Energy policy and the environmental movement have been intertwined for decades. In Sweden, hydropower is the most important source of electricity, but when the Norrland rivers were regulated, there was fierce debate and politicians were forced to back off from further expansion. Nuclear power also faced popular opposition, leading to Sweden phasing out all nuclear power by 2010. The success of the environmental movement was based on grassroots activism, but as the movement became established politics, it lost its popular character. Opinion polls show strong support for saving the environment, but the opposition to wind power expansion looks different in different areas – sometimes genuine concern for noise and nature, sometimes an expression of the culture war between renewable energy and nuclear power. The Sweden Democrats are directly hostile to wind power and see it as an issue to oppose the government. The government must find balance and mitigate local dissatisfaction with wind power while supporting the transition to greener energy sources.
Energy policy is twinned with the environmental fight and it has been that way for decades.
Today it is obvious to us that hydropower is Sweden’s most important electricity producer, but when the Norrland rivers were once regulated, the debate was fierce. The popular resistance forced the politicians to back off from further expansion. The prime minister at the time, Olof Palme (S), had to promise to save the Vindelälven, the last great untouched Norrlands river. A taboo against further expansion still applies today.
Nuclear power also stumbled on popular opposition. The environmental movement of the 1970s pushed forward a referendum that resulted in Sweden phasing out all nuclear power by 2010. That taboo did not last as long.
The environmental struggle grew locally. In Västergötland, people gathered to stop uranium mining, on Bohuslän’s Kynnefjäll, people guarded their mountain against nuclear waste, while others tried to stop the oil refinery in Brofjorden.
The local groups were united in a common sense of righteous struggle against a political and economic elite. A kind of civilization-critical populism that the Center Party of the time managed to translate into electoral success.
The environmental movement’s successes were based on popular legitimacy.
Today, many of the ideas of the old environmental movement have become established politics. But on the way there, it has lost its grassroots character.
It is not enough to have the science and the arguments if they are not brought forward from below. It is not enough to bring the business community on board with the green transition when those who have to live with it sit in the crosshairs.
It is not made easier by the fact that the Sweden Democrats are directly hostile to wind power.
When climate change can be described as a well-educated PK elite trying to “force steel forests of wind turbines on the Swedes”, environmentalists have concerns.
Opinion polls show that there is strong support for saving the climate. There is also an environmental movement around the climate issue, with the globally known Greta Thunberg as a profile. But it does not grow out of the local but from an insight into the global.
The opposition to wind power expansion looks very different in different areas. Sometimes it is about a genuine reluctance to be affected by noise and destroyed nature. In other cases, it is an expression of the culture war between renewable energy and nuclear power.
No Riksdag party has as weak a foothold outside the big cities as the Green Party. The voters believe that the party cares more about the environment than about people, the environmentalists themselves stated this year. But has since failed to make popular politics out of that insight. It repeats itself in debates about everything from fuel and electricity prices to wind power projects.
The local dissatisfaction with wind power contributed to the government being able to take office.
Taking away the influence of the Green Party became an important argument for the right wing that won the election last fall. Questioning wind power and promoting nuclear power was a central part of the election campaign for both moderates and Christian Democrats. Even more so for the Sweden Democrats.
Politicians’ support for local wind power opponents does not necessarily reflect an environmental commitment. The same politicians often want to open mines in sensitive areas, have less environmental testing of forests and hydropower and reduce predatory tribes. But the “steel forests” fit perfectly into the story of a climate elite that ignores the will of the people.
Governing is something else, then you are the elite yourself. Now Kristersson and Busch must produce kilowatts as soon as possible, and the climate minister is already talking warmly about more wind power. It is the one that can produce new electricity the fastest.
People who get upset over wind power plans in their vicinity will – regardless of which parties govern – continue to see themselves as victims of the government’s projects. Those who hoped for change with this government risk being disappointed.
It is not made easier by the fact that the Sweden Democrats are directly hostile to wind power. SD has already shown that it sees wind power as an issue where it wants to oppose and profile itself against the government.
Now the government wants the wind power companies to buy the local population’s support by offering financial benefits to municipalities if they receive wind farms. At the same time, permit processes must be shortened and simplified. In practice, this means that it will be more difficult for local interests to delay and slow down future projects.
The local dissatisfaction with wind power contributed to the government being able to take office. A considerable art of balance is required so that it does not itself suffer the same dissatisfaction.
Read more:
Busch’s new message: We need more wind power everywhere
Facts on the question: Is it profitable to use more wind power?