194
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
194 points (99.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
7062 readers
598 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.