SWEDEN.SE - the official gateway to Sweden

Tushar Daring and Sultana Begun from Bangladesh speak about the hardships of climate change. Photo: Stefan Ljung.

Imagine it is the year 2020. We are sitting in a court room, looking back at what happened eleven years ago, when the world community gathered at the 2009 UN Climate Change summit in Copenhagen.
That was a time when we had the opportunity to do something about climate change. But did we?

This is the scenario which was built up in the beginning of this week at the Swedish Forum for Human Rights held here in Stockholm. In a fictitious trial, held by future generations, real eye-witnesses of today are called to tell about their experiences of climate change. Now, in the year of 2009. And these experiences are far from fictitious.

Houses falling into the sea

Among them was Sheila Watt Cloutier, Inuit from the north of Canada. She told the audience how a warmer climate has already been palpable for a long time. How winters become shorter, how the permafrost melts and coasts erode, making the inhabitants’ houses fall down into the sea.
From Cambodia came Peuvchenda Bun, who testified about children’s rights being violated because of climate change when floods make it impossible to go to school and droughts make children starve.
Before us the jury, led by the former general secretary of Amnesty International’s Swedish branch, Carl Söderbergh. And the verdict? Will anyone of us walk free? 

Events like this make it evident that no one will be able to say “we didn’t know” when we in the future are asked why not enough was done. 

Here you can see a short interview with Sheila Watt Cloutier where she defends “the right to be cold”.

The communal laundry room is a Swedish phenomenon. Here resources are economized, but it is also a place where conflicts can arise…

How much does your daily life mean in emissions? Try a new greenhouse gas calculator to get an idea.

Photo: Katie/Flickr. 

As a global climate deal in Copenhagen in December seems more and more unlikely, many climate activists’ frustration grows, and new campaigns pop up everywhere.
A few weeks ago a campaign called Nödstopp (“”Emergency stop”) started here in Sweden. Those behind it are climate activists who want to start a discussion around consumption and what we as human beings really need to be happy.

Reduced consumption

If we are to reach the climate goals that science point out, they argue, it will require enormous changes. So in order to show the Swedish government that they are willing to do these changes, they have decided that up until December 18, when the Copenhagen meeting ends, they will live on an amount of money that equals social allowance. That is what the Swedish state has laid down to be a minimum of what is needed to maintain oneself.
“We do this because we think it is more important to leave a planet with functioning eco systems than having an increased material standard of life year in, year out.
A reduced consumption is at the same time in line with research findings which show that more consumption leads to increased emissions of greenhouse gases.”

"The best things are free"

Consuming less isn’t just about making sacrifices and doesn’t mean living a dull and grey life, they underscore.
One of those who have joined the campaign writes: “I can’t really notice a big difference, maybe except from when it comes to buying food. The rest of what is enjoyable in life is free anyway – work out, love and a good book (well, almost anyway).”

Borneo's rainforest, from the film and photo exhibition The Testament of Tebaran. Photo: Mattias Klum.

Ever since the big 350 concert evening a few weeks ago I have been thinking quite a lot about culture and art as a way of communicating the message of how urgent the ecological crisis is. Knowing the facts is essential, but somehow culture seems to have an ability to make us grasp things in a way that facts and figures doesn’t always manage.

“A tool that isn’t used enough”

Recently I read an interesting article in Nature, by the Canadian writer and journalist Sanjay Khanna, who explores this a bit more. He writes that artists, skilled in conveying ideas through the senses, can have an influential role in shaping public opinion about climate change.
One of the examples he brings up is the Swedish photographer Mattias Klum, who says that “Art is a tool that isn’t used enough to effect change”. During the climate meeting in Copenhagen in December Mattias Klum’s photo work The Testament of Tebaran will be exhibited to show the effect that deforestation has on climate change.

Palm oil destroying forests

The Testament of Tebaran is also a film where “the last man of a dying Bornean tribe tells his story while unassuming consumers shop for the products that cause his extinction.”
Klum and his colleague journalist Folke Rydén have dug into the facts behind palm oil, which is used for biodiesel. Biodiesel has been marketed as a green alternative to fuel in the west. But the problem is, palm oil production causes great destruction of the rain forests and the people who live there.
Read more about the film here.

Forsmark, one of Sweden’s existing nuclear power plants. Photo: Vattenfall.

A few days ago the Swedish state-owned power company Vattenfall announced that they are starting a partnership with parts of the Swedish basic industry. The aim is to secure energy production and electricity supply, and according to Vattenfall this might result in a new nuclear power plant being constructed.

The debate reawakens

This news caused a lot of attention. Nuclear power has been a sensitive matter in Sweden ever since the 1980 referendum, which after enormous debates decided that "Nuclear power shall be phased out, while taking consideration of the need for electric power for the maintenance of employment and welfare.”
Earlier this year the government decided to lift the ban. And with Vattenfall opening up to invest in new nuclear energy, the discussion is back.

Clashing arguments

In the light of global warming supporters of nuclear power mean that it represents the most realistic way of covering Sweden’s energy consumption. Their opponents retort that the long term storage of nuclear waste still isn’t entirely solved, that uranium also is a finite resource and that there are risks associated with nuclear power.

Vattenfall was also the aim of environmental groups earlier last week, when Greenpeace dumped 18 tonnes of coal outside the government chancellery Rosenbad, as a protest against state-owned Vattenfall running coal power plants outside Sweden.

The banner says “Reinfeldt stop Sweden’s coal power plants”. Photo: Greenpeace.

Photos: Roamallday/Flickr.

Being a “good” and “green” consumer isn’t easy. Trying to be climate-conscious while buying my food, going shopping in my local supermarket can sometimes take rather a long time. Vegetables have to be checked. Where are they grown? Is it the right season for this crop, or has it been grown in an artificially heated greenhouse? Sometimes things are even impossible to check on the spot, and would require hours of research.
To rectify this, the Swedish associations KRAV and Swedish Seal are now about to introduce a new climate label. The first product to be labelled is milk, but others will follow when more farms are certified.

This will make things easier for consumers, is the argument behind the label. But everyone doesn’t agree. Recently the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation criticized the idea, arguing that a climate label will be too one-dimensional and that we need to take into account other types of environmental influence too, such as eutrophication, increased use of fertilizers or threats to the biodiversity.

The Swedish Seal, on their hand, argues that climate change is an urgent problem, and that we can’t wait until there is a label that includes all kinds of environmental influence that a product has. And the organic certification program KRAV says it will include climate consideration into its coveted seal.

Labelling or not, I get the feeling that the responsibility tends to land on the consumer in the end any way. As a radio show that discussed this issue last week pointed out, an increasing number of different labels are emerging on the market. Some are very serious, with strict rules and an independent third part who certify. Some are just nice pictures on packages, making us think we are buying something environmentally conscious.
So is there maybe even a risk that consumers in the end feel overwhelmed by all these labels? And that we will eventually spend the same amount of time checking what the different labels stand for as we did before, trying to check the food?

Former ABBA star Benny Andersson (to the left) after performing the song "SOS" together with Ane Brun (in blue dress).

Saturday was a global day of action to draw attention to the number 350, which is the safe limit of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. It turned out an intense day in many places of the world, and I was amazed and happy to see such a crystal clear link between what science says needs to be done and grass root actions.

Here in Stockholm the main square Sergels torg was filled with people forming the number 350, and inside the cultural center Kulturhuset seminars and workshops about climate change were held all day long.

Singing for 350

In the evening I went to see a grand gala with around 25 artists, which was arranged at a theatre, hosted by the artist Ane Brun. During the summer she attended a three day seminar about climate change. What she heard there made her decide she had to do something. The result was this concert. During 350 minutes some of Sweden’s finest artists put music to many of the feelings that the climate crisis can awake.

Below you can see Robyn’s contribution.

Serious message

All this has hopefully helped to put the number 350 up on the agenda. But, as professor Johan Rockström pointed out during a presentation of the Planetary Boundaries report a few weeks ago: This number requires action, and is a very serious message to the world that an enormous amount of things need to be done. The safe limit of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million. Today we are at 387. That means it isn’t enough to emit less greenhouse gases – we actually need to suck CO2 out of the system.

A sure sign of eco-friendly living?

Once again to the recycling station. Tins in the metal department, cardboard boxes among the paper packages and plastic into another box. Walking away I am both relieved of my rubbish and having a slightly better environmental conscience. But is it really that easy?

A thesis that stuck

As a journalist you get to read (or at least scan through the summaries of) a lot of scientific studies. Some incomprehensible, some very interesting, and some which actually makes you continue thinking even after leaving work. Karin Bradley at the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, has written a thesis about what we perceive as being eco-friendly living. This thesis definitely belongs to the last category.
She shows that our notion about who is environmentally friendly and who’s not often has more to do with standards and cultural believes than actual facts. For example people who spend a lot of time in the nature are easier perceived as caring for the environment than others, although they might alternate those forest walks with shopping weekends on the other side of the Globe.

Status and economic assets 

What Karin Bradley saw in her studies is that this also has a lot to do with economic assets and social status. She found many persons living in the poorer suburbs who felt they couldn’t live up to the demands on living environmentally friendly when it came to recycling and buying the right products. At the same time they were living in flats, didn’t consume a lot and used public transports. In that way they actually contributed a lot less to global warming than somebody living in a large house, making faraway holidays and owning a car – although this person might spend all his time sorting his trash and eating organic food.

Still important

Not that these are insignificant measures, Karin Bradley underlines. This must be done too, but we should be careful not to get stuck in symbolic actions, preventing us from confronting more difficult questions about how society would have to change in a more profound way to become sustainable.

My thoughts go on. Maybe I do have the right to feel a bit good about my recycling. But shouldn’t we take a step further up the chain and start asking ourselves why all these packages are there in the first place?
In that way it wouldn’t be so much of a personal virtue getting rid of your trash.

(More about the research project that Karin Bradley is working with here)

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Photo: Helena Ledmyr/KVA

Science has traditionally been rather separated from the discussion about how society should act. When it comes to global warming this seems to be changing.
Today the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences holds an energy symposium. It has a very clear message to the governments of the world: The use of fossil fuels must stop.

"Five to twelve"

One of the professors of the Academy, Sven Kullander, describes the situation for adjusting our energy systems as ”Five to twelve”.
The way our burning of fossil fuels contributes to global warming is just one of the reasons why we should replace them with sustainable energy systems, he says to the Swedish radio. Another reason is that fossil fuels are a limited resource that we will eventually run out of.
The scientists also ask politicians to change the economy to an ecological one, which makes it more expensive to cause emissions and to use limited resources.

Will go to Copenhagen

This call will now be sent to academies of sciences in other countries before it reaches global decision makers at the big conference on climate change on Copenhagen in December.
In the radio interview Sven Kullander says he sees no problems with the fact that scientists now start to put pressure on the political discussions about how the world should deal with emissions.
– If we want to be able to switch over to a sustainable energy system in the short time we have, we think that it is necessary to have a much more direct communication between scientists and politicians, he says.