Sweden's government invests hundreds of millions in climate compensation, i.e. emission reductions abroad. This means that part of Sweden's climate goals may be met in countries such as Ghana, Nepal and the Dominican Republic. But several researchers and experts are critical, both in terms of climate benefit and ethics.
Through climate compensation can the person who causes emissions pay to reduce the equivalent amount of emissions elsewhere. This can be done by purchasing so-called emission credits, namely the right to emit one ton of carbon dioxide or the equivalent amount of certain other greenhouse gases, so that these rights cannot be used by anyone else. Other options are to invest in, for example, tree planting or expansion of renewable energy.
For several decades, Sweden has invested in climate compensation abroad. In the autumn government declaration stated Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (M) that climate compensation in poor countries is one of the priority measures in Sweden's climate work. The climate compensation must contribute to Sweden reaching net zero emissions by 2045 - a national climate objective which means that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced by at least 85 percent compared to 1990. For this purpose, 15 percent of the emission reductions are allowed to be achieved through, for example, climate compensation abroad.
The bets is calculated currently cost up to SEK 450 million between 2023 and 2032. The government is also planning for increased investments in climate compensation according to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, where this is regulated.
The ventures face criticism
Something that is often mentioned in the discussion about climate compensation is that it risks shifting focus from efforts to reduce emissions and that instead it becomes a way to buy oneself free from necessary behavioral and technological changes. Researchers interviewed by DN criticizes the government's planned climate compensation projects in Ghana, Nepal and the Dominican Republic.
- This is shifting the responsibility to another country, says sustainability researcher Wim Carton to DN.
Sandra Lindström, manager at The Energy Agency's unit for international climate cooperation, treats the criticism in a comment to Utvecklingsmagasinet. Lindström believes that if the countries are to be able to achieve their climate goals, all kinds of measures and instruments are needed to bring about emission reductions.
She emphasizes that many countries use climate compensation as a complementary measure and that these measures should not be seen as competing, but rather complementary, in order to achieve the climate goals in a cost-effective way and speed up the energy transition.
Further criticism is that Sweden makes poor countries' climate work more difficult by allowing the countries to only take credit for a part, or none at all, of the emission reductions that the projects create. Every emission credit that Sweden buys from a country means a reduction that the country itself cannot then take into account to achieve its own climate goals.
To ensure climate compensation does not lead to unwanted effects stresses The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation the importance of the projects being locally rooted, transparent and controlled by an independent third party. Sandra Lindström therefore describes how the projects that are financed will undergo a third-party review by an independent party. As part of this, it is required that some form of discussion has been held with those affected by the projects. The Swedish Energy Agency will also place special requirements on the sustainability reporting of the projects.
- Then, unfortunately, it has become the case that some projects have led to unwanted effects or that the consultation was not good enough. But fundamentally, the mechanism is in place, says Sandra Lindström.
