Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Earth Government Transportation Science

Sweden Pledges To Cut All Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2045 (independent.co.uk) 237

Sweden has announced ambitious plans to completely phase out greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. The nation also reaffirmed the urgency of tackling climate change and called for all countries to "step up and fulfill the Paris Agreement." The Independent reports: "Our target is to be an entirely fossil-fuel-free welfare state," said Climate Minister Isabella Lovin. "We see that the advantages of a climate-smart society are so huge, both when it comes to health, job creation and also security. Being dependent on fossil fuels and gas from Russia is not what we need now,â she added. All parties but the far-right Sweden Democrats party agreed to pass the law in the coming month, which will oblige the government to set tougher goals to cut fossil fuel emissions every four years until the 2045 cut-off date. Plans also include a 70 per cent cut to emissions in the domestic transport sector by 2030. The Government said the target would require domestic emissions to be cut by at least 85 per cent and the remaining emissions would be offset by planting trees or by sustainable investments abroad. The law is expected to enter into force as early as 2018.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sweden Pledges To Cut All Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2045

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    We've gone past a point of no return. On top of that, an almost 30 year plan? When governments make 5-year plans they generally fall apart...

    • by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @09:46AM (#53801899) Homepage

      No, even the worse estimates still show that it will take a 50 years for us to get to what would be considered a normal global average for human history.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Fragnet ( 4224287 )
        What does a "normal global average" [geologist-1011.net] mean? What is normal [joannenova.com.au] and what is natural variation [bas.ac.uk]?
        • If you don't know that, why are you posting?
      • by khallow ( 566160 )

        No, even the worse estimates still show that it will take a 50 years for us to get to what would be considered a normal global average for human history.

        Sweden better hurry then.

        And as usual, we're missing the cost/benefits analysis here.

      • Here it is pictorally [wikimedia.org]. We're currently warmer than even the Medieval Warm Period.

        Note: the (in)famous "hockey stick" graph only covered the Little Ice Age period from about 1400 to present. That was one of the reasons I didn't like "An Inconvenient Truth" even though I agreed with the overall message. When you cherry pick data to try to exaggerate what is already a good point, you just give fodder to the opposition. The above graph would've been just as effective as the hockey stick graph, without be
      • by Hylandr ( 813770 )

        estimates still show that it will take a 50 years

        Assuming that Sweden will still exist as the nation we know it with the current political climate. Climate Change is the least of the Earth's problems.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Fragnet ( 4224287 )
      We in the UK have such a thing called the "Climate Change Act". It was the most expensive bill ever passed by a UK Parliament. Luckily there's a small chance a non-retarded government will get itself elected and repeal the bill, which has effects across our economy particularly with respect to fuel bills. Yes, our MPs are thick. They're now shamelessly banging on about "fuel poverty" without any embarrassment whatsoever. It's easier to blame it on evil capitalists rather than their own idiotic energy p
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Delaying the switch to nuclear/renewables will only make it more expensive, plus you have the additional costs of dealing with climate change.
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      So governments should use planning horizons that are significantly shorter than five years? Let's imagine a government that actually worked that way.

      Right away you'd get a military that was far, far more cost effective -- over the next five years. Right off the bat pull the plug on every program that has the word "Future" in the title. Axe the F35 (1.5 trillion), the littoral combat ships (18 to be constructed at 300-700 million a piece, not counting the "mission modules" each will have which will cost 10

    • We've gone past a point of no return.

      We've past a point of no return. We're still on course for turning our planet into Venus 2.

  • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @09:15AM (#53801813) Journal
    So is there a plan, a roadmap, or is this just a pledge? My own country has similar (but way less ambitious) targets, but very little in the way of actual plans or even policies to make it happen. "Over the next x years we will invest €y in green tech" means bugger all, but if you instead state "We will build an offshore wind farm producing x MW to offset the coal fired plants we're shutting down", then at least there's a concrete and measurable result. And the first steps are the easiest; you'll need a good plan to get that last 20% of emissions. As you go along it'll get more expensive and harder, some stuff (like airplanes) doesn't have many green alternatives, and at some point you'll find that it's hard to get reliable baseload power from renewables if you don't have access to geo or hydro options. All that doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but it takes more than targets and money.

    On a side note: that's one angry looking lady...
    • then at least there's a concrete and measurable result

      And a lock-in to a potentially sub par solution. A government should chose a destination, not the method of getting there.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        That's exactly what they have done. The commitment is to be greenhouse gas neutral by 2045. The method of getting there is no specified, future governments are only required to enact policies designed to get there and can be sued if they don't.

        • future governments are only required to enact policies designed to get there and can be sued if they don't.

          Future governments can simply withdraw the plan. It is not within the power of the current government to govern beyond the four years of their mandate.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            It is, the law is binding on future governments.

            It's not the only time either. For example future governments are bound to properly deal with the country's nuclear waste and can't simply cancel the storage facilities or try to do them on the cheap. Well, not without being sued and losing anyway.

      • A government should chose a destination, not the method of getting there.

        In a perfect world filled with benevolent, responsible actors, that would be sufficient. In the real world, specific actions are often necessary to achieve nebulous goals, and government often has to lend a helping hand... or foot.

    • It's the next administration's job to follow through.

    • Its a goal with defined plan how to get there. The prime minister each year write a paper outlining how far off Sweden is from reaching the goal and whats happend in the last year and present it to the parlament. Also in it outline new legislation that will make sure the goal is reached by the end date.

      The parlament then can accept of reject the proposals for further changes to make sure Sweden can reach the final goal.

      So its not a farfetched goal and its not a very detailed plan but rather a method how to

    • by radl33t ( 900691 )
      actually, state mandates for renewable portfolio standards are exactly how this happens. The government says this will be done. Companies required to change, mainly utilities to this point, find a way to make it happen. There is a bunch of wrangling about how to equitable account for the costs, benefits, and sometimes negative consequences. Lawsuits, compromises, wins and losses. Low and behold at the end of the day, everyone is involved in the compromise of a solution and it works. Welcome to functional go
  • Smart (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PoopJuggler ( 688445 )
    And then there's us with our orange shithead at the helm ramping back up on burning coal and oil, for no other reason except greed.
  • How about imports (Score:5, Interesting)

    by religionofpeas ( 4511805 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @10:17AM (#53802003)
    What are they going to do about imports from industries that still produce CO2 ?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      Lead by example to reach a common goal so that other countries don't produce CO2 either? And then put a tariff on anything coming from the United States of Donald Trump.

  • That's cool and all, but they are *not* pledging to end all greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas, and if they have a plan to make everyone in the country stop farting, I'd love to hear it (also, on a more realistic note, livestock too) Same goes for CO2, unless they're pledging to hold their breath until the planet cools down. What they're actually pledging to to stop using fossil fuels for energy, which will necessarily lead to a decrease in net CO2 emissions, but is distinctly separate

    • If we're picking nits, the headline is correct, and it's from the linked story. The summary is wrong, and also from the story. There is no titl.

  • The US will never be a leader in what to do with Climate Change the country keeps changing it's mind every 4 to 8 years. Other Countries need to get together and lead, ignoring the US. Even China and India are getting concerned from what I heard. So Sweden is doing the correct thing.

    People in the US have a addiction to large gas guzzling Auto worse that the most hard core heron addict. The newest two excuses I hear is 1) They are higher and I can see better. 2) they are larger thus safer. Ignoring the

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I was a heron addict once, but I turned my life around when I managed to switch to pelicans.

      • by jmccue ( 834797 )

        I was a heron addict once, but I turned my life around when I managed to switch to pelicans.

        yes, misspelled heroin, but I cannot mod you up, whoever you are, you had me laughing for a while :)

    • When Regan came in the first thin he did was rip them down and said Carter was nuts

      The panels had to come down for roof renovation, but they didn't go back up because carter peanuts reagan big oil etc.

  • Please report to the local health center Monday.

    We will be distributing anal plugs with catalytic converters to eliminate CO2 and CH4 emissions.

    Consumption of beans and other legumes is now prohibited.

  • by amiga3D ( 567632 ) on Saturday February 04, 2017 @12:05PM (#53802433)

    If you have to import your coal and oil it only makes sense to go to completely fossil free solutions.

  • The only thing these measures do is create a two-tiered system where the nomenklatura still drive and fly as they please while imposing everything on regular people.

  • Strange. "I will lead Sweden in terraforming the Earth to make Sweden a slightly more temperate land" doesn't have much purchase there, I guess.

  • Cars may be all electric by that time, but it's a long way until aircraft don't emit CO2. Is this the end of Volvo and Saab?
  • Why they does not even look around before proposing such progressive nonsense? Perhaps, because conforming to the image of a progressive eco-hipster is the main agenda of those "lawmakers"? Swedish economy is almost entirely rely on diesel engine trucks and buses. Thousands of small towns and villages are receiving its supplies by trucks. Almost every family own at least one non-electric car. There is no way to survive in Swedish rural areas without a car. There is simple not enough public transportation.
  • It is so obvious that the US is superior in all ways that to keep killing ourselves with pollution and global warming is part and parcel of American genius. It is not remotely possible that any other nation can do anything better than we do. Get a clue folks. We have squirrels in the White House and a super corrupt right wing that is brought and paid for by coal and oil industries. So just give them that idiotic grin when they declare "Well, I'm not a climate scientist.".
  • There is no substitute on the horizon for kerosene belching jets. Even ferries are currently mostly diesel. So perhaps swedes will use their renewable chargedteslas togoto aver pavilions of the illusion of places beyond their orders,or wait, electric trains long way round to other carbon spewing countries?

Competence, like truth, beauty, and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter