In a debate on BBC World on Sunday the 18th May, Sweden’s Maud Olofsson continued to promulgate the myth of Sweden’s sustainability focus. Not inasmuch as what she said, but in what she did NOT say.
(for details follow http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/ProgrammeFeature.aspx?id=196&FeatureID=753)
When asked about sustainability reporting she cited the Government’s mandated reporting (starting this year) from public companies as an example of the government’s investment in sustainable development. She also cited Sweden’s carbon dioxide taxes on petrol and diesel. From this year, about 38% of what the motorist pays for petrol goes to energy and carbon dioxide tax respectively.
Two good things on the face of it that should be putting Sweden on the rode to reduced fossil fuel dependency. Maud Olofsson even managed to add that although mandating sustainability reporting from public companies, the government mandates these companies are run at a profit. With a hint of pride in her voice she made it clear that Sweden could combine economic growth and responsible business.
Not quite true. What Maud omitted was, that in demanding profits from state companies they are putting profits before promoting sustainable development of Sweden. Two glaring examples: the state run airports authority, whilst touting its environmental program on one hand, is planning to increase air travel and thereby emissions over the next few years. Another example comes from the state owned railway. Finding it hard to keep profits up in the face of meagre investment in new tracks and rolling stock, they are now putting up their prices. The increases are expected to result in customers flying more and driving their cars more.
But what about the all those millions that come from carbon dioxide taxation? Last year, according to information published by The Swedish National Financial Management Authority, carbon dioxide tax amounted 25 billion kronor, about 5 billion dollars. Surely this money should be spent on promoting sustainable development? Unfortunately, the transparency demanded by the government on reporting from its companies is not carried over to reporting of their own activities. The same authority gives us no idea of where all that money goes in its reporting of spending.
To my knowledge there is no direct reporting of how this money is being used. The worst case scenario is that is being used to fund vehicle industry research, or even to build more roads.
One thing is sure, despite all ranting about sustainability reporting, hard facts about activities that are putting Sweden on the route to sustainability are hard to find. With one of the world’s highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions, and with Sweden being the country in Europe most dependent on the motor vehicle industry, how long will it take before the Swedes themselves wake up to the fact that for every day that passes, they are increasingly at risk that coming fossil fuel scarcity will cause more than just economic damage.
Stephen Hinton
