This means that the climate was the big loser in this election as the current governments climate policy have been called a failure by heavy environmental organisations and even won greenwash awards.

But nonetheless the Greens in Sweden managed to get 7,2% of the votes, or 25 of the 349 seats in the parliament. The best election result ever for the Greens in Sweden. This is an 2% increase since the last election and it results in the Greens becoming the third major political force in Sweden.

Monica Frassoni and Philippe Lamberts, Co-Spokespersons for the European Greens, said in a statement that:

"This is an excellent result for the Swedish Greens and we would like to congratulate the Greens’ leaders, Maria Wetterstrand and Peter Eriksson, and all the party’s activists and staff, for waging a strong and positive campaign which appealed to a large part of the Swedish electorate."

"We know that the Swedish Greens will continue to focus on real solutions to the problems currently facing Sweden and will fight hard for environmental sustainability including increased investment in renewables rather than dangerous and inefficient nuclear power, the Green New Deal and an economy that serves citizens’ interests."

If you want you can learn more about the Swedish Greens over at the European Greens website.

But another very tragic and sad effect of the election yesterday night is that Sweden now has joined the many other European countries with far-right extremist parties in their parliaments. The Swedish Democrats, which is a political party based on racist and nazi values, gained a shocking 5.7% of the votes, or 20 of the 349 seats in the Swedish parliament. So it’s a very sad day for democracy in Sweden as well as around Europe that these dark forces gains more and more power.

The election result is still very uncertain as none of the two main political blocks gained majority. So we will have to wait and see until at the end of this week how the new political landscape in Sweden will look like.

Key to Swedish Political Parties:

Government (right/centre-right):
Moderates (M)
Centre Party (C)
Liberal Party (FP)
Christian Democrats (KD)

Opposition (left/centre-left):
Social Democrats (S)
Green Party (MP)
Left Party (V)

Opposition (extreme far-right):
Swedish Democrats (SD)

During the last four years with a right-wing Government in Sweden the pace of emissions reductions decreased from 1.5% to 0.6% per year, and the slow pace is expected to continue. In other words this means that Sweden will miss the EU climate targets by a long shot. With the current rate Sweden won’t reach an 80% reduction in emissions until in 2205 or later, the report says. Climate scientists are recommending a 40% reduction in emissions by 2020, but Sweden won’t reach this level until around year 2062. And an upcoming international climate ranking from the WWF shows that Sweden have lost its former top position to countries such as Germany, Denmark and Ireland. Recently the Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) issued a harsh report showing that the last 4 years of environmental policies in Sweden have been a failure.

- A passive and cowardly climate policy involves great risks. Sweden may lag behind in development if we have such low aspirations that we need not do anything. Investment and research into new technologies will end up in other countries, as well as the introduction of products with the latest environmental technology. We risk losing lots of jobs, especially in rural areas, “said Maria Wetterstrand, spokesperson for the Green Party in Sweden.

A general election will be held in Sweden in nine days. And according to Peter Eriksson, spokesperson for the Green Party in Sweden, ” there are clear differences” between the different political sides:

- When it comes to climate policies there are clear differences in this election. We need to invest in modern high-speed trains, make our homes energy efficient and expand public transportations. The current government says no to all of this. But why should Sweden have slower trains than the rest of the world?

- The red-green parties wants to increase the pace of the climate work in Sweden again. Our goals and measures will lead to a reduction in emissions by over 2% per year. This will put Sweden again in line with the international climate goals, Erikson said.

Read more about the Swedish government and its climate-wrecking efforts:
- Swedish Government Wins Greenwash Award
- The Swedish government is bad for the environment
- The Swedish government completes its climate wrecking track record with a pro-nuclear vote

What is a bit surprising (or not) is that Andreas Carlgren won the award by far even though he was up against other heavy greenwash opponents such as Carl-Henrik Svanberg from BP and Shell. A reason for his crushing victory must be his involvement in the controversial new Swedish motorway project Bypass Stockholm which he is working hard to brand as an "environmentally friendly" solution to the traffic problems in Stockholm.

In September 2009 the government gave permission for the largest and most expensive highway project ever, the so-called bypass Stockholm. The motorway will increase road traffic and get in the way for emission reductions. Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren defended the bypass by claiming that it is an "environmental and climate friendly option for Stockholm", "a major investment in trams and buses", and a motorway "for the future of environmentally friendly cars," said Ellie Cijvat, chairman of the Friends of the Earth in Sweden.

Read more about the Swedish government and its climate-wrecking efforts:
- The Swedish government is bad for the environment
- The Swedish government completes its climate wrecking track record with a pro-nuclear vote

Here are two videos from Streetfilms and the BBC which shows two cities in Scandinavia where bicycles dominate. You have probably already heard about Copenhagen and the city’s great reputation as a bicycle city. But you might not have heard about Lund, a Swedish town where around 60% of the population use bicycles and public transportation.

"The Politics Show East has been to a town in Sweden where 60 per cent of people leave their car at home. In the town of Lund the majority of the population use bicycles and public transport."

The second video, from Streetfilms, shows Copenhagen "through North American eyes":

"While Streetfilms was in Copenhagen for the Velo-City 2010 conference, of course we wanted to showcase its biking greatness. But we were also looking to take a different perspective then all the myriad other videos out there. Since there were an abundance of advocates, planners, and city transportation officials attending from the U.S. and Canada, we thought it’d be awesome to get their reactions to the city’s built environment and compare to bicycling conditions in their own cities.

If you’ve never seen footage of the Copenhagen people riding bikes during rush hour – get ready – it’s quite a site, as nearly 38% of all transportation trips in Copenhagen are done by bike. With plenty of safe, bicycle infrastructure (including hundreds of miles of physically separated cycletracks) its no wonder that you see all kinds of people on bikes everywhere. 55% of all riders are female, and you see kids as young as 3 or 4 riding with packs of adults."

And while I am at it I might as well share some of my own favourite cycling blogs.

The first one out is Carbuster’s editorial blog where they discuss all topics related to the "carfree movement". If you are interested in transportation issues I can highly recommend you to start subscribing to both the blog feed and the actual Carbuster magazine.

The Guardian has a good biking blog where they post about “all things cycling – in the UK and around the world”.

Crap Cycling & Walking in Waltham Forest is a good cycling blog. Just beware, you can get really depressed from reading their posts. Another similar blog is Bristol Traffic. If you are even more interested in biking topics in and around London you should also check out Real Cycling.

If fashion is your thing you might want to check out Cycle Chic from Copenhagen.

Other cycling blogs worth subscribing to are A view from the cycle path, Bike Hugger, EcoVelo and Planka.nu which is a Swedish network of commuter organisations working for free public transport.

Do you know about other great cities where bicycles has a dominated role in the traffic? Do you know about any other interesting cycling blogs? If yes please share them with the rest of us in the comment section below. Thanks!

When it comes to environmental and climate issues the current right-wing government in Sweden is one of the worst ever. And that is not just my own words! According to the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC), an environmental organization formed in 1909 with over 180 000 members, the Swedish governments environmental policies have been a failure.

"We have investigated Swedish governments environmental policies since the 80s. This is one of the worst we have seen. Previous governments have slowly made progress. But it’s rare for a government to make so many backward steps that this current government has made", the secretary general of SSNC said [my translation].

SSNC complains that in some areas the Swedish government has failed to implement sufficient, if any, environmental laws and regulations. SSNC also do acknowledge that the current Government have implemented several good environmental policies, such as a ban on phosphates in detergents which is expected to reduce Sweden’s phosphorus discharges into the oceans by 50 tons per year. But the problem is that these good policies have been knocked back by other contradictive anti-environment decisions. One of these decisions is the removal of the tax on fertilizers which will, according to experts, result in a loss of control over several toxic substances and will cause leakage of nitrogen into the ocean.

A general election will be held in Sweden this September. If you are eligible to vote, and the environment is one of your main concerns then clearly you can’t vote for the ones currently in power.

Also read: The Swedish government completes its climate wrecking track record with a pro-nuclear vote

And in an industrial world where the animals are increasingly seen as a commodity or product to make money on haven’t improved the animals well-being. Rather, the intensification of our agriculture sector has made their life worse. And this cruelty is happening around the world. Even in the Swedish meat industry animal cruelty is common. And this even though the Swedish meat industry often and proudly proclaims itself for having "the world’s best animal welfare", one can see the awful consequences of industrial farming. The latest example of this is the Animal Rights Alliance disclosure earlier last year on the abuse and neglect of Swedish pigs.

The following disturbing photos in this blog post has all been provided by the animal rights organization Farm Sanctuary. The organization, which is based in New York, was founded in 1986. Farm Sanctuary document the abuses of factory farms, slaughterhouses, and stockyards, rescue animals from these conditions, rehabilitating and caring for animals at shelters in New York and California, as well as running advocacy and education campaigns on these issues.

Confined in metal and concrete pens with slatted floors, these pigs will live in these conditions until they reach slaughter weight of 250 pounds.

Female pigs used for breeding (breeding sows) spend most of their lives confined in gestation crates so narrow that they cannot turn around.

As you can see, a female pig in a gestation crate has no freedom of movement, and barely even has room to lay down.

Most beef cattle spend the last few months of their lives at feedlots, crowded by the thousands into dusty, manure-laden holding pens. The air is thick with harmful bacteria and particulate matter, and the animals are at a constant risk for respiratory disease. Feedlot cattle are routinely implanted with growth-promoting hormones, and they are fed unnaturally rich diets designed to fatten them quickly and profitably. Because cattle are biologically suited to eat a grass-based, high fiber diet, their concentrated feedlot rations contribute to metabolic disorders.

To raise calves destined to be slaughtered for veal, the calves are confined in crates about two feet wide and are tethered to the front of the crate with a chain around the neck. These calves will be slaughtered when 4-5 months old.

Dairy cattle make up the largest percentage of downed animals in factory farming, 75%. Too sick or injured to walk, this dairy cow is left in the stockyard while a calf looks on.

Though there have been moves in Europe to phase out battery cages for hens, in the US the vast majority of egg laying chickens are confined in battery cages such as these. These cages have wire floors and four or five hens are commonly packed into each cage. Obviously they cannot stretch their wings or exhibit any normal chicken behavior.

At chicken hatcheries, chicks enter the factory farming world packed into huge drawers.

Behind a hatchery for laying hens, unwanted male chicks–which are of no economic value to the egg industry–are simply tossed into a dumpster with shells and other waste.

Because commercial turkeys have been bred to have such unnaturally large breasts, to satisfy consumer preference for breast meat, they cannot mount and reproduce naturally. Thus, artificial insemination must be used for reproduction.

Due to the severely overcrowded conditions they will face, baby turkeys have the upper part of their beaks seared off so that injuries caused by pecking one another can be minimized.

Although not confined in cages like egg laying chickens, chickens raised for meat are packed so tightly in grower houses that each chicken is alloted about half a square foot of space. If that isn’t bad enough, because broiler chickens have been bred to grow so quickly (twice as fast and large as their ancestors) the organs and skeleton don’t always keep up with this growth. The heart and lungs can’t support the unnatural body mass, resulting in heart failure and large numbers of deaths a year due to health conditions.

Up to 10,000 chickens are often packed into cages for shipping to the slaughterhouse. On route, they are offered no protection from the elements and a certain percentage of birds are expected to die on each journey due to cold or heat.

At the slaughterhouse, chickens are hung up by their feet fully conscious. Although some slaughterhouses stun the birds by passing them through an electrified bath of water, US federal law specifically excludes chickens from the Humane Slaughter Act mandating that animals be stunned before being killed. However, often times the birds are not rendered unconscious by the shock and proceed, still hung by their feet, to have their necks cut by a mechanical blade. Unfortunately if the bird is not sufficiently stunned, the blade may not actually kill it and the animal proceeds to the next stage in the process while still alive. The birds are then submerged in boiling water to scald them and remove feathers. It’s estimated that millions of chickens a year in the US are ultimately killed in the slaughterhouse by this last step, being boiled alive.

Maria Wetterstrand, political leader of the Green Party, said during the parliament vote that this decision "could mean Sweden will be making itself dependent on nuclear power for 100 more years and there will be 100,000 years of consequences for future generations who will have to take care of the waste."

If the opposition gets the majority of the votes in the upcoming general election in Sweden this September they have promised that they will try to reverse this nuclear vote.

Ludvig Tillman, spokesman for Greenpeace in Sweden, criticized the narrow vote margin and said that: "With a narrow majority, the members of parliament show they do not take the environmental risks posed by nuclear power seriously, and that they do not trust in the enormous potential there is for Swedish renewable energy."

The Swedish right-wing government will end their 4 years in power with an rather awful environmental record. Besides ignoring reports that points to nuclear energy as an dangerous, not cost-effective, and too expensive energy solution that even will worsen climate change the coalition of right-leaning parties have also made other climate wrecking decisions. The biggest of them all must be the complete embarrassment during the climate summits in Poland (Cop14) where the Swedish government called for as much as 88% of the EU emission cuts to be allowed to do overseas in development countries. In Copenhagen and during the Cop15 meetings the Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt refused to push for strong climate targets and disagreed with Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for the Climate and COP 15 President, and her calls for 30% emission reduction targets in EU.

Other major climate-wrecking decisions include the controversial Bypass Stockholm (Förbifart Stockholm). The traffic link motorway will span 20 kilometres of which 17 kilometres will be by tunnel. It is estimated the new motorway will cost taxpayers 27 billion kronor ($3.75 billion), although the final costs will probably end up much higher, and will thus become one of the most single expensive traffic construction projects in Swedish history. Critics to Bypass Stockholm have complained that the new motorway will results in increased CO2 emissions. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the construction of the new bypass will result in an 80% increase in CO2 emissions in the Stockholm region by 2030.

“The government’s decision is very unfortunate. Bypass Stockholm will increase Stockholm’s effect on the climate and increase vehicle numbers. At the same time, it will take resources from important commitments to communal traffic,” said the Green Party’s spokesperson, Maria Wetterstrand.

But the Swedish government has ignored all this and the appointed Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren even had the guts to describe the new motorway as an "environmentally friendly motorway". Like it could ever be such a thing as an environmentally friendly motorway.

Another big climate letdown from the Swedish right-wing government is their failure to stop Vattenfall, Europe’s third-largest energy company which is wholly owned by the Swedish Government, from investing heavily in dirty fossil fuels such as coal in Europe. They are currently building a new coal plant outside of Hamburg in Germany that once completed will become the biggest in Europe. As an energy corporation Vattenfall is releasing more greenhouse gases than all of Sweden combined.

Let’s hope that the left-leaning opposition gets the majority of the votes in the general election this September so that they can stop the downward spiral in Sweden. I miss the days when Sweden was a leading role model around the world in green innovation and policies. I mean, If neighboring country Norway can have plans and targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions with 40% by 2020 so can Sweden.

Ludvig Tillman, energy campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic said that:

“The Swedish parliament is risking the country’s reputation and position as a progressive leader in clean and safe energy development. All the evidence shows that nuclear power is a dangerous, expensive and dead-end distraction from the real solutions to climate protection and energy security. Reactors are standing in the way of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.”

“The reality in many countries is that reactors are hugely expensive, construction is often delayed massively due to safety concerns and technical complications, and there is still no solution to deadly nuclear waste,” added Jan Beránek, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace International.

It was in 2009 that the current right-wing government announced their plans to scrap the Settlement Act and the ban on new nuclear power in Sweden. The new pro-nuclear agreement will get voted on in the parliament on the 17th of June. Sweden is already far behind other European countries such as Spain, Germany and Denmark in the renewable energy sector. And if the agreement gets a yes from the parliament, sane progress towards a sustainable energy system based on energy efficiency and renewable technologies will likely be blocked and pushed back even further.

“The world is watching. Swedish parliamentarians must let reason guide their choice rather than propaganda from the nuclear industry and vote NO to nuclear power on June 17”, Tillman said.

Also read: Nuclear Energy is Expensive, Dangerous, Not Cost-Effective and Will Worsen Climate Change

“The Greens won a historic first Westminster seat early this morning as the party’s leader, Caroline Lucas, overturned a 5,000-strong Labour majority to take the Brighton Pavilion constituency. After a nail-biting eight-hour count, Green activists cheered and yelled in delight as it was confirmed that Lucas, 49, had seen off Labour by about 1,300 votes. In a tight, three-way race the Conservatives were less than 3,000 votes further back.”

After the result was declared Caroline Lucas thanked the voters, fellow Green Party members and supporters who have helped the Greens win this historic victory. But she also criticized the media and the voting system which she says is “fundamentally undemocratic”:

“Thanks to the confidence that the voters of Brighton Pavilion have shown, Green principles and policies will now have a voice in Parliament. Policies such as responding to climate change with a million new ‘green’ jobs in low-carbon industries, fair pensions and care for older people, and stronger regulation of the banks will be heard in the House of Commons, ” she said.

“They have shown that they are prepared to put their trust in the Greens, despite the overwhelming national media focus on the three largest parties and a voting system that is fundamentally undemocratic.”

It’s great to see that the green political winds still blows strong throughout Europe. For example, in Sweden general elections will be held this September. And the Swedish Greens have gone from being one of the smallest political parties to the third biggest party (out of seven different parties) and a real power in Swedish politics with record high voter support in pre-election polls. The European Greens co-Spokespersons Philippe Lamberts and Monica Frassoni said in a statement that:

“This is a truly remarkable breakthrough for the Green Party of England and Wales and we know that Greens all over Europe and indeed throughout the world are delighted by this result. We would like to send our warmest congratulations to Caroline Lucas and her whole team of activists and volunteers who have been working so tirelessly over the past weeks and months to get the Greens’ message of social justice, fairness and environmental sustainability across to voters.”

Read more: George Monbiot says that the new “Green MP is welcome addition to British politics and reflects the transformation of the party”. In an interview with the BBC, Caroline Lucas says that this “is the start of a new political force in Westminster”. And the Guardian wonders what’s next for Caroline Lucas and the Green party after election success?

During these two press conferences I found a few interesting contradictions and points worth to notice. The first interesting statement is made by Joe Lionel where he concludes the following:

“The Scientific community is asking for the upper level of 25-40 % for industrialized world. Let’s say that 20 % is definitely not enough, that’s the conclusion what the scientific panel has found. therefore 30 % would even not be enough, that would match half-way what we could then do. It is not a scientific definition but a political assesment.”

Here he completely agrees that neither 20 % of the European target nor their 30 % target is enough. We have to do more to come up to a scientific standard. So the question I ask here is why is a political agenda the driving force if the science is clear? If we are to keep below a 2 degree target we also need progressive action inline with science, not inline with the political assesment made.

The next interesting statement is made by Stavros Dimas where he is commenting the ‘great deed’ of financing CDM.

“We have also invested in CDMs, many people does perhaps not know, that there are right now 3 billion euros worth of projects in CDMs, from this 80 % is from European Union and already 4 billion has already been dispersed. This is money coming from the European Union.”

When you hear this for the first time, you think: “Great, EU is contributing to the welfare of other countries and help them mitigate their emissions.” On a closer note what Stavros Dimas seems to propose here is that you should count the money given in CDM projects as climate finance. He specfically mentions that: “This is money coming from the European Union”. In this context money should NOT be mentioned AT ALL if they want to count the emission reductions that are made through these very CDM projects. However if they rather want to feel good about all the money being spent in CDM one should not count the emission reductions done. Put it simply, one can never eat the cake and keep it at the same time.

The next statement is from Andreas Carlgren where he explains the strategy of the European Union and how their strategy with a conditionalized target is going to put pressure on other countries.

“It is conditionalized because otherwise we would give up and sell out our target to cheap without making sure that united states and china would also deliver sufficiently we cover a bit more than a tenth of the emissions of the world. If the two countries covering half of the emissions of the world wouldn’t deliver sufficiently. [ ... ]. It would be just in vain and not for the good of the planet if we would sell out this target [30 %] too cheap. That’s why we use it as a lever. That’s why we put pressure on the others”

If we compare what Carlgren is saying to what Joe Linen is telling I’m wondering where the leverage point is? Joe tells us that 20 % is scientifically illiterate, at the same time Andreas tells us that this waiting game will be used to get others to raise their goals. The problems is that currently all the developed countries have scientifically illiterate targets. Would not a better strategy be to line up with the NGO, be the examplerary rolemodel, then all focus would be on the countries that do less. There would be massive media attention, generated from both NGOs and press and a lot more pressure would come from this than the meekly political pressure that we are seeing right now. That would be an absolute brilliant move. Because I do believe that EU:s core intention is for Fair Ambitious and Binding deal.

The countries have to start understand that we live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. Civil society has a lot more power with the internet technology, this could be utilized for good if the parties of the negotiations only understood how to do so.

Jonathan Sundqvist is following the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen from a Swedish/European perspective and is writing about it on Adopt a Negotiator as well as here on Green Blog.