorities towards the objectives. The second is that inter-party political support has been too weak. On the second point, things have improved in recent years, most clearly in climate policy, according to Andreas Carlgren.

He thinks Greta Thunberg has a great point with her call to listen to science. But even if it does, the tougher question remains, says Andreas Carlgren.

– How do we get there? It is perhaps what the elephant in the room is, that a change is needed that permeates the whole of society. These are not individual measures and taxes, but they are much more comprehensive. All of this is hard and difficult.

Andreas Carlgren’s successor and his party colleague Lena Ek see it all from a different angle. Goals don’t work and need to be remade, you think.

– The environmental goals are based on decisions of the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment. The basis is the knowledge of between 40 and 50 years, but the world and research have advanced. Microplastics in the oceans are not included, for example, and the climate problem was not as big as it is now, says Lena Ek, who is now president of Södra Skogsägarna.

She believes that environmental goals can even counteract their purpose.

– A helicopter perspective is missing. We must learn to resolve the contradiction between climate and biodiversity, and this system does not make it possible. There are several downspouts next to each other.