A model and inspiration
Part 1 in a series: Looking toward Sweden as a climate change example for Canada
Climate change is upon us; our excessive use of fossil fuels has raised greenhouse gases (GHGs) to destructive levels. While climate change is a global problem, many solutions can be implemented at our local level. In a series of three articles we’ll look at Karlstad, Sweden, as a model and inspiration for our own Climate Change Action Plan in Peterborough.
Karlstad is surprisingly like Peterborough; it has a similar population, is built on a waterway, has a strong hockey team and a university, and GE has a significant presence. Yet Karlstad uses far less energy per person than Peterborough, and produces far less greenhouse gas. To see what we can learn locally from Karl st ad, we’ll start by comparing energy consumption and GHG emission levels in both Sweden and Canada.
Sweden and Canada share a northern climate, a love of hockey and a strong cultural identification with the wilderness, even though most residents of both countries live in cities. Neither country is a populous world power. Sweden’s population of 10 million is close to Ontario’s 13 million. According to the World Bank (2014), Sweden and Canada have almost identical per person G DPs( Gross Domestic Product), at just over US$45,000.
There are differences too; Sweden is much smaller and has been around for centuries. Canada, as a state, is younger and more geographically and ethnic ally diverse. While we won’ t find a perfect comparison, Sweden provides a useful perspective.
The World Bank data for 2013 cites Canada’s per person carbon equivalent emissions at 13.5 metric tonnes per year. Sweden’ s numbers for the same period were only 4.6 metric tonnes per year, just 34 per cent of Canada’s emissions.
Looking at energy consumption, World Bank statistics show that Canada used 7,730 kg of oil equivalent per person per year in 2013; Sweden used 5,150 kg of oil equivalent per person per year, just 66 per cent of Canada’s consumption.
In short Swedes enjoy the same economic wealth that Canadians do, using two-thirds of the energy per person and generating just one-third of the GHG emissions. They have broken the long-standing assumption that GHG emissions must increase with economic growth! The Swedish economy has not been hurt by its price on carbon, now $188 per tonne of CO2 compared to Ontario’s roughly $18 per tonne.
The path to Sweden’s status as a green economy started in the 1960s. In response to industrial pollution, Sweden became the first industrialized nation to create an Environmental Protection Agency. An Environmental Protection Act followed, legislating serious penalties for polluters.
Sweden used more than a legislative stick; it also extended a carrot to industry in the form of incentives and research funding. This led to the development of leading global industries in filter technology, specifically for sulphur and heavy metal emissions. A legislative requirement to clean up air and water pollution supported by Research and Development incentives helped create an export market for Swedish industry.
Sweden has also moved power and decision-making (including taxation rights) from central to municipal governments. This empowered local governments to invest significantly in biogas generation from waste water treatment, waste diversion from land fills, and district heating.
Oil shortages and price increases through the 1970s and 1980s and nuclear power plant accidents were incentives for Sweden to invest in biofuels and other alternative energy sources. The introduction of a carbon tax in 1991 accelerated the move away from fossil fuels. In 1980, 66 per cent of Sweden’s total energy needs were met with fossil fuels; by 2012 it was only 26 per cent. According to the US Energy Information Administration, Canada obtained 65 per cent of its energy needs from fossil fuels in 2014; we are where Sweden was in 1980!
Sweden’ s per person GDP grew 37 per cent from 1990 through 2008; recall their carbon tax was introduced in 1991. Canada’s GDP per person increased by 34 per cent in the same period. Clearly a carbon tax did not hinder economic growth in Sweden.
Sweden’ s vision is to have a viable carbon-neutral society by 2050. In the near term they have committed to reducing GHG emissions 40 per cent by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. By 2030 they plan a vehicle fleet completely free of fossil fuels.
In contrast, Canada has committed to reducing its GHG emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Canada’s emissions rose 27 per cent between 1990 and 2005. This means only a 3 per cent cut in emissions below 1990, far inferior to Sweden’s promised 40 per cent cut by 2020! Moreover, in March 2017 Environment Canada projected almost no reduction in emissions by 2030, as compared to 2005, under current government policies.
Sweden’ s commitment to actively address climate change can be an inspiring example. We owe it to ourselves, this community and future generations to take a closer look at what this determined and innovative northern country is doing. Paul Sobanski is a retired professional engineer and project manager. He is a member of the Alternative Energy
Working Group of Localizing the Leap (Peterborough). This is the first part of a weekly series comparing Peterborough and Karlstad, Sweden.