The task of science is rather to serve up facts than to propose political solutions to social problems. Nevertheless, many people put their hope in the scientists when it comes to how we are going to tackle the great destiny question of our time. With a few weeks left until the election, climate issues have also not been the focus of politicians’ actions very often.
This is what three researchers with a broad overview of the climate problem say – about what Swedish politicians should prioritize in order to reduce our emissions in time.
“Ban fossil vehicles and dare to talk about lifestyle” We need to change our behavior in order to meet the climate goals – and the politicians must dare to push on, says Karin Bäckstrand, professor of social science environmental research at Stockholm University.
Karin Bäckstrand, professor of social science environmental research at Stockholm University and who until recently sat on the climate policy council:
1. The transports. We in Sweden need to reduce emissions by 8–10 percent per year to reach our goal of net zero emissions in 2045 – in recent years, the reduction has been 1–2 percent. The gap between them must be reduced dramatically, and then the transport sector, which accounts for around a third of our emissions, is incredibly central. The reduction obligation – the requirement to mix biofuel in the fuel – should remain. Removing it, as has been done now during the war, increases emissions and fossil dependence and strengthens Putin’s war economy. A ban on fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 is another important measure, as is investment in more charging stations and a massive expansion and better maintenance of the rail network.
2. Changed lifestyle. Almost all politicians talk about the existential threat that the climate crisis is, but few dare to talk about the lifestyle changes required to reach the climate goals – because technical changes are not enough. Saving on electricity, changing what we eat and throwing away less food, among other things. It is paradoxical to talk about the fact that we cannot cope with the high food prices at the same time that we throw away 106 kilos of food per person every year. It is difficult to win elections by talking about reduced flying – but politicians must have the courage to stand up for behavioral changes that are absolutely necessary.
3. Justice. The climate measures need to take more into account our different conditions for making climate-smart choices – between cities and rural areas, low and high income earners, and so on. Among other things, more accurate measures are needed to compensate people for higher electricity and fuel prices so that the most resource-poor households receive support. For example, in the form of lower road taxation for people in rural areas with poorer public transport – instead of giving a general subsidy to everyone who owns a car, where even high-income earners in cities where it is easy to take public transport get just over a thousand Swedish kroner.
“Climate labeling and wind power” That politicians make it easier for new wind turbines and work to increase acceptance for them is high on the list for Professor Markku Rummukainen.
Markku Rummukainen, professor of climatology at Lund University and Sweden’s representative in the UN climate panel IPCC:
1. Facilitate wind and solar power. Among other things, it is about faster permit processes for wind power and other renewable energy, expanding power lines and solutions for storing energy. A good anchoring with all those concerned is also needed to gain acceptance for the wind turbines and lines that are needed
2. Drive more for sustainable consumption. Climate labeling of food and other products is a first step in order to be able to make active choices, but the entire range needs to become less climate-burdening – for example through requirements for energy performance and that things must be repairable. And it is about both private consumption and public procurement.
3. Give a clearer story about climate change. For many, it is probably an abstract examination of how the transition is concretely felt in life and society. It means a lot that is positive for welfare and quality of life, but it rarely comes up in the debate.
“Energy-efficient buildings and preparedness for food shortages” By using electricity more efficiently, we can make big and quick climate gains, according to Åsa Persson at the Stockholm Environment Institute.
Åsa Persson, head of research at the Stockholm Environment Institute:
1. More efficient energy use. There is a lot of talk about increasing the supply of electricity – nuclear power and wind power – but the research also shows big gains through more efficient use. It is smart in terms of personal finances, security policy and is a very important part of climate change. Here I strongly call for increased ambitions from the politicians. Among other things, more financial support and regulations are needed for energy-efficient buildings, both when building new ones and to equip, for example, the million dollar programs.
2. Make it easier for people to choose fossil-free transport and energy types. And then infrastructure is needed that makes it practically possible. In addition to getting more electric cars on the roads, we must build more charging stations, not least in sparsely populated areas, and get people to take more trains. The capacity of the electricity grid needs to increase to equalize supply and price across the country, and in the long term be able to export even more fossil-free electricity to countries that are more dependent than we are on coal, oil and gas.
3. Climate adaptation. We have to adapt our buildings, homes and infrastructure to increasingly extreme weather, which hits society’s weakest the hardest – for example, nursing homes finding it difficult to maintain a good temperature. Politicians also need to clarify how we should deal with climate risks abroad that affect us, for example our access to food. Already now, grain harvests worldwide are at risk of being low as a result of the drought. Should the state or the food industry ensure that we are prepared for such crises?