Our commitments were made in an entirely different realpolitik environment, before the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.
Swedish gdp per capita has been stagnant for several years with significant real wage decline, particularly for low to lower mid-income households - an estimated 6.5-16.5% decline since pre pandemic levels in 2019, only starting to properly recover in the past year or so.
Simultaneously there’s increasing healthcare costs tied to an aging population, massive needs to increase defence spending (1% of GDP in 2019, 2.4% currently, 5% goal) as well as significant and increasing societal economic losses from crime.
Something has had to budge and this is, unfortunately, one of those things. Work continues albeit at a lower priority.
Make no mistake. Sweden is still and will continue to be leagues ahead of most developed nations, and does really well even compared to the global average. Compared to a Swede, the average human has a carbon footprint 26% larger, European 50% larger, German 90% larger, Chinese 126% larger and each of y’all americans emit almost as much as 4 Swedes put together on average.
Emissions per capita are a distraction that makes us focus on a us, everyday people, instead of the major polluters: the super wealthy and their toxic coorporations.
Don’t fall for it!
The super rich are definitely the most obscene offenders, but they are also a vast minority. Those fossil fuel companies in your second link aren’t pumping oil and gas only for the sole consumption of the 0.1%. It goes into running the word economy, massively subsidising energy intensive and thus harmful activities. This in turn keeps prices artificially low all around.
Yes we should absolutely eat the rich, but we should also not pretend that the average middle class lifestyle could stay the same. Hell, the entire purpose of the middle class is to be the subset of the working class that is allowed the financial means to consume products and keep the economy growing to the benefit of the rich and to the detriment of all.
We should share what wealth we have better, and at the same time do with less.
It seems to me that the math in this is overwhelming. If a single person in this minority emits in 90min more than an average person in their lifetime, we should take into consideration that their lifetime is made of many, many, many 90min slots.
Apart from that of course I’m all in for sustainable living and redistribution of wealth for lower classes. Preferably abolish the class-system all together, of course.
I would be interested in seeing the methodology behind that figure. If Jeff Bezoz’s emissions include his ownership share of the emissions by the Amazon corporation (which is a major part of the world’s logistical system at this point), then no doubt, but getting rid of old Jeff wouldn’t eliminate those emissions. I rest my case that half of all fossil fuels in the world aren’t going directly into their jets and yachts.
Yes, sorry I really should’ve sat down and done that to begin with.
Billionaires’ lifestyle emissions dwarf those of ordinary people, but the emissions from their investments are dramatically higher still —the average investment emissions of 50 of the world’s richest billionaires are around 340 times their emissions from private jets and superyachts combined.
Well, there it is.
Edit: If there were 8 billion Amazon corporations, we would’ve shot past Venus a long time ago. The 90 minute mark seems to correspond to this. Getting rid of fifty (number of billionaires examined in the study) superyachts and a hundred 24/7 flying private jets would be next to nothing compared to the emissions from wider economy which they control, but which wouldn’t go away when the guillotine does its thing.
Of course the carbon footprint of the billionaires is nothing compaired to what the industry sector emits. My point was in relation to how the per capita emissions are used, not in comparison to the economy as a whole. While keeping in mind that it’s big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed, so that we focus on personnal choices, instead of collective action.
1 stuff your BP carbon footprint.
2 Even then the numbers are misleading at best.
It’s not what ‘Chinese’ do, it’s mostly emissions for the western market by western companies in China.
3 stuff your defense spending.
4 Knowing what a right-wing POS shit, Shitrael defending and anti-immigration articles poster racist you are stuff your ’ increasing societal economic losses from crime’ too.
There won’t be anybody to save our asses if the Ukrainians tire of sending their young into the Russian meat grinder - supporting them, and preparing ourselves means SPENDING ON DEFENSE. That’s not to mention how dependent we’ve become on China for all things manufactured and the US for all things software.
Oh, and for the record, Belgium has the 8th highest per capita consumption emissions in the world, so maybe focus on your own politicians before whining about us 😑
LOL we don’t need to be ‘saved’ by anyone.
Your propaganda fueled ‘the Russians are coming’ is completely absurd.
Anyone serious and knowledgeable about geopolitics ridicule those scaremongers, then again, they’re not in some western think tank or tied to the MIC trying to convince suckers there is a threat.
And BTW the ukros are tire of sending their young into the Russian meat grinder already for a long time.
They get kidnapped of the streets to die for the US/UK cowards always using proxies.
To the last ukrainian!
That graph states out loud that it doesn’t take into account emissions from land use changes. That’s a massive factor for forested countries.
Also with post industrial countries much of all manufacturing emissions have been offshored away. Wealthy Nordic countries consume a lot of products built elsewhere and thus these graphs skew the picture a lot.
doesn’t take into account emissions from land use changes
Sweden has negative emissions from land use changes - largely thanks to our healthy forestry practices compared to other countries.
manufacturing emissions have been offshored away
I agree, it’s a massive shame. This is why countries with good enviromental regulations need to make an effort to bring manufacturing back under our own jurisdiction where it can be done cleanly & efficiently. Still, even accounting for this Sweden is doing well compared to other developed nations.
Fifteen years ago, Sweden’s 87 billion trees, soils and wetlands absorbed almost 62 million tons of carbon each year—more than the country’s total fossil fuel emissions. But by last year, that number had halved to 31 million tons. The steep drop indicates that forests are disturbed by increased clearcutting as well as years of droughts, fires, beetle infections and insufficient soil nutrition, which hinders tree growth. It also means that Sweden risks being in violation of a range of EU agreements, including the union’s Nature Restoration Law, Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation.
Full disclosure: Here in Finland we have it even worse.
OK let’s have a look at how the development of land use emissions compared to the ideological alignment of governments during the same time period… :
So, in short, during blue periods during the last 15 years (right wing governments) land use co2 absorption has been mostly static and during the red periods (left wing governments) land use co2 absorption almost halved (57.8 Mtonnes of CO2-equivalents in 2014 --> 33.6 Mtonnes in 2022).
This doesn’t really seem to line up with the narrative of reduction in absorption being a problem caused by a right wing government.
Instead, from what I’ve gathered when speaking to people in the forestry business it’s rather a question of reduced growth due to drier summers as well as losses due to bug infestations and forest fires. The other half of the puzzle is massively increased electricity prices becoming a demand driver for fuel wood as a method of offsetting the periods with both highest electricity prices and highest demand (wintertime), which in turn was caused by premature shutdowns of nuclear power plants for political reasons.
They did cut the amount of biofuels in both diesel & gasoline however, which accounts for most of the 7% emissions increase, though it is debatable whether the actual emissions benefits of biofuels match the on-paper benefits. Furthermore, fuel costs had become a primary cost driver in inflation, this slashed fuel fuel prices from amongst the highest in the EU to amongst the lowest.
It also means that Sweden risks being in violation of a range of EU agreements, including the union’s Nature Restoration Law, Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation.
From what I’ve read these regulations were drafted based on how forests are handled in continental Europe (where there is basically none) with little to no regard for how forestry has been handled for centuries in northern Europe. The reason that our forests remain is that they are productive - these regulations threaten the Nordic forestry model fundamentally.
“how forestry has been handled for centuries in northern Europe”
Clear cutting is a relatively new thing. It worsens the damages to forest growth from both drier summers and bug infestations, as the clearings don’t provide shade or trap humidity in any way, and leave the trees on the edges of the clearings vulnerable to drying, weakening and thus more susceptible to bugs. The homogenous composition of wood farms also makes things very easy for bugs. The Nordic forestry model needs to change to one of continual growth for the sake of preserving both biodiversity and the climate.
Our commitments were made when we DIDN’T have a government coalition of dumbass rightwingers, neoliberals, evangelicals, and neonazis in poor disguise.
Now we do have that coalition, and they’re pretending climate change isn’t real.
In the name of saving costs, they’re killing programs which have been massive cost savers with huge ROI, and thus creating costs. Undoing wildlife management which increase costs and reduce revenue for farmers, undoing climate goals which even the car industry wants in place, removing regulations which made the industry better, etc.
Our commitments were made in an entirely different realpolitik environment, before the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.
Swedish gdp per capita has been stagnant for several years with significant real wage decline, particularly for low to lower mid-income households - an estimated 6.5-16.5% decline since pre pandemic levels in 2019, only starting to properly recover in the past year or so.
Simultaneously there’s increasing healthcare costs tied to an aging population, massive needs to increase defence spending (1% of GDP in 2019, 2.4% currently, 5% goal) as well as significant and increasing societal economic losses from crime.
Something has had to budge and this is, unfortunately, one of those things. Work continues albeit at a lower priority.
Make no mistake. Sweden is still and will continue to be leagues ahead of most developed nations, and does really well even compared to the global average. Compared to a Swede, the average human has a carbon footprint 26% larger, European 50% larger, German 90% larger, Chinese 126% larger and each of y’all americans emit almost as much as 4 Swedes put together on average.
Emissions per capita are a distraction that makes us focus on a us, everyday people, instead of the major polluters: the super wealthy and their toxic coorporations. Don’t fall for it!
The super rich are definitely the most obscene offenders, but they are also a vast minority. Those fossil fuel companies in your second link aren’t pumping oil and gas only for the sole consumption of the 0.1%. It goes into running the word economy, massively subsidising energy intensive and thus harmful activities. This in turn keeps prices artificially low all around.
Yes we should absolutely eat the rich, but we should also not pretend that the average middle class lifestyle could stay the same. Hell, the entire purpose of the middle class is to be the subset of the working class that is allowed the financial means to consume products and keep the economy growing to the benefit of the rich and to the detriment of all.
We should share what wealth we have better, and at the same time do with less.
It seems to me that the math in this is overwhelming. If a single person in this minority emits in 90min more than an average person in their lifetime, we should take into consideration that their lifetime is made of many, many, many 90min slots.
Apart from that of course I’m all in for sustainable living and redistribution of wealth for lower classes. Preferably abolish the class-system all together, of course.
I would be interested in seeing the methodology behind that figure. If Jeff Bezoz’s emissions include his ownership share of the emissions by the Amazon corporation (which is a major part of the world’s logistical system at this point), then no doubt, but getting rid of old Jeff wouldn’t eliminate those emissions. I rest my case that half of all fossil fuels in the world aren’t going directly into their jets and yachts.
If you click on the relevant link above, you will find the report itself. You can even download the methodology note seperately.
Yes, sorry I really should’ve sat down and done that to begin with.
Well, there it is.
Edit: If there were 8 billion Amazon corporations, we would’ve shot past Venus a long time ago. The 90 minute mark seems to correspond to this. Getting rid of fifty (number of billionaires examined in the study) superyachts and a hundred 24/7 flying private jets would be next to nothing compared to the emissions from wider economy which they control, but which wouldn’t go away when the guillotine does its thing.
Of course the carbon footprint of the billionaires is nothing compaired to what the industry sector emits. My point was in relation to how the per capita emissions are used, not in comparison to the economy as a whole. While keeping in mind that it’s big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed, so that we focus on personnal choices, instead of collective action.
Y’know - maybe we should take both into consideration, maybe?
1 stuff your BP carbon footprint.
2 Even then the numbers are misleading at best.
It’s not what ‘Chinese’ do, it’s mostly emissions for the western market by western companies in China.
3 stuff your defense spending.
4 Knowing what a right-wing POS shit, Shitrael defending and anti-immigration articles poster racist you are stuff your ’ increasing societal economic losses from crime’ too.
There won’t be anybody to save our asses if the Ukrainians tire of sending their young into the Russian meat grinder - supporting them, and preparing ourselves means SPENDING ON DEFENSE. That’s not to mention how dependent we’ve become on China for all things manufactured and the US for all things software.
Oh, and for the record, Belgium has the 8th highest per capita consumption emissions in the world, so maybe focus on your own politicians before whining about us 😑
LOL we don’t need to be ‘saved’ by anyone.
Your propaganda fueled ‘the Russians are coming’ is completely absurd.
Anyone serious and knowledgeable about geopolitics ridicule those scaremongers, then again, they’re not in some western think tank or tied to the MIC trying to convince suckers there is a threat.
And BTW the ukros are tire of sending their young into the Russian meat grinder already for a long time.
They get kidnapped of the streets to die for the US/UK cowards always using proxies.
To the last ukrainian!
That graph states out loud that it doesn’t take into account emissions from land use changes. That’s a massive factor for forested countries.
Also with post industrial countries much of all manufacturing emissions have been offshored away. Wealthy Nordic countries consume a lot of products built elsewhere and thus these graphs skew the picture a lot.
Yes why doesn’t anyone mention this more. Of course China and other manufacturing countries pollute more, they are creating for the world.
Sweden has negative emissions from land use changes - largely thanks to our healthy forestry practices compared to other countries.
I agree, it’s a massive shame. This is why countries with good enviromental regulations need to make an effort to bring manufacturing back under our own jurisdiction where it can be done cleanly & efficiently. Still, even accounting for this Sweden is doing well compared to other developed nations.
Negative, yes, but increasing.
From the article in the OP:
Full disclosure: Here in Finland we have it even worse.
Source of their statement:
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/data-och-statistik/klimat/vaxthusgaser-nettoutslapp-och-nettoupptag-fran-markanvandning/
OK let’s have a look at how the development of land use emissions compared to the ideological alignment of governments during the same time period… :
So, in short, during blue periods during the last 15 years (right wing governments) land use co2 absorption has been mostly static and during the red periods (left wing governments) land use co2 absorption almost halved (57.8 Mtonnes of CO2-equivalents in 2014 --> 33.6 Mtonnes in 2022).
This doesn’t really seem to line up with the narrative of reduction in absorption being a problem caused by a right wing government.
Instead, from what I’ve gathered when speaking to people in the forestry business it’s rather a question of reduced growth due to drier summers as well as losses due to bug infestations and forest fires. The other half of the puzzle is massively increased electricity prices becoming a demand driver for fuel wood as a method of offsetting the periods with both highest electricity prices and highest demand (wintertime), which in turn was caused by premature shutdowns of nuclear power plants for political reasons.
They did cut the amount of biofuels in both diesel & gasoline however, which accounts for most of the 7% emissions increase, though it is debatable whether the actual emissions benefits of biofuels match the on-paper benefits. Furthermore, fuel costs had become a primary cost driver in inflation, this slashed fuel fuel prices from amongst the highest in the EU to amongst the lowest.
From what I’ve read these regulations were drafted based on how forests are handled in continental Europe (where there is basically none) with little to no regard for how forestry has been handled for centuries in northern Europe. The reason that our forests remain is that they are productive - these regulations threaten the Nordic forestry model fundamentally.
“how forestry has been handled for centuries in northern Europe”
Clear cutting is a relatively new thing. It worsens the damages to forest growth from both drier summers and bug infestations, as the clearings don’t provide shade or trap humidity in any way, and leave the trees on the edges of the clearings vulnerable to drying, weakening and thus more susceptible to bugs. The homogenous composition of wood farms also makes things very easy for bugs. The Nordic forestry model needs to change to one of continual growth for the sake of preserving both biodiversity and the climate.
Our commitments were made when we DIDN’T have a government coalition of dumbass rightwingers, neoliberals, evangelicals, and neonazis in poor disguise.
Now we do have that coalition, and they’re pretending climate change isn’t real.
In the name of saving costs, they’re killing programs which have been massive cost savers with huge ROI, and thus creating costs. Undoing wildlife management which increase costs and reduce revenue for farmers, undoing climate goals which even the car industry wants in place, removing regulations which made the industry better, etc.
Regressive assholes