Abstract:
The green ‘superpowers’: the climate policies of the Nordic countries
The Nordic countries are very often seen as leaders in climate policies; a leadership which is demonstrated both by their ambitious goals when it comes to GHG reduction targets as well as renewable energy. Rather than further underpinning this claim this paper, which is a comparative study of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland) aims at finding the root causes of this long-time leadership. Furthermore, the article tries to explain the uniformity of the climate policies of the Nordic countries, which is quite surprising given the very different geographical/geological preconditions of the different countries.
The answer to the first question is found in the combination of strong popular support of green policies, and a strong hegemonic ecological modernization discourse enabling broad compromises on ambitious climate policies by combining them with strategies for economic growth based on green technologies.
In answering the second question it is firstly demonstrated that the Nordic countries are quite uniform when it comes to GHG reduction targets as well as choice of policy instruments. Secondly, it is shown that this uniformity is produced by a number of different institutions constituting a framework for collaboration among the Nordic countries in the area of climate and energy policies. These institutions were found to be The Nordic Council of Ministers, the European Union, the municipalities in the Nordic countries and different market based arrangements, like for example the Scandinavian common market for electricity.
Keywords: climate policy, Nordic countries, renewable energy, welfare state, public support, local government.
Jens Hoff
Department of Political Science
University of Copenhagen,
Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1014 København K.
Denmark
E-mail:
Phone: +45 3532 3386
Mobile: +45 2487 7082
Paper presented at UACES Conference, Dublin, Ireland, June 2016.
- Introduction
There seems to be an almost global consensus about the fact that the Nordic countries[1] are frontrunners in environmental and climate policies (Tobin 2015, Lafferty & Meadowcroft 2000, Lundqvist 2004, Nordic Council 2015). Depending on who is asked, or what literature one reads, this fact is underpinned by reference to a number of different factors or events, all highlighting this leadership position: the Nordic countries were among the first in the world to establish Ministries of Environment (between 1987 and 1972). The establishment of these ministries can be seen as a reaction to a growing popular concern with environmental problems, and in some cases strong social movements concerned with the environment and the sources of energy supply. This first mover position led Nordic governments, in this phase dominated by Social-democratic parties concerned with questions of equity and global solidarity, to take on a global leadership role concerning questions of environment and sustainability. It is therefore no coincidence that the first global conference on the environment was held in Stockholm in 1972[2]. The torch lid was carried on by the Norwegian Minister of Environment, later Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who was the driving force behind the influential UN Report ‘Our Common Future’ published in 1987. At the next important global event concerning environment and sustainability, the Rio World Summit on Environment and Development in 1992, Danish Minister of Environment Svend Auken, played an active role in bringing both the UNFCCC treaty as well as the Agenda21 agreement to the decision phase, and recently the Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven has taken on a very active role in organizing a group of prime ministers to actively engage in the Sustainability Development Goals 2030 agreed upon by UN’s General Assembly in 2015.
The Rio Summit and the ensuing Kyoto protocol agreed upon at COP3 in 1997 catapulted the question of climate change to the top of the global political agenda (Hoff 2016), and the formulation and implementation of policies concerning climate change mitigation has further cemented the frontrunner position of the Nordic countries. Facts often mentioned to illustrate this point is: a) that the Nordic countries have ‘cracked the nut’ of simultaneous economic growth and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. Figures show that in the period from 1990 to 2011 GDP in the Nordic countries increased by 55%, while GHG emissions were reduced with 9% (Nordic Council of Ministers 2014:9, see fig. 1 below), b) the Nordic countries have been able to implement the world’s highest taxation on carbon tax; Sweden topping the list with a tax of 139 Euro per ton of CO2, which have had significant impacts on consumption of fossil fuels and energy efficiency (Nordic Council of Ministers 2014), c) the Nordic countries have some of the most ambitious goals in the world concerning GHG reductions ranging between 15% and 40% as national targets for 2020 (30-40% for Denmark, Norway and Sweden; baseline 1990), and goals of being 100% fossil free in 2050 (50-80% for Iceland and Finland), d) finally, and maybe most significantly, the Nordic countries are famous for their efforts in stimulating and implementing renewable energy in their energy mix. The share of renewable energy in the electricity mix was more than 63% in 2010, while the share of renewable energy in the total energy consumption was 30% in 2010 (Nordic Council of Ministers 2014:22-24). While these figures conceal considerable variations between the Nordic countries especially due to their different geographical conditions, they none the less demonstrate a strong determination to use and develop renewable energy thereby reducing GHG emissions.
Even though the examples above are somewhat sketchy and anecdotic, we take them to indicate that the Nordic countries can indeed be considered as ‘green superpowers’; countries who are frontrunners when it comes to policies of environment and climate. What this article does is therefore not to further underpin this claim, but to try to find the root causes of this long-time leadership. Furthermore, the article will investigate the puzzle of the apparent Nordic consensus or unity concerning especially climate policies. Such consensus is quite surprising given the fact that both Norway and Denmark are oil and natural gas producing and –exporting countries, while the other Nordic countries have no oil or gas. Also the Nordic countries have widely different preconditions when it comes to renewable energy: Norway and Sweden being blessed with plentiful hydropower resources, Iceland with geothermal energy, while Denmark and Finland are less fortunate in this respect. One should think that these very different geographical preconditions would result in different climate and energy policies if each country were to pursue its own interests. However, this is apparently not the case.So what is the factor or the factors that contribute to the similarity of the climate policies of the Nordic countries?This is the second question that this article will deal with.
Fig.1. Nordic CO2 emissions per capita and Nordic GDP per capita.
- How did the Nordic countries become frontrunners in environmental and climate policy?
Looking at environmental and climate politics and policies in the Nordic countries since the 1960’s especially two factors seem to have been of importance for establishing the Nordic countries as global frontrunners. The first factor is the strong popular support of environmental or ‘green’ policies, and the other factor is the almost complete hegemony of so-called ‘ecological modernization’ (later ‘green growth’) as the dominant discourse legitimizing ambitious environmental and climate policies by combining them with strategies for economic growth partly based on exports of ‘green (or ‘clean’) technologies embodying a significant element of R & D.
Strong popular support for environmental policies
The Nordic countries are rich in areas of great natural beauty, and there is plenty of untouched nature, clean water and fresh air. Traditionally, the populations of the Nordic countries have a close relationship to nature, and have for centuries been dependent on it for food production, housing, energy, etc. Care for the environment is therefore embodied in the culture of the Nordic counties, and it is of little surprise that conservation, maintenance of biodiversity as well as sustainable consumption and -production are high on the agenda in all Nordic countries (Nordic Council of Ministers 2015).
Apart from a possible cultural bias towards nature conservation and biospheric values (Stern et al. 2000) there are also other, more contemporary and politically determined reasons for why there is strong public support for ‘green policies’ including policies concerning renewable energy in the Nordic countries. Denmark is a case in point here, and like the other Nordic countries Denmark was taken by surprise when the first oil crises hit in 1972. Denmark was at that time heavily dependent on imported oil, and a first reaction to the chock was to change the energy supply from oil to coal, and to start investigating the possibilities for the introduction of nuclear power. However, especially the attempt at introducing nuclear power, supported strongly by several parties in Parliament, met resistance in the population. In 1974 the Organisation for Information about Nuclear Power (Organisationen til Oplysning om Atomkraft, OOA) was formed, and it became one of the strongest and broadest popular movements in Denmark in the post-war period. It success seem to hinge on the fact that it was not only a protest movement - it was also a constructive movement developing alternatives to nuclear power. Thus, as part of the movement engineers, students and craftsmen began to work with how renewable energy (RE) could be scaled up from small RE experiments (wind turbines, straw-fired district heating systems, solar power, etc.). This work resulted in the establishment of the Organisation for Renewable Energy (Organisationen for Vedvarende Energi, OVE) in 1978. Together, OOA, OVE and other green forces developed a three-pronged strategy meant to ensure that nuclear power would never become a part of the Danish energy mix and that coal would gradually be phased out. The elements in the strategy were: a) support of RE, b) promotion of energy savings, and c) use of natural gas until demand could be met solely by RE (Ege 2009?:37)
Originally, industry as well as the energy companies were very sceptical towards this strategy, but their position changed gradually as it turned out to be possible to scale up RE facilities, especially wind turbines, and as Danish natural gas production started in the North Sea. Indeed, today the biggest Danish energy company DONG is one of the major proponents of (offshore) wind turbines. Underlying this shift in the attitude of industry and energy companies was also the fact that the popular movement headed by OOA and OVE was powerful enough to lead the Danish parliament to give up plans for establishing nuclear power facilities in Denmark in 1984. Instead, parliament facilitated local plans for heating (Hoff & Kjer 2016) and Denmark was divided into three type of areas: a) district heating areas – the bigger towns, b) natural gas areas – smaller towns and certain suburbs, and c) rural district – with free choice of heating source; most often oil or electricity. These plans were bolstered by measures making it compulsory to connect to the district heating system when established in one’s neighbourhood[3], and by establishing feed-in tariffs for wind power and public funds for R & D concerning RE and energy savings.
While the combined efforts of OOA and OVE might be a particularly vivid example of what Connolly et al. (2012:95ff) calls the ‘‘new’ environmental movements of the 1970s’, the Nordic countries as such exhibits the full range of environmental movements ranging from conservation groups and green parties to 1990s type radical activists and local coalitions/local Agenda 21 groups (LA21; see below), all bearing witness to the strong popular support for the green agenda.
Like in the USA and the UK the conservationist groupsare the oldest and most well-established among the green movements (Connolly et al. 2012:xx). All together they have around 375,000 members and around 500 local divisions(ref.). The Swedish Society for the Conservation of Nature (Naturskyddsföreningen) was established in 1909[4]. Its Danish counterpart (Danmarks Naturfredningsforening) was established in 1911[5], the Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature (Naturvernsforbundet) in 1914[6]and the Finnish somewhat later[7]. They are all an integrated part of the political system as they are typically heard by public authorities in relation to lawmaking concerning (protection of) nature and the environment. In Denmark the Society has hearing rights in relation to the laws on protection of nature and of the environment.The Societies also take independent initiatives and raise questions concerning protection of the environment as well as broader issues concerning climate and sustainability. The Societies also have funds coming from members and donations, parts of which are used for buying land considered worthy of conservation. Furthermore, the local divisions of the Societies are typically a standard partner in the LA21 work.
The strong public support for green policies is also reflected in the political arena. Even though parties that have ‘Green’ in their party-name have fared somewhat differently in the different Nordic countries, the fate of the parties is also a reflection of the extent to which the green agenda have been integrated in the agenda of other parties. Typically, the green agenda is also part of the platform of the different left-wing and centre-parties, and the extent to which green issues are salient on the platform of these parties, as well as the electoral successes or failures of these parties have (had) repercussions for the electoral fate of the Green parties.
In Finland the Green Party (Gröna Forbundet)[8] was created in 1987. It became the first party in the Nordic countries to form part of a government, which happened in 1995. The party was in government in coalition with the Socialdemocrats till 2002, after which they left the government in protest over decisions establishing nuclear power as part of the Finnish energy mix. They received 8.7% of the vote in the 2007 national elections, however very unevenly distributed with 20.1% of the votes in the capital Helsinki and only a few percent in rural districts.
In Sweden the Green Party (Miljöpartiet De Grønne, usually just Miljöpartiet)[9]was established in 1981 being the first Green Party in the Nordic countries. They were established as a reaction to the Swedish referendum on nuclear power in 1980, which made nuclear power a part of Swedish energy policy. The party was first represented in Parliament in 1988 where they received 5.5% of the vote. At the 1991 national election they did not exceed the 5% threshold, as was therefore not represented in Parliament from 1991 to 1994. In 1994 they became represented again and have been represented in Parliament since. In 2014 they formed a coalition government with the bigger Socialdemocratic Party, and got 6 ministers in the Löfven government. Their best national election result was in 2010 where they received 7.3% of the vote, and at the elections for the European Parliament in 2014 they received as much as 15.4% of the vote.
The Norwegian Green Party (Miljöpartiet De Grønne)[10] was formed in 1988 and have participated in all national and local elections since. However, they did not get represented in the Norwegian Parliament till 2013, where they got 2.8% of the vote, which amounted to only one MP due to the Norwegian election rules. However, they got somewhat of a breakthrough at the local elections in 2015 with 4.2% of the total vote and 285 representatives in different local councils.
The Green Party in Denmark (Miljøpartiet De Grønne)[11] was formed in 1983, and ran for national Parliament at the elections in 1987, 1988 and 1990. It never became represented in Parliament, but obtained representation in some local councils. The weak position of the Green Party in Denmark, especially in comparison to its sister parties in the other Nordic countries is probably, as hinted at above, a result of other parties promoting the green agenda on their platform thus ‘crowding out’ the Green party. In Denmark the green agenda also has a prominent position in the party programmes as well as on the election platforms of the two left-wing parties; the Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten) and the Socialist Peoples Party, and also been salient on the platform of the centre parties; the Radical Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre) and the Conservative Party (Konservativt Folkeparti). The left-wing parties have been quite successful at recent elections; especially the Red-Green alliance, which obtained 7.8 % of the votes at the 2015 national election, resulting in 14 MP’s.
Concerning Denmark, it may also be argued that the newly established party ‘Alternativet’ (the Alternative) is a green party on par with the green parties in the other Nordic Countries. Thus, issues around sustainability and climate constitutes a huge part of their party programme[12]. The party ran for parliament for the first time in 2015 and obtained 4.8% of the vote resulting in 9 MP’s. If one adds the elections results of the Red-Green Alliance, the Socialist Peoples party, and the Radical-Liberal Party to this number it adds up to 21.4% of the total vote. As the Socialdemocratic Party is also buying into the green agenda one could add their share of the vote (26.3%) to this number, totalling 47.7% of the vote, making the case for a strong popular support of an ambitious green agenda.The same argument could be made concerning the other Nordic countries where green issues also figures prominently in the party programmes of the left-wing parties; the Left Party in Sweden (Vänsterpartiet), The Socialist Left Party in Norway (Sosialistisk Venstrepartiet) and the Left Alliance in Finland (Vänsterförbundet). Also in these countries green issues play an important role on the platforms of the Socialdemocratic parties, bolstering the case for broad popular support of an ambitious green agenda.