[ad_1]
The nozzles took from the toes.
– A “game changer,” said Per Bolund.
– Now we save the climate, said Isabella Lövin.
It was September 14 and the leadership duo of the Green Party presented a multi-million dollar climate package.
Since then, the 3,000-page state budget has landed on the Riksdag’s table and, in fine print, the uncertain and complex reality behind the green slogans emerges.
One thing spokespeople have definitely managed to do: the climate budget is growing to record new heights. In the last budget presented by the government of the bourgeois alliance for 2014, the area of spending for environment and climate received just over 4 billion Swedish crowns. Next year, it will be a little over 16 billion. The increase has been constant year after year and in this way the deputy has been well paid for his hardships in the government, and now also in the negotiations with the Center Party and the Liberals. The money goes, for example, to more charging stations for electric cars, green conversion in the industry and a more protected nature.
But is budgeting a “game changer”?
If you choose a shorter one and a limited perspective, one can, with some justification, answer yes to that question. A shorter perspective extends on climate policy 10 years ahead, until 2030. Then, one of Sweden’s sub-goals must be achieved: a reduction in emissions from cars, trucks and other domestic transport by 70 percent compared to 1990 level.
That goal actually seems achievable.
Ironically, not all the climate billions have improved the forecast, but simply a tightening of the rules that the government agreed with the Center and the Liberals and that were included in the budget. It’s called the duty to cut back, or the gossipiest “fuel change” ministers prefer to use. By 2030, OKQ8, Circle K and the other fuel suppliers will be forced to increasingly mix biofuels with the gasoline and diesel fueled by motorists. Today, the quota for gasoline is 4 percent and for diesel 21 percent. It will gradually increase to 28 and 66 percent, respectively.
I budget Climate Report, the government estimates that the reduction obligation will have reduced climate emissions from national transport by between 4 and 5 million tons annually by 2030 (Sweden emits a total of approximately 50 million tons today). Therefore, “only” new measures would be required to provide emission reductions of around 1 million tonnes in the transport sector.
“The 2030 goal is within reach,” says the government in the budget.
Ola Alterå, Chancellor of the Climate Policy Council, agrees. The Council is a body of experts tasked with evaluating government policy.
– The reduction obligation is a strong instrument that has a direct effect on emissions in the near future. This long-term message also creates more security for players who can invest in biofuel production, says Ola Alterå.
Considering that domestic transport accounts for a third of Sweden’s emissions, this is no small matter. But the prognosis is uncertain.
“The government intends to come back with more detailed calculations,” it says in the budget.
Much can alter the calculations, for example, how much will we handle in the future and to what extent the supply of biofuel is sufficient. Today, Sweden imports most things. There are big questions here, according to Ola Alterå. Is the Swedish forest enough? Is imported fuel produced in a climate-friendly way?
– If you don’t get enough speed elsewhere, like electrification and switching from truck to train, we run the risk of becoming dependent on excessively large volumes of biofuel in the long run. It is not certain that it is sustainable, says Ola Alterå.
So it can be said that the budget can save one of Sweden’s climate goals. From there to saying that “now we save the climate” is a long way off.
Whether Sweden has really done its part to save the climate, according to the climate policy framework, will be clear in 2045. Total Swedish emissions must be net zero.
Much remains to be done, despite all the billions of weather.
In fact, the reduction obligation is the only piece of news from this year’s budget that leaves a decisive mark on emissions, according to the Government’s own table in the Climate Report annex (which, however, is not complete).
With climate policy Decisions that had been made up to and including 2019, the gap with the 2045 target is estimated to be 30 million tons. However, this presupposes that Sweden makes full use of complementary measures, such as carbon dioxide capture and storage. Otherwise, the 41 million tonnes target will not be met. It looks a little better if the fuel change is included.
“With regard to long-term goals, there is still a significant gap … More climate policy action plans with measures will be needed in the future,” the government states in the budget.
In addition to transportation, it is above all the restructuring of basic industry that will be decisive: steel mills, refineries, cement plants. Agriculture also plays a role. It’s no wonder all politics are not in place, says Ola Alterå at the Climate Policy Council. But the emission curves should point much more clearly downwards.
– In recent years, there has only been a percentage reduction in emissions. The problem is that it doesn’t go fast enough, he says.
Furthermore, all the calculations can be shattered by a question now on the government’s table: Should Preem be allowed to expand the refinery in Brofjorden? In one go, it would add a million tonnes to Sweden’s annual emissions. It is not something that bends the curves down.
