Sweden: Green leader? Environmental Disaster? Or both?
There was just a fantastic 50 minute podcast this week from the Economist - the weekend Intelligence podcast. It was entitled “The land of the future”. You have to subscribe but it is well worth it.
I think the Economist reporting on the energy sector and climate change has been impressive. The stories expose the complexities of such a massive change in the way things are done but also provides insight into why we need make big changes. There is no economically or environmentally benign way to get net zero 2050 done.
The story starts with Sweden’s focus on greening its steel making and becoming a leading producer of the critical minerals needed to ensure the world can produce enough EVs, wind turbines, solar panels, etc. needed to facilitated net zero. It highlights a 36 year old mayor and champion of the initiatives. This will be “as important to Sweden as oil and gas was to Norway” and it will help save the planet.
The plan is to convert the steel manufacturing process using green energy and hydrogen but, if I heard it properly, will take up to 3,000 wind turbines and twice as much energy as the entire country of Denmark – just to green one industry.
The story spend a lot of time on the push back, on the environmental externalities of the mining and the green energy. Indigenous people who have lived off the land for centuries – described as one of the last Indigenous populations in Europe – are very uncomfortable with the mining, the wind turbines.
Which is it? Will Sweden be a green leader or environmental disaster? or both?
A top environmentalist fighting hard to stop Sweden drives a Tesla. When asked about it, you can almost hear the ‘shrug’. He says he understands the contradiction.
I came away from this podcast quite melancholy. Both sides make good points. The article describes how they are physically moving a town because the underground mine is creating the potential of a major earthquake. But at the same time, the sector is providing well above average employment income for the workers and their families.
In the end?
I continue to believe most people in the West will be happy to let China, maybe countries in Africa, and other authoritarian-led places corner the market on green mining, green steel and even green energy. This is what is happening already. Even on a topic such as nuclear energy which has almost no environmental footprint (although the footprint has a very long shelf life), there is growing pushback here and the Chinese are rolling ahead. They are leading the world in the rollout of nuclear energy including next generation SMRs. According to Wikipedia, the country has 55 plants today, 22 under construction and more than 70 planned.
I personally do not believe any country (or block of likeminded countries) should have such economic power. There are lots of folks who agree but when it comes right down to it the experience in Sweden might provide a good look at what is coming in Canada or New Brunswick or anywhere else that looks to deploy thousands of turbines, dig deep holes in the ground or anything else that disturbs/annoys the local population.
I have said before and continue to maintain that the biggest gap in the conversation right now about the energy transition/decarbonization of the economy is a lack of honesty.
Someone should be telling people honestly what the impacts will be. The cost of energy – relative to the size of the economy (all costs) is going to rise substantially at least in the next 20-30 years – in some mythical future it might come down again. If we want to ensure enough green energy and green materials for EVs and other elements needed to hit net zero, Canada and the U.S. will dozens of new mines, potentially tens of thousands of new wind turbines, maybe hundreds of nuclear energy production facilities.
Or we outsource most of that to countries that are eager for the work and face even higher costs and substantial geopolitical risk.
You see? Melancholy.