The Swedish government has decided to realign its national climate targets with those of the European Union, a move initially signaled in the government’s policy statement. This decision follows a swift review of Sweden’s climate goals by economics professor John Hassler, who recommended this alignment, sparking outcry from environmental groups who labeled him the ”executioner of climate goals.” The parliamentary environmental objectives committee has now been tasked with revising the targets to better align with the EU’s climate requirements, which are somewhat less stringent and structured differently. Concurrently, the Climate Policy Council, responsible for evaluating climate policy, will be given a broader mandate.
The government maintains that this realignment is purely a matter of efficiency, aiming to streamline the multitude of climate targets currently in place, which are constructed in varying ways. Furthermore, they argue that the EU’s requirements are tougher, carrying sanctions for non-compliance, unlike Sweden’s current targets which lack such enforcement mechanisms. While rationalizing having multiple targets regulating the same emissions is a valid point, concerns remain that this harmonization could weaken Sweden’s overall climate ambition. The existing national targets for 2030 are more ambitious in terms of emission reductions for that specific year, and they also include specific requirements for domestic transport, a provision the government intends to scrap.
A crucial concern revolves around the potential ramifications of linking Swedish climate targets to those of the EU. If the EU were to backtrack on its climate policy, would Sweden be obligated to follow suit? This question gains particular relevance given the EU Commission’s recent postponement of a new climate target for 2040 and the stance of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest group in the European Parliament (and to which Sweden’s Moderate and Christian Democrat parties belong), which essentially advocates pausing the EU’s climate policy. While Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari suggests mechanisms could be implemented to prevent Sweden’s climate policy from being negatively impacted by potential EU backpedaling, the risk remains a point of contention.
The core issue, however, extends beyond the specific formulation of the targets. The critical question is how the government intends to reverse the current trend of rising emissions. Regardless of how the targets are structured, Sweden’s national climate policy largely hinges on addressing emissions from the transport sector (industrial emissions are regulated by the EU’s Emissions Trading System). There is broad consensus, including from John Hassler, that achieving these targets necessitates higher fuel prices. However, the government has deferred this contentious issue, commissioning a separate investigation to present proposals for action in May 2026, effectively postponing concrete action and making climate policy a likely battleground in the next election cycle.
Delving into the specifics of the current targets, Sweden’s national goals include a 70% reduction in emissions from domestic transport by 2030 compared to 2010, a 63% reduction in emissions (excluding industry) by 2030 and 75% by 2040 compared to 1990, and net-zero emissions by 2045. These targets, however, are point targets without interim milestones or penalties for missing them. In contrast, the EU mandates a 50% reduction in non-industrial emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 and a 62% reduction in industrial emissions across the EU by 2030 compared to 2005 (regulated through the Emissions Trading System without national targets). The EU also requires an increase in carbon dioxide absorption by forests and land. Crucially, the EU’s climate requirements are binding, with financial penalties for non-compliant member states, designed to make non-compliance more costly than meeting the targets.
This divergence in target structure and enforcement mechanisms creates a complex landscape for aligning Swedish and EU climate policy. While the government emphasizes efficiency and alignment with a stronger enforcement framework, critics express concerns about weakening ambition, particularly concerning domestic transport emissions. The potential for the EU to backslide on its climate commitments further complicates the issue, raising questions about the long-term trajectory of Sweden’s climate policy and its vulnerability to external influences. Ultimately, the effectiveness of any climate target hinges on the implementation of concrete policies, and the delay in addressing the crucial issue of fuel prices raises doubts about the government’s commitment to achieving meaningful emission reductions. This makes climate policy a likely focal point of political debate in the coming years, as the country grapples with the challenge of aligning its ambition with actionable policies.
