Is the government's climate policy insufficient?

This week's debate has been marked by discussions about efficiency, both when it comes to aviation tax and climate policy in general. Despite the fact that opinions differ, a common frustration is expressed that not enough is being done to counteract climate change.

In a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet, Professor Runar Brännlund describes how Swedish climate policy sets ambitious goals, but that the measures that are decided upon are not effective. Two of the decided measures are an aviation tax on flights from Sweden and a new system for taxation of cars, 'bonus-malus'. Brännlund believes that both measures are ineffective.

“What is taxed is not the emissions you want to reduce, but with the aviation tax it is the journey itself and with the bonus malus, it is the possession of the car, and not the emissions it gives rise to when it is used. One could say that both the aviation tax and the bonus malus are a form of political "green painting". That is, they try to create an image that powerful and effective measures are taken, but which in practice are costly for individuals and society and more or less ineffective from a global climate point of view ", writes Brännlund.

In a reply, representatives from Fores claim that Brännlund's argumentation regarding the aviation tax is simplifying. For example, the debaters believe that Brännlund's claim that the European emissions trading system EU-ETS only contributes to a redistribution of emissions is incorrect because the system was recently reformed. The reforms mean that the “waterbed effect” - that reduced emissions in one place enable increased emissions in another - stops.

The debaters describe how the aviation tax may not be an optimal solution, but that it can provide incentives for choosing more climate-friendly means of transport over aviation. "No one claims that the tax is a universal solution for a climate-neutral flight. The relevant question to ask is rather whether the tax, given today's almost total lack of instruments for aviation, is better than the zero alternative. The climate issue is too urgent to allow the best to become the enemy of the good, ”they write.

The government's climate policy has also been questioned from elsewhere. In a closing remark to Isabella Lövin, the moderates Maria Malmer Stenergard and Jonas Jacobsson Gjörtler claim that the government's investments in the climate are inefficient and are characterized by symbolic policies, such as the government's billion investment in electric bicycle subsidies.

The moderate debaters are calling for ambitious climate work that involves increased involvement of biofuels in fuels, bonus-malus systems and investments in international climate investments to reduce emissions globally. The debaters report on the moderates' plans to double the share of multilateral climate aid that goes to reducing emissions and multiply the bilateral climate aid for projects with the main purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“It is important that Swedish tax funds are used efficiently to achieve the greatest possible climate benefit […] The climate does not have the time or the means to ineffective symbolic policy. The climate - and the taxpayers - deserve that every tax crown is used where it does the most good, ”write Malmer Stenergard and Jacobsson Gjörtler.

Climate and environment

The flight tax and bonus malus have no effect
Runar Brännlund, Svenska Dagbladet

"Wrong that the aviation tax is ineffective"
Anton Arbman Hansing, Mathias Fridahl and Markus Larsson, Svenska Dagbladet

The results are missing from Lövin's climate policy
Maria Malmer Stenergard and Jonas Jacobsson Gjörtler, Svenska Dagbladet

No, we will not set fire to our Swedish forest
Frode Pleym, Lina Burnelius, Viktor Säfve, Stig-Olof Holm, Pia Björstrand, Samuel Jarrick, Mikael Sundström, Pella Thiel and Alice Andersson, Aftonbladet