Sweden is at the bottom of the league on the new sustainability index
From the government’s perspective, Sweden is often portrayed as a world leader in sustainable development and climate policy. For example, there was one message which Stefan Lofven brought with him to the climate summit in Glasgow in November.
However, it is difficult to distinguish between the blue and yellow leader jersey index for sustainable development, an indicator that measures human development in relation to environmental sustainability, which was first presented in 2020 in Ecological Economics by researcher Jason Heckel.
“We are one of the richest countries in the world and we use a lot of resources.”
Of 165 countries, Sweden ends up in 20th place there – from below. Some of the countries with worse results are Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Canada, USA, Australia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore.
The main reason why Sweden and many other rich countries have performed so poorly is that the index attaches great importance to environmental sustainability, and this is measured with the help of consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions per capita and material footprints.
We are one of the richest countries in the world and we use a lot of resources. We consume a lot, we have a lot of forest, many mines and we import many goods with a large carbon footprint, says Thomas Sterner, professor of environmental economics.
consumption-based emissions This means that you also include emissions from goods produced in other countries but consumed in your own country. The physical footprint is a measure of the use of various resources such as biomass, fossil fuels, minerals and rock. The latter seems to Thomas Sterner to be a partially embarrassing measure.
The physical footprint is measured by the number of tons it consumes or processes, whether it is forest, stone or iron ore. Pebbles and plutonium are measured in the same mile, which is an unsatisfactory measurement method. From a climate point of view, it does not matter how many tonnes of gravel you use, he says.
At the same time, Thomas Sterner believes that the index as a whole has some significance for measuring environmental impact. SDI identifies the countries’ scores by dividing measurement values for human development (life expectancy, education and income) with measurement values for environmental sustainability (consumption-based emissions and physical footprint).
We are rich in Sweden and live a dense material life, and it is clear that we are putting pressure on the planet’s ecosystem. He says that all rich countries, especially rich countries with a lot of raw materials, such as Scandinavia, Canada and the USA, do poorly in this indicator.
But more important from an environmental point of view is the measurement of carbon dioxide emissions per capita, says Thomas Sterner.
– There we are, for example, much higher than India and large parts of Africa. They contribute less to climate change than we do.
The three countries ranked first in the Sustainable Development Index are in turn Costa Rica, Sri Lanka and Georgia.
Many of the countries that get the best scores are so poor that they automatically get high scores on measures of environmental sustainability. But no country is ideal in general and it is strange that Colombia and Peru do better than India, because they are not better from a climate point of view, says Thomas Sterner.
Significantly better results Sweden usually receives annually SDG index, compiled by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and measures the extent to which UN member states achieve the global goals for sustainable development. The global goals include everything from gender equality and poverty reduction to infrastructure development and economic growth.
In the SDG Index 2021, Finland topped the list, while Sweden came in second place and Denmark in third. The reason why Sweden performs better on this indicator is that it does not divide human development measures with measures of environmental sustainability. Here, the parameters are added to each other instead.
– In this index there is no denominator, only a numerator. It does not take into account the amount of resources used but only looks at how far a country has come with the global goals. It is a goal for an enjoyable and sustainable life. Because Sweden is such a rich and ambitious country, says Thomas Sterner, we are doing well here.
So being first in the SDG Index does not necessarily mean you are the best at climate?
– No, it is generally easier for rich countries to rise in this indicator. It also becomes strange, because rich countries consume the earth’s resources more than others. I think one should consider both indicators as something arbitrary – especially the component with a physical footprint where everything is measured in kilograms. You need to take the exact values with a pinch of salt.
Read more:
Higher emissions for western countries in a different way in the calculation
Sweden must ‘take the lead’ – but the climate goals are far from enough